Well seemingly, some are not mature enough to have a discussion with someone who has differing viewpoints. At the very least I would not have suggested you to "take your head out of your ass." (my harshest word was ridiculous) Thanks for bringing some sophistication to this post.
The Mathematics of Survivability
- Thread starter KarinsDad
- Start date
James McMurray
First Post
The word "spewing" generally denotes a negative connation, as in vomiting. If that is not what you meant, then I apologize for overracting, and suggest you try to choose your words better in the future to avoid such misunderstandings. If that is what you meant, then I am well within my rights in replying to vitriole with some of my own.
Finally, even if you take all of the harhness out of my post and distill it to its factual essence, I'm still right.
reapersaurus
Explorer
Well, I am going to have to enter the fray to smack James about the head and shoulders with a blunt fish.James McMurray said:
James - calm down, man.
He used the word "spewing" in reference to your words.
They did sound somewhat thrown out there.
As a rule, you do NOT have the right to imagine vitriole and then respond in kind.
He had most obviously NOT gotten personal, and did not deserve an attack the depths of which you launched on him.
As to whether you're right or not, who cares?
You forawrded 4 things:
1) That ambushing a party increases the ECL by 4. Then you conveniently tried to "prove" that it wasn;t a problem by making the ambushing party only 3 levels lower than the PC party.
I believe KD's point was that in theory, even if ambushing raises the ECL by 4, you still statistically would have a problem with PC parties being taken out by prepared lower-level NPC spellcasters.
2) NPC spellcasters don't have the resources PC's do.
While this part IS correct, does that fix the possible problem?
3) High-level spellcasters can get out of this by using silly spells (IMO).
What if the PC party in question isn't high level?
What if they miss their first save and they're dead?
4) You used your party as a barometer.
Please.
Don't do that. It's insulting to some people.
James McMurray
First Post
reapersaurus said:
That's your take on it. Until we hear it from the man himself, we're both just assuming what his tone was.
If it was indeed imagined, I've already apologized for over-reacting.
Considering the debate between me and sfgiants was about rules, I think it is quite important which side is giving the correct answers and which side isn't. What I took offense to (apart from his assumed tone) was his matter of fact statements about what the rules were, when he was quite obviously wrong. He said that NPCs don't have fewer resources than PCs: they do. He said that the only way to gain XP was from combat: it isn't. He then came back and stated that NPC would focus their gear more, a completely unfounded assertion.
Wrong, I stated that having 4 CR 12 ambushers is an EL16 encounter, and that adding ambush to that increases it farther. If the ambushing party is much more than 3 levels lower than the target party, they will probably not have the resources required to overcome the party's defenses. However, even if they are 5 levels lower than the party, large enough numbers of them combined with ambush will most certainly raise the EL high enough where it is not a trivial combat.
No, but it certainly lowers its affects quite a bit, given that the party can afford much more defense than the opposition can afford offense.
Whether you think that Dimension Door, Teleport, etc. are silly doesn't matter. They are escape methods available to a higher level party.
The original post referred to high level parties. In fact, he used the words high level in his post, as well as referring to Hold Person lasting almost two minutes, and also mentioning Finger of Death (a high level spell). If that doesn't indicate that the post is about high level instant death DCs, then I don't know what will.
Of course, if the party being ambushed isn't high level, then neither are their foes, in which case things such as teleport should not be necessary to escape.
jgbrowning
Hero
killing pcs
personally i'm not terribly fond of the higher levels.
i just cant assume that once a party flees, that the fighter will have a way to get away. more than likely he's the first to bite it through various ways (i view it as the nature of the fighter).
i always play my NPC like bitches. they'e take his body and cast disintigrate on it as quickly as possible. there is, to me, no reason why they wouldnt as its the only way to (almost) guarnatee he wont be coming back.
and honestly a well prepared group of 4 11th level npcs is one hell of a challange for even 4 15th level pcs. I know the game is supposed to be that way, but i've found the ability for the DM to control the lethality of the game through in game mechanics and not through fiat rule becomes more and more difficult. dare i say almost impossible?
i also find a tremendous difference between an NPC party of appropriate CR and a single monster of appropriate CR. The shear amount of mayhem a party can cause is generally greater.
as to tone of peoples messages... and this is to myself as much as to anyone else, lord knows im trying to not be bitchy anymore... i think when faced by anger, tartness, vitriol, and even hatred it serves my best interest to react with consideration and tact. I want to live a long life and i dont want it shorted because i get upset about someone calling me an idiot or about someone who acts like an idiot to me. I just try to remember that i create my own anger and negative feelings and it does not matter how "justified" i may be. Honestly do i want to feel angry or vindictive? I think i'll just try to remain a happy, healthy joe.
sincerely,
joe b.
personally i'm not terribly fond of the higher levels.
i just cant assume that once a party flees, that the fighter will have a way to get away. more than likely he's the first to bite it through various ways (i view it as the nature of the fighter).
i always play my NPC like bitches. they'e take his body and cast disintigrate on it as quickly as possible. there is, to me, no reason why they wouldnt as its the only way to (almost) guarnatee he wont be coming back.
and honestly a well prepared group of 4 11th level npcs is one hell of a challange for even 4 15th level pcs. I know the game is supposed to be that way, but i've found the ability for the DM to control the lethality of the game through in game mechanics and not through fiat rule becomes more and more difficult. dare i say almost impossible?
i also find a tremendous difference between an NPC party of appropriate CR and a single monster of appropriate CR. The shear amount of mayhem a party can cause is generally greater.
as to tone of peoples messages... and this is to myself as much as to anyone else, lord knows im trying to not be bitchy anymore... i think when faced by anger, tartness, vitriol, and even hatred it serves my best interest to react with consideration and tact. I want to live a long life and i dont want it shorted because i get upset about someone calling me an idiot or about someone who acts like an idiot to me. I just try to remember that i create my own anger and negative feelings and it does not matter how "justified" i may be. Honestly do i want to feel angry or vindictive? I think i'll just try to remain a happy, healthy joe.
sincerely,
joe b.
Cedric
First Post
Karin's Dad...
Hi levels can be very rewarding for players and for the GM. But it definately requires some adjustments from both.
Someone earlier in this topic pointed out that while the PC's may survive 5 ambushes like he described, the 6th one may kill them.
The important thing to ask yourself is, "Why are you ambushing your PC's over and over again?"
If your PC's do something stupid, then honestly, maybe they deserve to die. At their levels a true resurrection, wish or at the very least raise dead should be within reach.
But the PC's shouldn't be killed off just because the GM kept throwing potential TPK scenario's at them.
Additionally, a high level party should be ready for ambushes, they should have learned by then never to completely let their guard down.
Yes, it can be a very rewarding gameplay experience, but making it so is definately a challenge for the players and the GM. But it's a challenge worthy of the effort.
Cedric
Hi levels can be very rewarding for players and for the GM. But it definately requires some adjustments from both.
Someone earlier in this topic pointed out that while the PC's may survive 5 ambushes like he described, the 6th one may kill them.
The important thing to ask yourself is, "Why are you ambushing your PC's over and over again?"
If your PC's do something stupid, then honestly, maybe they deserve to die. At their levels a true resurrection, wish or at the very least raise dead should be within reach.
But the PC's shouldn't be killed off just because the GM kept throwing potential TPK scenario's at them.
Additionally, a high level party should be ready for ambushes, they should have learned by then never to completely let their guard down.
Yes, it can be a very rewarding gameplay experience, but making it so is definately a challenge for the players and the GM. But it's a challenge worthy of the effort.
Cedric
James McMurray said:
Interesting. What does the fighter do?
On a related note, while TPK's may not be _that_ common depending on party smarts, does the general mortality rate ever become a problem? Do characters ever start becoming blase about death, or does being able to resurrect people at will screw up the game?
I'm thinking that it would be nice if resurrection magic wasn't _quite_ as easy to come by as in the book, but that runs into the problem where high-level PCs tend to die like flies.
James McMurray
First Post
The fighter flees with the obscuring mist. Alternatively, if he's not heavily armored he just runs away. If he is heavily armored, then he suddenly realizes the downside of enhanced defense at the cost of mobility.
In my game death has become a bit stale. However, there are other ways to fail in the campaign, so that's ok with me. Also, there are ways to meet a final death.
I never hada problem with the mortality rate at low levels. At high levels though, people tend to drop fairly frequently. Of course, True Resurrection gets them back up fairly easily.
In my game death has become a bit stale. However, there are other ways to fail in the campaign, so that's ok with me. Also, there are ways to meet a final death.
I never hada problem with the mortality rate at low levels. At high levels though, people tend to drop fairly frequently. Of course, True Resurrection gets them back up fairly easily.
hong said:
The problem of player suvivability versus widespread resurrection can be solved by avoiding the usual arms race escalation that often happens at higher levels. There are two main aspects to consider, and I'm putting them into separate posts.
1. Raising the dead
-------------------
Raising the dead must be carefully restricted. PCs must never become blase about death. Never. I've been reading lots of threads along the lines of 'it's better to die than lose an important item, as resurrection is so cheap'. Unless you've constructed an entire setting around this concept (the consequences are pretty far reaching, if you stop to think about it!), you need to go easy on this type of thing.
NPCs with such spells should be few and far between, typically the high priests of major temples in large cities. These spells are special, and even high level NPCs or PCs have to make a special request to their god each and every time it is needed. To receive the spell the cleric must be in very good standing with their deity, and the person being raised must not be offensive to that deity. Being brought back from the dead should be a pretty remarkable event, and such an event deserves to be properly roleplayed, taking into account the attitude of the petitioning PCs, the personality of the high priest, the particular god, and the high cost (and this should be much higher than most other 5th level spells, since you can't get it from just any 9th level cleric!)
As an example, the old 1st Ed. adventure 'The Assassin's Knot' handled this in a wonderfully original way. The high priest of the town was the only cleric with Raise Dead for miles around, but he was senile and wouldn't always remember to pray for the right spells. There was a roughly 50% chance that he would pray for something else by mistake. The process could take days, and the cost could also be random, so you might pay a fortune or almost nothing at all. Added a bit of dramatic tension, if nothing else...
In conclusion, think of asking your god for a raise dead spell as asking your boss for a pay rise. If you've made a very good case as to why you deserve it and you get on well with him, he may well say yes. But don't ask for one too often.
2. Magic Items
--------------
I know it's been said many times before, but magic items also need to be carefully restricted. If you can buy anything you want then both players and DMs start thinking of optimal combinations of items to defeat their enemies and protect themselves. Soon you end up with high tech firefights between groups wielding arsenals of magic items, and the more random variables you introduce into a given encounter, the more chance there is of one random die roll will spell death for a PC.
The message here is simple: more variables (and hence more randomness) counts against the PCs in the long run.
Most monsters will fight the PCs once, but the PCs must keep going and going. If the PCs get really lucky dice rolls in the first ten encounters, but really unlucky dice rolls in the eleventh, well that might well be the one that kills them all. And you only need one such encounter. Critical hits are an example of a random variable that might save the party one day, but might well catch up with them in the long run.
It might be argued that by ignoring conventions set out in the core rules, you make it more dificult to judge the difficulty of encounters, how much magic to give to enemy NPCs, etc.
I would counter this by saying: more variables make for more complications, and more randomness, and hence make CR ratings less useful.
If both sets of combatants have huge lists of items, spells and special abilities, can you really use the CR system to accurately decide which ones are going to be critical, useful, or even used at all? Better just to put a tight control on items, so that less are present in any given encounter. That way, intelligently played PCs have an increased chance of survival, and the reduced availability of resurrection is not felt as strongly.
How to restrict magic items, when the core rules seem to indicate that they are easy to get hold of? There are certain aspects of the core rules which should be very setting dependent, and frequency and cost of magic items are foremost among them. I'm getting a little tired of people saying that 3rd Edition somehow enforces huge numbers of magic items as standard, and that no party can survive without them.
I would consider the situation described in the core rules as an extreme, only found in rich empires, inhabited or ruled by many powerful wizards. Closest examples I can think of would be Glantri (Mystara) and Thay (FR). And even when I ran a campaign in Glantri, the only items that were commonplace were basic rings of protection, some magic weapons etc.
To avoid that generic campaign feel (and to also help maintain balance and realism), vary the ease with which your players may acquire magic items. In some backward regions, you can get magic items only by killing or stealing from the previous owners. In more civilised advanced cultures, you can visit the wizards guild in any large city and see what they have, or comission an item from them. Or contact a fence or master thief to see what might be obtained by other means. Players will value items more this way, as they have gone to a little bit of effort to obtain them, instead of flicking through a catalogue of items at the local magic shop.
And yes, despite the fact that the fighter really, desperately wants item X, and getting it will make him the best character ever, and the player can die a happy man after he gets it, he may, just may have to face up to the fact that he might not be able to find it through any of the usual sources. He may have to go on some kind of extended quest to get it. Or maybe only the sultan of city Y owns such an item - how badly do you want this item, exactly?
I don't think that the above measures are particularly radical or unreasonable, and I think they can add a lot of flavour to the game. And you might find that your heroic high-level PCs are able to walk the fine line between being powerful to the point of brokeness, and being just plain dead.
--------------
I know it's been said many times before, but magic items also need to be carefully restricted. If you can buy anything you want then both players and DMs start thinking of optimal combinations of items to defeat their enemies and protect themselves. Soon you end up with high tech firefights between groups wielding arsenals of magic items, and the more random variables you introduce into a given encounter, the more chance there is of one random die roll will spell death for a PC.
The message here is simple: more variables (and hence more randomness) counts against the PCs in the long run.
Most monsters will fight the PCs once, but the PCs must keep going and going. If the PCs get really lucky dice rolls in the first ten encounters, but really unlucky dice rolls in the eleventh, well that might well be the one that kills them all. And you only need one such encounter. Critical hits are an example of a random variable that might save the party one day, but might well catch up with them in the long run.
It might be argued that by ignoring conventions set out in the core rules, you make it more dificult to judge the difficulty of encounters, how much magic to give to enemy NPCs, etc.
I would counter this by saying: more variables make for more complications, and more randomness, and hence make CR ratings less useful.
If both sets of combatants have huge lists of items, spells and special abilities, can you really use the CR system to accurately decide which ones are going to be critical, useful, or even used at all? Better just to put a tight control on items, so that less are present in any given encounter. That way, intelligently played PCs have an increased chance of survival, and the reduced availability of resurrection is not felt as strongly.
How to restrict magic items, when the core rules seem to indicate that they are easy to get hold of? There are certain aspects of the core rules which should be very setting dependent, and frequency and cost of magic items are foremost among them. I'm getting a little tired of people saying that 3rd Edition somehow enforces huge numbers of magic items as standard, and that no party can survive without them.
I would consider the situation described in the core rules as an extreme, only found in rich empires, inhabited or ruled by many powerful wizards. Closest examples I can think of would be Glantri (Mystara) and Thay (FR). And even when I ran a campaign in Glantri, the only items that were commonplace were basic rings of protection, some magic weapons etc.
To avoid that generic campaign feel (and to also help maintain balance and realism), vary the ease with which your players may acquire magic items. In some backward regions, you can get magic items only by killing or stealing from the previous owners. In more civilised advanced cultures, you can visit the wizards guild in any large city and see what they have, or comission an item from them. Or contact a fence or master thief to see what might be obtained by other means. Players will value items more this way, as they have gone to a little bit of effort to obtain them, instead of flicking through a catalogue of items at the local magic shop.
And yes, despite the fact that the fighter really, desperately wants item X, and getting it will make him the best character ever, and the player can die a happy man after he gets it, he may, just may have to face up to the fact that he might not be able to find it through any of the usual sources. He may have to go on some kind of extended quest to get it. Or maybe only the sultan of city Y owns such an item - how badly do you want this item, exactly?
I don't think that the above measures are particularly radical or unreasonable, and I think they can add a lot of flavour to the game. And you might find that your heroic high-level PCs are able to walk the fine line between being powerful to the point of brokeness, and being just plain dead.
Similar Threads
