The new Disintigrate?

[Plane Sailing]

I sort of wonder whether a "damage" version of disintegrate might be better if it was either ranged touch (and no save against the damage) or a simple Fort save (and no ranged touch component).

After all, Otilukes Freezing Sphere is a 6th level spell that can do (level)d6 to a single target as a ranged touch attack, or a water-freezing-entrapping effect, or a globe of cold for 6d6 delayed blast explosive (not too great...).

OFS is a significantly multipurpose spell which can do ranged touch damage with no saving throw. Disintegrate will do more damage (I don't believe we know the exact formula yet??) but against anything with a good Fort ST it is considerably worse than the OFS as it stands...

I'm hoping for one of the two options I suggest in para 1, although I'm not really expecting it

Cheers

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

They can at 20th-level ... where did 6 or 8 come from? The typical encounter is supposed to last 5 rounds - not 1 round, and not 8 rounds.

Even at 20th level, a wizard can't afford to toss 6-8 high level spells per encounter. Of course, at 20th level, 6th level spells aren't high level anymore.

The 6-8 spells per combat is assuming one of two things: 1. That the multitude of "I want long, epic, knock down drag out battles, that's what's really fun" people get their way. In that case, 5 rounds wouldn't be a typical encounter anymore. (Of course, if the typical encounter right now is 5 rounds, I don't see what they're complainging about--IME the typical encounter is more like 2 rounds (and that's with 28 point buy, and 1/2 DMG gp value PCs)--five round battles seem pretty epic knock-down drag out affairs to me).
2. The use of 3.0 Haste or Quicken spell.

In any event, that winterwight example looked like it was actually a challenge. That would be more fun for me as a spellcaster player, rather than "oh look, it's CdG bait".

From my reading of the storyhour, the wintewight battle was a very serious challenge. And, to my mind, it reveals why save or die spells are balanced--and even exciting: it's quite possible to go a number of rounds casting two spells a round before the opponent sees any effect from the spells at all. That's the risk you take when using save or dies (which seem (at least from 20th level wizard vs. Pit Fiend or Titan examples) to have at best a 25%-30% chance of success. When players want to gamble like that, I don't see any reason to complain if they occasionally win.

Or you can add spellcasters to every encounter so you have someone who can cast remove paralysis or freedom of movement - but then you end up with ridiculous scenarios. ("That tribe of giants has a high level cleric? The one in the black hat, right?")

Considering that you only need to be a 3rd level cleric to cast Remove Paralysis, I would generally expect it to be available within a group of intelligent opponents. . . .

Not every monster has the ability to cast death ward or other countermeasures that the players have.

If even 1/2 of monsters had the ability to cast Death Ward, there wouldn't be any point in Death Spells. Then again, most high CR monsters seem to have SR--which amounts to a second save.

Sure they do. DMs complain endlessly about high-CR monsters having such wimpy AC scores. If they had better AC scores then the PCs wouldn't be able t o kill them in one blow - at least not on a regular basis. Ever wonder why so many DMs hate vorpal or polymorph other?

Actually, I don't think high AC would do much about the things that one-hit kill monsters. Even the Keen Improved Crit Scythe only crits on an 18, 19, or 20 for instance. Even with good AC scores (40+ range) those kind of rolls will hit on 20th level fighters' secondary and tertiary attacks. (Confirming may be another matter but even counting the need to confirm your standard 20th level fighter (28 strength, GWF, +5 scythe) PC has a 28% chance each full attack to score at least one crit with his keen imp crit scythe against AC 39)

I won't pretend I haven't heard complaints about Vorpal and Polymorph. However, I think that those "My PCs got lucky and killed my monster in round 1 with a spell" complaints need to be balanced. The comparison with high crit multiplier weapons seems appropriate to me since they can similarly end an encounter abruptly and anticlimactically. And, like save or die spells, high crit multiplier weapons are a gamble for the players. Generally, they do nothing on a successful save so the players are choosing to live or die by the dice when they choose save or die spells--just like players who choose scythes over falchions are choosing to live or die by the dice.* When the players deliberately choose to let luck play a larger part in their survival, it seems silly to me to complain when they actually do get lucky. . . just like it would be silly of them to complain "I've gone 5 adventures with this stupid scythe and I still haven't scored a critical hit yet except one time against an injured kobold with 1 hp left." If they didn't want to depend on luck they should be wielding a greatsword or a falchion.

*Of course, you don't need to be as lucky to succeed with save or die spells as you do with high crit multiplier weapons. Often your chance of success is better than 50%. On the other hand, you only get a few shots at success with the spells while the weapon users can have up to 4 (or 8 if they dual wield picks) shots per round.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Even at 20th level, a wizard can't afford to toss 6-8 high level spells per encounter. Of course, at 20th level, 6th level spells aren't high level anymore.

That would be 5 high-level spells in a 5 round encounter (possibly 6 - if you use improved invisibility right before combat starts.

1. That the multitude of "I want long, epic, knock down drag out battles, that's what's really fun" people get their way. In that case, 5 rounds wouldn't be a typical encounter anymore. (Of course, if the typical encounter right now is 5 rounds, I don't see what they're complainging about--IME the typical encounter is more like 2 rounds (and that's with 28 point buy, and 1/2 DMG gp value PCs)--five round battles seem pretty epic knock-down drag out affairs to me).

According to the DMG, 5 rounds is supposed to be the average encounter length. Not two rounds. As a result, 5 rounds isn't "long, epick knock down drag out battles". Something like that 7 round encounter I had two weeks ago (against a bunch of wargs - I was 2nd-level) is more like it

This two round-phenomenon is an artefact of weak high-level encounters. It's rare that a 15th-level fighter is really a CR 15, for instance, and most of the high-CR monsters have a glass jaw somewhere (low AC, a low save, etc) that means they drop out in round one to three.

2. The use of 3.0 Haste or Quicken spell.

Ever wonder why some people hated haste?

And, to my mind, it reveals why save or die spells are balanced--and even exciting: it's quite possible to go a number of rounds casting two spells a round before the opponent sees any effect from the spells at all.

If only if were that way. Sure, it could happen, but it doesn't seem to do so that often. If this happened more often (not all the time) then it would be more fun, and it would give the fighter a better chance.

That's the risk you take when using save or dies (which seem (at least from 20th level wizard vs. Pit Fiend or Titan examples) to have at best a 25%-30% chance of success.

Most of the high-CR creatures in the MM 3.0 didn't have these kinds of defenses - except dragons.

When players want to gamble like that, I don't see any reason to complain if they occasionally win.

They're always supposed to win However, they're not supopsed to "often" end the battle in round one, they're supposed to "occasionally" end the battle on round one.

Actually, I don't think high AC would do much about the things that one-hit kill monsters. Even the Keen Improved Crit Scythe only crits on an 18, 19, or 20 for instance. Even with good AC scores (40+ range) those kind of rolls will hit on 20th level fighters' secondary and tertiary attacks. (Confirming may be another matter but even counting the need to confirm your standard 20th level fighter (28 strength, GWF, +5 scythe) PC has a 28% chance each full attack to score at least one crit with his keen imp crit scythe against AC 39)

There was a rumor at 3rdedition that keen might be altered. Alas, it isn't as substantiated as Shadowstar's news.

More importantly, I'd like to see a 21st-level fighter with a +5 lawful flaming burst scythe do 370 points of damage in oune round. Lots of high CR opponents didn't have enough hit points, just like lots of high CR opponents didn't have good enough saving throws.

We probably hear more complaints about spells than Improved Crit because the spell is more likely to knock out an opponent, regardless of it's hit points, and because a spellcaster that can knock out an opponent 50% of the time is a lot more likely to do that than a fighter who can knock out an opponent 28% of the time.

*Of course, you don't need to be as lucky to succeed with save or die spells as you do with high crit multiplier weapons. Often your chance of success is better than 50%. On the other hand, you only get a few shots at success with the spells while the weapon users can have up to 4 (or 8 if they dual wield picks) shots per round.

This is the meat of the matter. I haven't seen any high-level fighters using a scythe, so I hadn't had this happen to me. However, as you've pointed out, this is less likely to occur than with a save-or-die spell.

And if the fighter doesn't get lucky, he's getting pounded, putting him in worse shape before they face the BBEG. (Or maybe the cleric is using up spells healing him.) Either way, resources are being used.

(The exception is a vorpal scimitar, a cheesy weapon that is about to get a well-deserved nerf.)

PS I had a "brain fart" over remove paralysis, but there's still no disintegrate ward spell.

 

[Destil]

Personaly I'd be very happy if there was just a "D&D Without Save or Die spells" sidebar in the DMG someplace for people who don't like this sort of spell. The're sacred cows, and it's really more of a campaign style decision than anything else.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

This two round-phenomenon is an artefact of weak high-level encounters. It's rare that a 15th-level fighter is really a CR 15, for instance, and most of the high-CR monsters have a glass jaw somewhere (low AC, a low save, etc) that means they drop out in round one to three.

The two round combat is not just a result of high CR creatures having weaknesses. It's also a result of monsters having incredible offenses from level 1 on and defense being very very difficult for PCs to build up to adequacy. In most cases, a monster will easily kill at least one PC in two or three rounds so if the PCs aren't able to drop it in that time, one of them is dead. (An 11 headed pyrohydra for instance, can easily deal 150 points of damage in two rounds--enought to kill an equal level fighter outright. Dragons, bodaks, iron golems, elder earth elementals, etc aren't slouches in the damage department either).

Most of the high-CR creatures in the MM 3.0 didn't have these kinds of defenses - except dragons.

Well between Dragons, Golems, Titans, outsiders, and liches (all of whom either had or appear likely to now have such defenses), I think you've got the gamut of high CR critters. . . .

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

The high-offense low-defense creatures such as elementals were a problem - remember the tarrasque? Massive Strength, low Con, low AC, low Will save?

The combat lasted only two rounds because the battle becomes a TPK or a cakewalk very quickly. I'm hoping they are going to fix this.

They got somewhere with the titan. It has low save DCs, a decent attack bonus on it's first and second swings only, and a much better AC, DR, SR and hit point score. They bumped the titan's defense way up and only marginally improved it's offense.

There are also high CR monsters that are not liches, outsiders, dragons, etc...

Note that the DMG said that a combat should last 5 rounds. The fact that a high-level combat did not last 5 rounds signals that something was wrong. Whether the monster were too tough or too easy is difficult to say, but clearly something was wrong.

 

[Destil]

Note that the DMG said that a combat should last 5 rounds. The fact that a high-level combat did not last 5 rounds signals that something was wrong. Whether the monster were too tough or too easy is difficult to say, but clearly something was wrong.

Isn't that the average combat? I really can't buy the logic of "it's not five rounds, something's wrong." What about defensive battles, or ones that start at super long range with missile fire and extended long range spells?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

That's why I said "average" - I'm pretty sure most DMs aren't actually writing down the length of each encounter in rounds.

If most encounters are short and unsatisfying (and, from a metagaming perspective, most are much less than 5 rounds) then something is wrong.