|
Never ever run MM1 as-written Orcs versus a level 1 party.
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2011 23:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 00:44 |
|
|
Make sure nothing has bows or axes as the x3 crit will pretty much kill anything (Orc barbarian with a battle axe is, I guess, d12+5 x 3 or something monstrous). If this sounds silly, well, it is. edit: beaten on the orc thing For content, this is the d20srd orc profile: Falchion +4 melee (2d4+4/18-20) Giving it a drat decent chance of doing 4d4+8 which will one shot any d4 hit die based dude pretty comfortably. Pawsplays suggestion is a good one though if you want to play at 1st level. I mean, you could even give them toughness for free, it isn't like that is going to break the game at higher levels or anything. You could even tie it in with what I was talking about re: character background. If people want to play with a throwaway dude they roll up on the day then that is cool, if they want to spend a bit more time developing their character then you'll help out by making sure they don't get killed by the first crit that goes their way (unless it is an axe). Karandras fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Sep 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 00:02
|
|
|
Danhenge posted:Never ever run MM1 as-written Orcs versus a level 1 party. Read that as "Orcus" and I thought "well, of course." Outcome is pretty much the same. Pathfinder dudes are a little bit less squishy. Full BAB classes have d10s for HD, 3/4 BAB classes have d8s, and 1/2 BAB classes have d6s. Other possible options for increasing HP at low levels: -Double/Triple Starting HD (Saga Edition option) -Add Constitution Score to HP (4e option) -Don't start at 1st level (3e option)
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 00:18
|
|
|
This is all 3.5 advice again so not sure how applicable it is but another houserule I used was instead of -1 to -9 being your dying value it is until -9 or your con, whichever is better. This makes con a bit better at lower levels and if it encourages someone to take 12 con rather than 10 on their wizard that's basically as good as Toughness for free.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 00:46
|
|
|
Karandras posted:This is all 3.5 advice again so not sure how applicable it is but another houserule I used was instead of -1 to -9 being your dying value it is until -9 or your con, whichever is better. This makes con a bit better at lower levels and if it encourages someone to take 12 con rather than 10 on their wizard that's basically as good as Toughness for free. I'm not sure, but I think Pathfinder adjusted it to -9 or your con, whichever is better. Or was it whichever is worse...
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 00:56
|
|
|
Ah okay, I'll stop giving 3.5 advice then, I haven't read any of the pathfinder stuff. Sounds like it has made some good improvements though!
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 01:00
|
|
|
Karandras posted:This is all 3.5 advice again so not sure how applicable it is but another houserule I used was instead of -1 to -9 being your dying value it is until -9 or your con, whichever is better. This makes con a bit better at lower levels and if it encourages someone to take 12 con rather than 10 on their wizard that's basically as good as Toughness for free. I'd still rather give out more starting hp because getting hit once in the first round and then spending the rest of the fight bleeding on the ground is really loving boring. From personal experience, I can say that SAGA Edition does danger well without risking PC death. It's fairly easy to be taken out of a fight, and healing is suitably sparse, but it's also really hard for a player to actually die, since you can always spend a Force Point to go unconscious instead (barring some really unusual circumstances). The game feels really lethal without actually killing anybody on a lucky crit. SAGA is kind of half-way between 3e and 4e, but I think you could look at its approach to danger and adapt it easily to make a more 'epic heroism' kind of Pathfinder game, where the PCs are still really threatened, but also don't die unless it's appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 01:06
|
|
|
Karandras posted:Ah okay, I'll stop giving 3.5 advice then, I haven't read any of the pathfinder stuff. Sounds like it has made some good improvements though! Woops, I didn't mean to imply that your advice wasn't useful or desired. Merely clarifying a single point that I actually knew something about. I'm so unfamiliar with all of the 3.x games and derivatives, so for me this is very useful.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 01:21
|
|
|
Evil Sagan posted:I have to admit that was my original intention. My Pathfinder/3.x experience is dangerously close to null, and I think there will be someone completely new to roleplaying games joining us. I thought creating a level one character would be the softest and quickest introduction possible. I could always go easy on them until we get the hang of things. Depending on what kind of game you want most of them are pretty well written. Council of Thieves has some .. issues, especially in early books, but its a great city based game so long as you don't mind altering those parts (or straight out removing them like that goddamn knot). Kingmaker is great but really sandbox heavy so not for every play group. Serpent's Skull I honestly haven't dealt with much, but seems to have a lot more traditional dungeon crawler feel to it. Carrion Crown was just fantastically written but not for a hack and slash kind of group. No idea about the newest one. At least as far as campaign paths go, I really haven't dealt with the stand alone modules to much to recommend one. I will say the APs are surprisingly well written for the most part without huge glaring flaws throughout like I'm used to. Add in 3-4 monsters, a short story, and world expanding bits (details on cities, gods, or other random things) in each one and their pretty solidly worth while.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 01:55
|
|
|
Evil Sagan posted:Woops, I didn't mean to imply that your advice wasn't useful or desired. Merely clarifying a single point that I actually knew something about. I'm so unfamiliar with all of the 3.x games and derivatives, so for me this is very useful. Oh I wasn't rage quitting or being offended, just honestly saying I'll have a quick read of the changes before I suggest more useless stuff. I saw you also posted in the 4e thread about an upcoming game, are you trying to decide which one to use or running two games?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 02:10
|
|
|
Karandras posted:Oh I wasn't rage quitting or being offended, just honestly saying I'll have a quick read of the changes before I suggest more useless stuff. That must have been a while ago. I ran a 4E Dark Sun game around February or March, but it quickly went south due to scheduling conflicts and my own lack of preparation. However, I started talking with the prospective players today and there is a chance it might go 4E. Small one, though, because I think the one's that have a strong opinion want to play Pathfinder. quote:Depending on what kind of game you want most of them are pretty well written. Council of Thieves has some .. issues, especially in early books, but its a great city based game so long as you don't mind altering those parts (or straight out removing them like that goddamn knot). Kingmaker is great but really sandbox heavy so not for every play group. Serpent's Skull I honestly haven't dealt with much, but seems to have a lot more traditional dungeon crawler feel to it. Carrion Crown was just fantastically written but not for a hack and slash kind of group. No idea about the newest one. At least as far as campaign paths go, I really haven't dealt with the stand alone modules to much to recommend one. I will say the APs are surprisingly well written for the most part without huge glaring flaws throughout like I'm used to. Add in 3-4 monsters, a short story, and world expanding bits (details on cities, gods, or other random things) in each one and their pretty solidly worth while. Awesome, thanks for the run-down! I actually purchased Carrion Crown from Paizo's site on a whim a couple days ago. It sounds like they'd really enjoy it. At the very least, sounds like I'll benefit from getting a peek at the writing and design. 100 degrees Calcium fucked around with this message at 02:29 on Sep 14, 2011 |
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 02:26
|
|
|
Karandras posted:
Sure! There is one other side benefit of Toughness Communism, however: PCs are one step further away from most prestige classes, which 3.5 players will often need to be trained out of lusting after. Higher PC survivability, fewer PrC temptations, simpler character creation options for newcomers... everyone wins. Well, everyone who dosen't think that 1st level feat was supposed to be for something Really Important. If I were writing Pathfinder basic, it would say something like: "Your first feat is called Toughness. As you gain levels, you will have the opportunity to select other feats..."
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 03:02
|
|
|
Why would you want to make it harder for them to get prestige classes? It isn't less temptation for PrCs, it just means they have to focus their skill and feat choices even harder after level 1. Especially considering if you're playing a basic game people are likely to pick humans and still have to choose a second feat, thereby revealing to them how much they've been robbed by having to waste their first one. Free toughness at level 1 is a good or mandatory toughness if you're below 8hp that can be retrained ASAP, but not mandatory toughness in order to try and delay PrCs.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 03:27
|
|
|
Giving first-level characters +3 HP isn't a bad idea. Neither is prepicking a newbie's feats to choose something useful. Forcing every first-level character's feat to be Toughness is not a great idea. Forcing a first-level barbarian to take Toughness instead of Power Attack is not going to to make her life easier or more fun; between the high HD, a decent Con to extend rage, and bonus Con when raging, a first-level barbarian without Toughness is reasonably likely to have nearly twice as many HP as other members of the party who do have Toughness. For another example, a halfling rogue lacks that prodigious wall of meat but is likely to have the highest AC in a first-level party by a fair margin, and Weapon Finesse is quite likely to mean the difference between a +0 to hit and a +4, which is huge at that level. These aren't esoteric crazystuff builds: these are bog-standard iconic first-level characters, and neither is made more fun or more playable by having Toughness as their mandatory first-level feat.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 07:19
|
|
|
Benly posted:Forcing every first-level character's feat to be Toughness is not a great idea. Fortunately, my 1st to 20th level 3.5 to Pathfinder campaign was able to survive this disasterous first step.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 08:11
|
|
|
The only bad GM decisions are the ones that make your players quit the game?
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 08:22
|
|
|
A 1st level barbarian actually isn't going to get much use out of Power Attack. They can drop most humanoids in one hit anyway, without it, without even rolling damage. The things it would actually help against (bears, ogres) you don't want to be fighting at level 1-2 anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 08:32
|
|
|
Benly posted:Giving first-level characters +3 HP isn't a bad idea. Neither is prepicking a newbie's feats to choose something useful. I'm sure the casters would be happy though. It not like they got much to take feat wise other than Spell Focus for a while.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 08:47
|
|
|
Forcing players to take feats is bad. The whole point of feats in the first place is to provide an avenue for character customization; forcing feat choices removes that. If a feat is so necessary that you feel like making everyone to take it, you should really be giving it away for free instead. Feat taxes are no less awful in 3.X (in fact, since you get fewer feats than in 4e, in some ways they're worse!)
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 12:22
|
|
|
pawsplay posted:Fortunately, my 1st to 20th level 3.5 to Pathfinder campaign was able to survive this disasterous first step.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2011 14:13
|
|
|
J. Alfred Prufrock posted:Forcing players to take feats is bad. The whole point of feats in the first place is to provide an avenue for character customization; forcing feat choices removes that. If a feat is so necessary that you feel like making everyone to take it, you should really be giving it away for free instead. Think of it as a house rule that removes one feat, adds some extra hit points, and lets you bargain the hit points for an extra feat if the GM agrees the concept warrants it and you can survive without the hit points.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 04:56
|
|
|
pawsplay posted:Think of it as a house rule that removes one feat, adds some extra hit points, and lets you bargain the hit points for an extra feat if the GM agrees the concept warrants it and you can survive without the hit points. well just imagining a house rule that removes one feat makes my gorge rise, so, cheers mate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 04:58
|
|
|
Players don't need less feats. They need more feats, so they can get the necessary good ones out of the way and then take the more interesting ones they want.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 05:41
|
|
|
Well, I'm officially running Pathfinder this December. I'm both very excited and very terrified. Time to review the combat and encounter-building rules excessively.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 05:46
|
|
|
Best of luck! If you're starting at low level you don't need to worry about Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards as much but just be careful if you have any wizards in your game. You can pretty easily accidentally make a Wizard that trivialises most combat encounters. If someone does want to play a Wizard you can either point them in the direction of the flashy damage spells or just be frank with them and tell them that Sleep is broken as poo poo and will make the Fighter look like a tool. Niche protection and keeping every character viable is a bit of a a DM struggle in the system and you're really going to be proactive to make sure people are happy with their dude. Keep us updated and we'll help you out! edit: applies to clerics as well for a different reason and probably druids idk how different Pathfinder is for them
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 07:19
|
|
|
I'll just make all enemies Elves, who have immunity to Sleep. You may now crown me King of the Dungeon Masters. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 08:07
|
|
|
The witch hex slumber is really freakishly overpowered and cripples pretty much every BBEG in the Pathfinder adventure paths, I have discovered more and more; having no hit dice limit is gross and you can just keep jacking it out over and over again (all day, that is--it's only once per target, but still). I've got a few parties tooling around here and there and they loving love to milk slumber and ghoul touch until any singular tough enemy is helpless. On another note, Chill Touch is pretty dumb against an undead that botches a save, but that's the case in 3.5 as well. Breaking things that sometimes get overlooked.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 16:00
|
|
|
^^ That one there is a bit more of a problem yeah. At low levels I'm more worried about the lucky crit wiping a character. Giving out free Toughness wouldn't be bad. Karandras posted:If you're starting at low level you don't need to worry about Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards as much but just be careful if you have any wizards in your game. You can pretty easily accidentally make a Wizard that trivialises most combat encounters. If someone does want to play a Wizard you can either point them in the direction of the flashy damage spells or just be frank with them and tell them that Sleep is broken as poo poo and will make the Fighter look like a tool. I'd personally check with the fighter type to make sure hes at least picking a viable simple combat style rather than one of the complex or outright terrible styles. Reach weapons and archery are pretty hard to screw up. quote:edit: applies to clerics as well for a different reason and probably druids idk how different Pathfinder is for them Druids are slightly weaker due to the changes in wild shape and animal companions got standardized a bit. They're still the same all round rear end kickers though. Clerics mostly, gain power in terms of the channel energy. It's actually viable healing, if you can get several teammates in a cluster, since its probably the only AoE healing you'd have for a good while. Some of the domain powers get shifted up and down, but mostly they get a bunch of trivial abilities out of them. Nothing gamechanging. The more hax spells got toned down though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 16:59
|
|
|
veekie posted:Clerics mostly, gain power in terms of the channel energy. It's actually viable healing, if you can get several teammates in a cluster, since its probably the only AoE healing you'd have for a good while. Some of the domain powers get shifted up and down, but mostly they get a bunch of trivial abilities out of them. Nothing gamechanging. The more hax spells got toned down though. Worth noting with regard to clerics is that in a "straight" PF game rather than a PF/3.5 hybrid, they get reined in significantly by the simple fact of trimming out the years of expansion material. Without hundreds of spells to pick from each morning and dozens of domains to cherrypick for whatever's not on the list, things are significantly less lunatic even before you get to the changes to the actual cleric class. Paizo also did a better (although still not perfect) job of nerfing the broken spells on the cleric's core list than the wizard's. My general feeling about Paizo and linear fighter/quadratic wizard is that even though they didn't fix the problem, they did at least extend how long you can play before LFQW makes things unworkable. I'd say a PF game seems like it at least has a decent chance of making it to 13-15 without things falling apart on that front, which is longer than 3.5 makes it. In either case it depends on how the wizard chooses to play, but the feeling I get is that a PF wizard has to make an effort or get "lucky" to absolutely break the game earlier than that, while the 3.5 wizard has to make an effort or get lucky not to.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2011 20:29
|
|
|
I solved the Toughness problem by just maximizing the HP of my players for the first two levels. The Fighter is especially meaty, but I don't have a problem with that since it's her first time playing the game and she'll probably end up eating a greatsword to the face anyway. Also, my campaign has two Witches. Misfortune goes on EVERYTHING.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2011 04:55
|
|
|
Benly posted:My general feeling about Paizo and linear fighter/quadratic wizard is that even though they didn't fix the problem, they did at least extend how long you can play before LFQW makes things unworkable. I agree somewhat. Under 3.5 I was pretty ruthless about disallowing things like Divine Metamagic and most of the Spell Compendium. Partly isn't an issue with the casters. If the casters don't feel like being team players, they are more easily able to be self-sufficient while sidelining the fighters, versus the opposite. I would hope that at level 13+ the campaign would revolve more around "doing cool stuff together" rather than a rivalry between the casters and non-casters, but that really depends on the players.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2011 05:05
|
|
|
pawsplay posted:I agree somewhat. Under 3.5 I was pretty ruthless about disallowing things like Divine Metamagic and most of the Spell Compendium. Partly isn't an issue with the casters. If the casters don't feel like being team players, they are more easily able to be self-sufficient while sidelining the fighters, versus the opposite. I would hope that at level 13+ the campaign would revolve more around "doing cool stuff together" rather than a rivalry between the casters and non-casters, but that really depends on the players. The thing is, you don't need the rivalry for an overly-strong or overly-weak character to ruin people's fun. If there's enough of a gap between the party fighter and the party wizard (and this includes the assumption that the wizard player isn't skilled enough/applying his skill to build weaker to balance the party), what happens is that either the fighter ends up feeling like a paper tiger who can't do anything (because the enemies are too strong for him) or the fights are over before he can do anything (because they're too weak for the wizard.) If someone's playing a fighter, it's generally because he wants to play a mighty warrior who cleaves foes in twain and etc etc. If he can't play the character he was envisioning, he'll have less fun. This doesn't mean things have to be a cakewalk, but it does mean you have to at least keep players feeling effectual, which the fighter will tend not to in either of the above scenarios. No player rivalry needed, just a failure of the system to deliver what people got into the game for. Note that I'm not saying it's impossible to have fun when there's a big power gap. Rather, I'm saying that it's something which frequently causes the fun to be lost and therefore something that it behooves a potential GM to be wary of. Individual circumstances will as always vary.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2011 06:42
|
|
|
Benly posted:The thing is, you don't need the rivalry for an overly-strong or overly-weak character to ruin people's fun. If there's enough of a gap between the party fighter and the party wizard (and this includes the assumption that the wizard player isn't skilled enough/applying his skill to build weaker to balance the party), what happens is that either the fighter ends up feeling like a paper tiger who can't do anything (because the enemies are too strong for him) or the fights are over before he can do anything (because they're too weak for the wizard.) In the absence of rivalry, what I would expect to happen is for the wizard to make good use of their abilities to put the fighter in the position of cleaving. Meanwhile, the fighter's player can and should be ofering input on what the wizard does with their spells. I know this ideal is not always achieved. Short of making all characters identical, in any game, it requires a conscious effort to treat everyone's contributions as equally meaningful, irrespective of their absolute capabilities. Even in the most zealously balanced RPGs, there is no way to swing a sword in such a way as to teleport a hundred miles, or to flank an amorphous blob, or to involve a romantically chivalrous character in an assassination attempt. In Pathfinder terms, this means specifically that from about 7th level until about 14th, wizards, clerics, druids, and so forth are parceled certain utilities. If you make the decision to play a fighter, you are accepting that conceptually. Now, beyond 12th level or so, fighters get increasingly outstripped because of the save and damage curves in Pathfinder. My best advice is that retiring in the teens is a legitamate approach to campaign design. Otherwise, at the very high levels, I think it's important to focus on wonder and interest over power. Also, high level fighters and rogues probably need to pick up some UMD, or multiclass for a level or two, or risk getting sidelined by otherwordly situations in which naked steel is just not going to cut it. Is that in line with your experiences?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2011 07:46
|
|
|
pawsplay posted:In the absence of rivalry, what I would expect to happen is for the wizard to make good use of their abilities to put the fighter in the position of cleaving. Meanwhile, the fighter's player can and should be ofering input on what the wizard does with their spells. I know this ideal is not always achieved. Short of making all characters identical, in any game, it requires a conscious effort to treat everyone's contributions as equally meaningful, irrespective of their absolute capabilities. Even in the most zealously balanced RPGs, there is no way to swing a sword in such a way as to teleport a hundred miles, or to flank an amorphous blob, or to involve a romantically chivalrous character in an assassination attempt. Ideally, this happens. That said, the game ideally shouldn't force the wizard to rein himself in for the fighter to be able to feel like he's contributing in a fight. I'm not sure why you say there's no way to flank an amorphous blob in any RPG ever, though. Heck, you can flank oozes just fine in PF. You just can't sneak attack them. quote:In Pathfinder terms, this means specifically that from about 7th level until about 14th, wizards, clerics, druids, and so forth are parceled certain utilities. If you make the decision to play a fighter, you are accepting that conceptually. Now, beyond 12th level or so, fighters get increasingly outstripped because of the save and damage curves in Pathfinder. My best advice is that retiring in the teens is a legitamate approach to campaign design. Otherwise, at the very high levels, I think it's important to focus on wonder and interest over power. Also, high level fighters and rogues probably need to pick up some UMD, or multiclass for a level or two, or risk getting sidelined by otherwordly situations in which naked steel is just not going to cut it. I do agree that for the most part non-casters not getting a caster's utility is something that tends to be accepted by someone who signed on to play a non-caster in the first place - the usual exceptions tend to be crafting (because 3E/PF crafting rules make no sense while Fabricate works awesomely) and sneaky-thiefy stuff (because there are classes that are theoretically conceptually centered on that, and a wizard who abuses invisibility, knock, etc. can make him very sad.) That said, in practice most wizards don't prepare Knock every morning and a lot of them prefer more spectacular stuff over invisibility and pals. Likewise there's a lot of argument about social skills being made redundant by "lol throw a charm at it" but in practice it's easier and more fun to grease the wheels with an actual socially-capable character and some roleplaying. It is true but also very, very depressing that a high level fighter or rogue will need to UMD or multiclass to carry their weight, even in their fields of specialty.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2011 07:59
|
|
|
Benly posted:Ideally, this happens. That said, the game ideally shouldn't force the wizard to rein himself in for the fighter to be able to feel like he's contributing in a fight. I believe firmly that a wizard who doesn't buff the fighter is actually hampering himself. I don't think the fighter should ever feel inferior for being the front end of that instrument. I think the game would probably be better if it were costlier for the wizard to try to replace the other PCs with spell selections.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2011 08:04
|
|
|
pawsplay posted:I believe firmly that a wizard who doesn't buff the fighter is actually hampering himself. I don't think the fighter should ever feel inferior for being the front end of that instrument. I think the game would probably be better if it were costlier for the wizard to try to replace the other PCs with spell selections. Yeah, a wizard who focuses on buffs and debuffs is probably the best combat option all around from a POV of everyone having fun.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2011 08:16
|
|
|
Buffing the fighter still means you're using attacks against hit points and AC to win fights and forcing saves to instantly die or lose is just a much more effective way of ending fights. You're right though, to make the game run better the Wizard should really focus on direct damage or party buffing and just ignore the best parts of their kit. Being honest and upfront with all your players about this is a little condescending towards the fighter and hopefully your players can handle this well. Telling the Wizard they have to act suboptimally because otherwise the Fighter will look dumb might not work with all groups.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2011 08:19
|
|
|
Benly posted:Yeah, a wizard who focuses on buffs and debuffs is probably the best combat option all around from a POV of everyone having fun. A wizard who does this at least partially is also acting optimally. Also, I think it's a mistake to think of the fighter primarily as a beater. A 12th level fighter has seven bonus feats; that's what you're really buffing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2011 08:23
|
|
|
pawsplay posted:A wizard who does this at least partially is also acting optimally. Also, I think it's a mistake to think of the fighter primarily as a beater. A 12th level fighter has seven bonus feats; that's what you're really buffing. Why would I buff a fighter when I could summon something that's better than him at fighting?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2011 08:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 00:44 |
|
|
Karandras posted:Buffing the fighter still means you're using attacks against hit points and AC to win fights and forcing saves to instantly die or lose is just a much more effective way of ending fights. Not quite true. Save or Die/Lose is inefficient as far as killing enemies are concerned. It costs a spell and action per shot, and also has a chance of outright failing(a chance which, I may note, is far higher than the fighter missing, due to the way attack bonuses scale relative to saves). Instead you spend the same slot for A) Summoning a beatstick(drawback, more time required, unless you managed to reduce it to Standard) B) Lockdown the enemy with Solid Fog(but you need actual damage or similar to actually take them down) C) Buff the fighter, rogue and cleric with Haste(they proceed to slice dice and mince the target) Cost wise, the most efficient is C, followed closely by B and then A. You only need one spell slot, and one action to eliminate opponents. Save or Lose's weakness is that it takes one slot and one action(the ratio improves but not by much) per enemy. Self buffing takes at least one spell slot and one round(due to the fact that you can't attack until next round) before you act. Thus without a party supporting you gave enemies a free round. Save or die effects are more fearsome for players because in their adventuring career they'd no doubt face many of these, and you only need to fail once.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2011 10:25
|
|