Its funny that this is the kjind of thing they are specifically trying to get away from in OneD&D. The video on Survery feedback says they are deliberately moving away from any sort of ability design that relies on DM buy in. IOW, they want the abilities to be there and be fun to use when the player wants to use them, not when the DM feels like letting the player use them.
Which, in turn, also means that they have to reduce the power of potentially gamebreaking effects to levels that are no longer gamebreaking.
Its funny that this is the kjind of thing they are specifically trying to get away from in OneD&D. The video on Survery feedback says they are deliberately moving away from any sort of ability design that relies on DM buy in. IOW, they want the abilities to be there and be fun to use when the player wants to use them, not when the DM feels like letting the player use them.
Which, in turn, also means that they have to reduce the power of potentially gamebreaking effects to levels that are no longer gamebreaking.
It's almost like the game needs a mechanic that would allow boss mobs to nope out on effects like this. Some kind of resistance. Like a greater resistance, or a super resistance or something. I don't know. We could workshop the name.
It's almost like the game needs a mechanic that would allow boss mobs to nope out on effects like this. Some kind of resistance. Like a greater resistance, or a super resistance or something. I don't know. We could workshop the name.
Save or instantly lose is beyond the appropriate reach of a fourth level spell, even with the existence of legendary resistance, but there's a reason forcecage was brought up: it doesn't have a save (nor does enclosing a creature in a wall of force).
It's almost like the game needs a mechanic that would allow boss mobs to nope out on effects like this. Some kind of resistance. Like a greater resistance, or a super resistance or something. I don't know. We could workshop the name.
Save or instantly lose is beyond the appropriate reach of a fourth level spell, even with the existence of legendary resistance, but there's a reason forcecage was brought up: it doesn't have a save (nor does enclosing a creature in a wall of force).
Unless its a from another plane being they don't instantly lose, they are detained for up to 10 rounds. It is not a death spell its a crowd control. A crowd control that does not allow you to beat the crap out of the target. It is weaker than fear which is a level lower, even if fear gets the same save treatment it will still be weaker than fear which again is a level lower.
Well, I don't agree with your disagreement, so there is that. I guess we all disagree equally. I have certainly played these kinds of games long enough and with enough different people to move beyond 'thats just an anecdote' level of experience.
As for the solution of "one of them needs to find another table," I would counter that there are probably better ways of helping people fit in and feel included than kicking them out. Radical I know, but using the game as a way to have fun and bring people together doesn't work as well when you tell one of your siblings, friends, or children, "yeah, you really don't belong here," no matter how diplomatically you try to put it. That doesn't even begin to address someone who may already feel like an outsider due to race/religion/sexuality/being adopted/general raging teenage hormones and incomplete brain development/a host of other reasons.
While your idea may work for people playing in a professional league (is there such a thing), for people who play with people they know, they are kind of limited to the people they know. There is only one table.
Well, I've been playing since the Eighties, so I guess we both have enough experience with this subject. Your proposal would mean that people who like more depth and complexity would be left hanging. Already, 5e is a bit too simple for my personal tastes. My proposal means that every one could find a table where they are fit in. Yours would mean you've lost me.
I've noped out of the only ongoing campaign on more than one occasion because of players who use/abuse the rule of cool to make themselves the star in a group.
These players without any exception have all been the people with a twenty-page background at player lvl1, who make every npc interaction an hour long improv session, and that's only talking about talking with an innkeeper or a bleeding apple salesperson. These same people don't keep notes, are annoyed that the DM does or - heavens forbid - the other party members do. They are not more invested in the game, they are invested in their own personal aggrandisement.
Well, I don't agree with your disagreement, so there is that. I guess we all disagree equally. I have certainly played these kinds of games long enough and with enough different people to move beyond 'thats just an anecdote' level of experience.
As for the solution of "one of them needs to find another table," I would counter that there are probably better ways of helping people fit in and feel included than kicking them out. Radical I know, but using the game as a way to have fun and bring people together doesn't work as well when you tell one of your siblings, friends, or children, "yeah, you really don't belong here," no matter how diplomatically you try to put it. That doesn't even begin to address someone who may already feel like an outsider due to race/religion/sexuality/being adopted/general raging teenage hormones and incomplete brain development/a host of other reasons.
While your idea may work for people playing in a professional league (is there such a thing), for people who play with people they know, they are kind of limited to the people they know. There is only one table.
Well, I've been playing since the Eighties, so I guess we both have enough experience with this subject. Your proposal would mean that people who like more depth and complexity would be left hanging. Already, 5e is a bit too simple for my personal tastes. My proposal means that every one could find a table where they are fit in. Yours would mean you've lost me.
I've noped out of the only ongoing campaign on more than one occasion because of players who use/abuse the rule of cool to make themselves the star in a group.
These players without any exception have all been the people with a twenty-page background at player lvl1, who make every npc interaction an hour long improv session, and that's only talking about talking with an innkeeper or a bleeding apple salesperson. These same people don't keep notes, are annoyed that the DM does or - heavens forbid - the other party members do. They are not more invested in the game, they are invested in their own personal aggrandisement.
The worst thing for me is when someone dumps Cha, but still ends up being the parties face because no rolls happen during conversations because it is all 100% role played and they just happen to be the most eloquent person at the table. It is the reason i made sure my low charisma high intellect fighter had an ignorant sounding accent and one that some people could hardly make out, to prevent him from being super persuasive without having to role because the other players just go along with it. This way I used his high intellect to HELP the parties face rather than steal the spotlight.
Yeah, I definitely could have written that better haha. I guess you could call it a kind of 'pre-save' before the spell can take effect. Any time a creature with Legendary Resistance is targeted, they get to make the resistance roll first. The target number is 10+the spell level. The creature adds its Legendary Resistance bonus to the roll. If it fails the roll, continue with the spell as normal, including a save if one is allowed.
That way it works against any kind of magic - save spells, attack roll spells, and no-save spells like forcecage. But it isn't automatic. The players won't try to burn through legendary resistances the same way they do now. DMs don't have to choose which spells to shut down. I think it would just be a lot cleaner and more fair all around.
I appreciate you taking the time to work through my ramblings and comment on it. :)
Yeah, this "hey monk, go burn legendary resistances" thing definitely has to go.
Yeah, this "hey monk, go burn legendary resistances" thing definitely has to go.
What I've taken to is giving legendary monsters a legendary action to remove conditions. Making it so CC is worthless until you use it enough times to burn off legendary resistance isn't particularly good game play, but you also don't want bosses being stunlocked.
What I've taken to is giving legendary monsters a legendary action to remove conditions. Making it so CC is worthless until you use it enough times to burn off legendary resistance isn't particularly good game play, but you also don't want bosses being stunlocked.
This still kind of feels unfair. I understand that bosses are really powerful and all, but if they function by a different set of rules that makes some builds obsolete, that sucks. Bosses have high enough saving throws as it is. However, there's these new Dazed and Slowed conditions, and they might be a good compromise. Instead of save-or-suck condition that could basically end a fight, legendary resistance could switch it to a weaker one, thus letting control spells and features retain some usefulness.
Like if the boss fails a saving throw against Stunned condition, it is Dazed instead, and if it fails a saving throw against Paralyzed condition, it is Slowed instead.
Banishment in the Cleric UA now has the target repeat their save at the end of each of their turns, so I imagine some save-or-suck spells might get a similar nerf to reduce how swingy they can be.
I imagine Hypnotic Pattern will probably get the same treatment, and Polymorph. Crowd control just should not be inherently more powerful than dealing damage, and spells of higher levels should consistently be more powerful than lower level ones. It's very weird / wrong that a 10th level bard is often better off strategically casting Hypnotic Pattern than any of their 5th level spells.
Banishment in the Cleric UA now has the target repeat their save at the end of each of their turns, so I imagine some save-or-suck spells might get a similar nerf to reduce how swingy they can be.
I imagine Hypnotic Pattern will probably get the same treatment, and Polymorph. Crowd control just should not be inherently more powerful than dealing damage, and spells of higher levels should consistently be more powerful than lower level ones. It's very weird / wrong that a 10th level bard is often better off strategically casting Hypnotic Pattern than any of their 5th level spells.
Yeah I can definitely see hypnotic pattern getting some kind of nerf.
Though incidentally, I wouldn't be surprised if fireball remains as is, just because it being uber-powerful for its level when you first get it is practically a meme.
Maybe that’s one of the reasons they are adding the Dazed and Slowed conditions for CC spells like these.
What I've taken to is giving legendary monsters a legendary action to remove conditions. Making it so CC is worthless until you use it enough times to burn off legendary resistance isn't particularly good game play, but you also don't want bosses being stunlocked.
This still kind of feels unfair. I understand that bosses are really powerful and all, but if they function by a different set of rules that makes some builds obsolete, that sucks.
The point is, if they have to spend their legendary actions to get rid of a status effect, your status effect has actually done something useful.
Banishment in the Cleric UA now has the target repeat their save at the end of each of their turns, so I imagine some save-or-suck spells might get a similar nerf to reduce how swingy they can be.
I imagine Hypnotic Pattern will probably get the same treatment, and Polymorph. Crowd control just should not be inherently more powerful than dealing damage, and spells of higher levels should consistently be more powerful than lower level ones. It's very weird / wrong that a 10th level bard is often better off strategically casting Hypnotic Pattern than any of their 5th level spells.
Yeah I can definitely see hypnotic pattern getting some kind of nerf.
Though incidentally, I wouldn't be surprised if fireball remains as is, just because it being uber-powerful for its level when you first get it is practically a meme.
Hypnotic Pattern doesn't need to be nerfed. DMs just need to pay attention to the particulars. RAW HP does not say you lose an action for a round after it is cast and this means if you are shaken out if it you are immediately no longer incapacitated. This means the enemy can use their action immediately (or alternatively on their next turn if they are using separate initiatives). So really unless every single enemy fails the save it should only be 1 lost action per enemy that fails.
For example you use HP on 20 orcs and 19 fail their save and are charmed and one lone orc succeeds. RAW if they are within 30 feet of each other and acting on the same initiative, ALL of them can get out of it before the caster's next turn. The guy who made his save uses his action to shake one who failed out of it. That guy you just woke up, now has his action, and he uses his action to shake out another guy, that guy now has his action to shake another guy ..... in one round all of them are back up and the last guy to be shaken out if it uses his action to attack or whatever.
This is how smart adversaries should play HP IMO. Played this way HP is still powerful because it causes one lost action for each guy that failed and you get AOOs when guys move around the battlefield to wake up their friends, but if DMs play it this way it is not OP as it does not take out numerous enemies for multiple turns with a failed save.
IME Fear is a far more powerful spell because it takes actions and there are no further saves or ways to cancel it with actions as long as the caster stays within sight. If the caster stays within sight Fear is basically a win button. If the enemy can move out of sight they use dash to do it and it causes 2 lost actions for every failed save (one action to dash further away, one action to dash back IF they make their save next turn). Additionally if finally make it back into the fight several rounds later they are doing without the weapons they were holding in their hand when the spell was cast.
What I've taken to is giving legendary monsters a legendary action to remove conditions. Making it so CC is worthless until you use it enough times to burn off legendary resistance isn't particularly good game play, but you also don't want bosses being stunlocked.
This still kind of feels unfair. I understand that bosses are really powerful and all, but if they function by a different set of rules that makes some builds obsolete, that sucks. Bosses have high enough saving throws as it is. However, there's these new Dazed and Slowed conditions, and they might be a good compromise. Instead of save-or-suck condition that could basically end a fight, legendary resistance could switch it to a weaker one, thus letting control spells and features retain some usefulness.
Like if the boss fails a saving throw against Stunned condition, it is Dazed instead, and if it fails a saving throw against Paralyzed condition, it is Slowed instead.
The problem is you'd have to account for every possible condition that can trivialize the boss, and not all debilitating effects leveled at a boss is a named condition. How do you deal with something like feeblemind for instance? Or what about the current version of banishment and polymorph?
In other words, I consider this approach a bit impractical.
I think you'd need some kind of "condition" ladder - where you could have different degrees of similar conditions. Exhaustion is the closest example I can think of for 5E. Kind of a cool idea, but it also introduces a complexity that could be a lot for some players.
What I've taken to is giving legendary monsters a legendary action to remove conditions. Making it so CC is worthless until you use it enough times to burn off legendary resistance isn't particularly good game play, but you also don't want bosses being stunlocked.
This still kind of feels unfair. I understand that bosses are really powerful and all, but if they function by a different set of rules that makes some builds obsolete, that sucks. Bosses have high enough saving throws as it is. However, there's these new Dazed and Slowed conditions, and they might be a good compromise. Instead of save-or-suck condition that could basically end a fight, legendary resistance could switch it to a weaker one, thus letting control spells and features retain some usefulness.
Like if the boss fails a saving throw against Stunned condition, it is Dazed instead, and if it fails a saving throw against Paralyzed condition, it is Slowed instead.
The problem is you'd have to account for every possible condition that can trivialize the boss, and not all debilitating effects leveled at a boss is a named condition. How do you deal with something like feeblemind for instance? Or what about the current version of banishment and polymorph?
In other words, I consider this approach a bit impractical.
I think you'd need some kind of "condition" ladder - where you could have different degrees of similar conditions. Exhaustion is the closest example I can think of for 5E. Kind of a cool idea, but it also introduces a complexity that could be a lot for some players.
The easy way is to have the spell include conditions when people make their save. Legendary resistance would still be you make your save automatically. We have saves for half damage, do the same with save or else effects. But something like hold monster on a failed save paralyzed, make a new save at the end of next turn, on a successful save creature slowed until end of their next turn, condition ends. Pathfinder 2e does something like this but with more levels, crit save, save, fail, crit fail.
The problem is you'd have to account for every possible condition that can trivialize the boss, and not all debilitating effects leveled at a boss is a named condition. How do you deal with something like feeblemind for instance? Or what about the current version of banishment and polymorph?
In other words, I consider this approach a bit impractical.
You don't need to name the conditions, you just have a generic term. For example:
Legendary Recovery: reduce the remaining duration of an ongoing effect or condition on the creature by one turn, and if it has remaining duration, make a new save.
That won't deal with effects that target an area rather than creatures in the area, such as forcecage, wall spells, difficult terrain spells, etc, but other than forcecage/wall of force, which probably just need changes to the spells themselves (easy fix: give them something like AC=spell save DC, 100 HP, instead of being invulnerable), they are generally less problematic.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Which, in turn, also means that they have to reduce the power of potentially gamebreaking effects to levels that are no longer gamebreaking.
It's almost like the game needs a mechanic that would allow boss mobs to nope out on effects like this. Some kind of resistance. Like a greater resistance, or a super resistance or something. I don't know. We could workshop the name.
Save or instantly lose is beyond the appropriate reach of a fourth level spell, even with the existence of legendary resistance, but there's a reason forcecage was brought up: it doesn't have a save (nor does enclosing a creature in a wall of force).
Unless its a from another plane being they don't instantly lose, they are detained for up to 10 rounds. It is not a death spell its a crowd control. A crowd control that does not allow you to beat the crap out of the target. It is weaker than fear which is a level lower, even if fear gets the same save treatment it will still be weaker than fear which again is a level lower.
Well, I've been playing since the Eighties, so I guess we both have enough experience with this subject. Your proposal would mean that people who like more depth and complexity would be left hanging. Already, 5e is a bit too simple for my personal tastes. My proposal means that every one could find a table where they are fit in. Yours would mean you've lost me.
I've noped out of the only ongoing campaign on more than one occasion because of players who use/abuse the rule of cool to make themselves the star in a group.
These players without any exception have all been the people with a twenty-page background at player lvl1, who make every npc interaction an hour long improv session, and that's only talking about talking with an innkeeper or a bleeding apple salesperson. These same people don't keep notes, are annoyed that the DM does or - heavens forbid - the other party members do. They are not more invested in the game, they are invested in their own personal aggrandisement.
The worst thing for me is when someone dumps Cha, but still ends up being the parties face because no rolls happen during conversations because it is all 100% role played and they just happen to be the most eloquent person at the table. It is the reason i made sure my low charisma high intellect fighter had an ignorant sounding accent and one that some people could hardly make out, to prevent him from being super persuasive without having to role because the other players just go along with it. This way I used his high intellect to HELP the parties face rather than steal the spotlight.
Yeah, this "hey monk, go burn legendary resistances" thing definitely has to go.
What I've taken to is giving legendary monsters a legendary action to remove conditions. Making it so CC is worthless until you use it enough times to burn off legendary resistance isn't particularly good game play, but you also don't want bosses being stunlocked.
This still kind of feels unfair. I understand that bosses are really powerful and all, but if they function by a different set of rules that makes some builds obsolete, that sucks. Bosses have high enough saving throws as it is. However, there's these new Dazed and Slowed conditions, and they might be a good compromise. Instead of save-or-suck condition that could basically end a fight, legendary resistance could switch it to a weaker one, thus letting control spells and features retain some usefulness.
Like if the boss fails a saving throw against Stunned condition, it is Dazed instead, and if it fails a saving throw against Paralyzed condition, it is Slowed instead.
I imagine Hypnotic Pattern will probably get the same treatment, and Polymorph. Crowd control just should not be inherently more powerful than dealing damage, and spells of higher levels should consistently be more powerful than lower level ones. It's very weird / wrong that a 10th level bard is often better off strategically casting Hypnotic Pattern than any of their 5th level spells.
Maybe that’s one of the reasons they are adding the Dazed and Slowed conditions for CC spells like these.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
The point is, if they have to spend their legendary actions to get rid of a status effect, your status effect has actually done something useful.
Hypnotic Pattern doesn't need to be nerfed. DMs just need to pay attention to the particulars. RAW HP does not say you lose an action for a round after it is cast and this means if you are shaken out if it you are immediately no longer incapacitated. This means the enemy can use their action immediately (or alternatively on their next turn if they are using separate initiatives). So really unless every single enemy fails the save it should only be 1 lost action per enemy that fails.
For example you use HP on 20 orcs and 19 fail their save and are charmed and one lone orc succeeds. RAW if they are within 30 feet of each other and acting on the same initiative, ALL of them can get out of it before the caster's next turn. The guy who made his save uses his action to shake one who failed out of it. That guy you just woke up, now has his action, and he uses his action to shake out another guy, that guy now has his action to shake another guy ..... in one round all of them are back up and the last guy to be shaken out if it uses his action to attack or whatever.
This is how smart adversaries should play HP IMO. Played this way HP is still powerful because it causes one lost action for each guy that failed and you get AOOs when guys move around the battlefield to wake up their friends, but if DMs play it this way it is not OP as it does not take out numerous enemies for multiple turns with a failed save.
IME Fear is a far more powerful spell because it takes actions and there are no further saves or ways to cancel it with actions as long as the caster stays within sight. If the caster stays within sight Fear is basically a win button. If the enemy can move out of sight they use dash to do it and it causes 2 lost actions for every failed save (one action to dash further away, one action to dash back IF they make their save next turn). Additionally if finally make it back into the fight several rounds later they are doing without the weapons they were holding in their hand when the spell was cast.
I think you'd need some kind of "condition" ladder - where you could have different degrees of similar conditions. Exhaustion is the closest example I can think of for 5E. Kind of a cool idea, but it also introduces a complexity that could be a lot for some players.
The easy way is to have the spell include conditions when people make their save. Legendary resistance would still be you make your save automatically. We have saves for half damage, do the same with save or else effects. But something like hold monster on a failed save paralyzed, make a new save at the end of next turn, on a successful save creature slowed until end of their next turn, condition ends. Pathfinder 2e does something like this but with more levels, crit save, save, fail, crit fail.
You don't need to name the conditions, you just have a generic term. For example:
That won't deal with effects that target an area rather than creatures in the area, such as forcecage, wall spells, difficult terrain spells, etc, but other than forcecage/wall of force, which probably just need changes to the spells themselves (easy fix: give them something like AC=spell save DC, 100 HP, instead of being invulnerable), they are generally less problematic.