PDA

View Full Version : DM Help Critical saves + PCs in war



Seto
2015-06-17, 04:41 PM
Hey playground ! I come to you with two completely unrelated questions. Maybe I should have created two threads, I'm not sure, but since I ask them at the same time, well...

First question :
What do you think of the concept of critical saves as a houserule ? I do not think by any means that they are necessary, but in your opinion would they improve the game experience or be useless ? Have any of you experimented with them ?
They would work this way : on a confirmed natural 20, characters would save so well that they gain momentum over their opponent. If the effect is [Partial], they would simply completely avoid it. If it's all-or-nothing, I'm thinking of something like the following. Fortitude : on a case-by-case basis, either immunity to this particular spell, poison or effect for a limited time, or permanent +1 resistance to it. (but that may be a pain to keep track of). Reflex : either gain an AoO against an adjacent opponent, or move 10ft. in any given direction (without provoking AoO). Will : if someone tried to mess with your mind, they're dazed (or another status) for their next turn. If not, I'm at a loss.
There will not be critical save failures, failing a save generally is bad enough.

Second question :
There's going to be a war in our game world. Two of the PCs are aligned with factions involved (on the same basic side). The other three probably won't care much about the politics, but will help out their comrades. Now, the PCs' side plays against the odds, and they cannot win a war of that importance on their own (they're ultimately five persons in thousands, albeit among the most powerful 5% of those thousands). But I still want their actions to make a significant difference. Here's what I thought of :
I'll prepare 17 possible outcomes of the war (with different leading NPCs dying and surviving, different towns taken etc.), representing the possible events that the PCs cannot directly affect. They'll range from 1, the worst (catastrophe, PCs' side utterly defeated, etc.), to 17, the best-case scenario. I'll explain that to the players. Then I'll have them roll a d12. Significant victories by the PCs (securing an alliance with the nearest kingdom, or stopping a crucial enemy strike, or defending a town, or something) will give them points. At the end, they can add up to 5 points to the dice's result. Thus, the worst-case scenario is impossible if the PCs are competent, but the best-case scenario requires rolling 12 and doing everything perfectly.
Does that seem interesting to you ? Do you think it will give the players motivation, and that sense of agency on a large scale that I'm trying to give them ? Should I keep the dice's result secret or reveal it (I'm rather in favor of secret, but there might be merit in the other solution) ? Do you think this idea is needlessly complicated ? Would you modify the implementation in some way ?

Thank you in advance !

Surpriser
2015-06-17, 05:35 PM
To answer your second question:
I would not hinge such a far-reaching and complex thing as the outcome of a whole campaign on a single die-roll (although there might be some players who would be thrilled by that), especially such an abstract mechanic.
Instead, write up all major factions, their strategies and goals and the events which would happen if the PCs did not interfere. For example, this could correspond to scenario 5 on your 1-17 scale.
As soon as the PCs come in, their actions influence the story, probably altering the line of events and resulting outcomes. Whereever possible, they should see the effects of what they did, be it for good or not.
Of course, not everything that happens has to be connected to them directly, but then why roll for it instead of simply deciding beforehand?

Khedrac
2015-06-18, 06:47 AM
I think Critical Saves might have a place, but I am not sure about advantages the way you suggest. Perhaps it could indicate natural resistance to that particular spell or caster (i.e. don't even bother rolling the next time).

I was playing in a OD&D campaign once when the rogue got into a fight with a load of giant spiders (I think the healer shut the door behind the rogue when the rogue entered the room). After what I think was the 3rd consecutive natural 20 on the poison save the DM just ruled the rogue was naturally immune to that particular spider venom...

Upgrading to Evasion or Mettle (in 3rd Ed terms) sounds like a good possibility for a save crit too.

Maglubiyet
2015-06-18, 09:49 AM
First question: Will this be only for PC's or for NPC's too? If enemies get this benefit then it might unbalance combat as usually there are more enemies, thus more die rolls and higher chances of the opposition getting a natural 20.

What about on a critical save the character gets some kind of advantage on their next turn, like a +1 or +2 bonus to a single die roll. It could represent turning the previous attack to their advantage and being in a better position to counter-attack.

Second question: Large scale combat where the PC's are just rank-and-file soldiers are pretty dull. PC's are more suited to special ops type missions. Maybe have the outcome of the war be more directly linked to the characters achieving some strategic and/or tactical objectives. If they manage to destroy a dam, assassinate an enemy general, lower the morale of the opposing forces, etc. it could influence the battles far more than killing more soldiers.

Or, at the very least, RP out their small squad on the larger battlefield. They could hold the line, turn an enemy flank, resist a counterattack or rally their own troops, reinforce a breach, or any number of scenarios that would play out more interestingly than a single die roll.

Seto
2015-06-19, 04:16 AM
First question: Will this be only for PC's or for NPC's too? If enemies get this benefit then it might unbalance combat as usually there are more enemies, thus more die rolls and higher chances of the opposition getting a natural 20.

What about on a critical save the character gets some kind of advantage on their next turn, like a +1 or +2 bonus to a single die roll. It could represent turning the previous attack to their advantage and being in a better position to counter-attack.

I'm hesitating. I'm thinking NPCs too. Actually, a single PC is a full caster, and so NPCs, whether casters or monsters with SLAs, usually force more saves than the PCs do. This would probably turn out in the PCs' favor overall.


Second question: Large scale combat where the PC's are just rank-and-file soldiers are pretty dull. PC's are more suited to special ops type missions. Maybe have the outcome of the war be more directly linked to the characters achieving some strategic and/or tactical objectives. If they manage to destroy a dam, assassinate an enemy general, lower the morale of the opposing forces, etc. it could influence the battles far more than killing more soldiers.

Or, at the very least, RP out their small squad on the larger battlefield. They could hold the line, turn an enemy flank, resist a counterattack or rally their own troops, reinforce a breach, or any number of scenarios that would play out more interestingly than a single die roll.

Of course. The idea there is that before the war even begins, the dice will be rolled and fix an outcome, what will happen if the PCs do nothing. Then the PCs will take part in those special ops missions, or have a specific, strategic part in a battle, and each of these successes will twist the final outcome in their favor.

Surpriser
2015-06-19, 05:51 PM
Of course. The idea there is that before the war even begins, the dice will be rolled and fix an outcome, what will happen if the PCs do nothing. Then the PCs will take part in those special ops missions, or have a specific, strategic part in a battle, and each of these successes will twist the final outcome in their favor.
Then why do you roll in the first place? Think of everything that could happen and then leave it to the PCs to either enable or thwart it. If they rescue an NPC, he lives. If they don't - tough luck, this is war.
Think of it not as a single "overall" outcome, but of multiple goals and events that may or may not depend on each other.
Presents opportunities to your players and let them sort it out for themselves.

If you roll even before the campaign starts, you have just invalidated 11/12s of your preparation (well, that is a bit exaggerated, but you get the point).
All those endings you didn't roll were prepared for nothing at all.
Additionally, in the case you roll low, the PCs will be doomed to a rather bad ending no matter what they do and if you roll high, the outcome will be necessarily favorable. Neither of the two cases will result in very invested and interested players. And if you don't tell them what you rolled, why roll at all?

Takewo
2015-06-19, 06:11 PM
About the first question, I would rather not. We used something similar in my previous table and I can say from my experience that it's awful when you can cast three spells a day and your full/half damage spell turns out to be useless because your opponent rolls a natural 20.

I have to add that in my case I was not even aware of that rule (we hadn't used it in previous encounters, our game master uses a slightly inconsistent way of ruling and decides house rules on the go... but that's another matter), which made it a lot more painful when the game master ruled that way. If your table agrees with the idea, go forth my fellow! Just make sure that they know it. But it really sucks for low-level casters or when you're trying to use other limited features.