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 !
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 !