Hey, I like this topic!
either Desther is some form of neutral alignment, or Protection from Evil does not protect against Hold Person cast by any alignment.
As MrZork mentioned, Desther (oddly) is True Neutral, if you're curious. Glad to hear you've been enjoying the game more, though.
I find it more realistic that there is a small chance of winning against a much higher levelled opponent thanks to some amazing luck. I cannot, however, see any dependable strategy being built around this feature...Of course, I'm assuming the player doesn't practise save scumming.
I wasn't referring to save scumming either. Note that there's a difference between "having a small chance of winning" and "having a small chance to instantly kill the enemy."
And, despite your perception, there are dependable strategies built around it. A level 20+ Sorcerer will easily have 24+ instant death spells, for example, just looking at level 7-9 spells only. That's over a 70% chance to kill the target with once of those cases (0.95 ^ 24). Open it up to a multiplayer environment (or throw in some scrolls) and even with just two people spamming Save or Die (which, at a minimum, includes Clerics/Druids/Sorcerers/Wizards) you're up to over a 90% chance.
I've played on PWs which had bosses where the community strategy was "Bring instant death casters and scrolls and spam until the boss does." It worked. Yes, the level 5 rogue example was extreme but that was the point of said example -- a level 5 rogue and a level 40 wizard both have (barring SR for a moment) a 5% chance to instantly kill the Supreme Ancient Exalted Dragon Guardian of Uberness when using a death spell/scroll.
This isn't even bringing up the problems of Devastating Critical and Vorpal which *have* no "limited uses."
A character's success or failure in that story ought to depend on preparation, planning, good tactics, and story needs, not a random dice throw.
"Automatic success on a 20" is fine for any kind of attack roll, even though the damage from that "critical hit" might be negligible against gods and dragons.
"Automatic save failure on a 1" is not fine to me, not in a game with save-or-die spells in it, which is supposed to be a framework for good storytelling.
The first sentence is the main problem with Save or Die (or equivalent) effects. The enemy crits me with a good roll? I need to drink a potion or use a defensive ability or run away and recover or something. If that enemy crit me when I was at low health and I died? I needed to be more cautious and not let my health get that low. I failed a Fireball spell reflex throw? Damn, I took double damage and might be in a bad spot, need to figure out what to do. I failed a Finger of Death spell? Whoops, reload. Note that I have less issues with Save or Die *without* auto-fail -- in that case it's more of a "Keep out unless you have X saving throw or immunity" (though I still am not fond of the mechanic for several reasons) -- but with auto-fail it's ridiculous.
And yes, that's one (of many) ways to explain why auto-success on 20 isn't a gamebreaker like auto-fail on 1. If Finger of Death had the *caster* roll and automatically killed the target on a 20, then that would be a problem.
The real problem is not anything you mention above. It isn't spamming (directly). It's called the law of averages: a statistical principle formulated by Jakob Bernoulli to show a more or less predictable ratio between the number of random trials of an event and its occurrences. Short of altering reality, no one is getting around it.
The core problem is the amount of events occurring within a game environment. In the real world, the number of times one finds themselves in a situation where they are being attacked is low in most cases. In a game world, they occur every few minutes. There's no way around this unless you're up for one boring game. There's also the issue of taking saves quite literally. Making a fortitude save doesn't mean your character was hit and shrugged it off with a laugh and a one liner that would make Roddy Piper or Stallone look impotent before pouncing into action.
I must point out you aren't complaining about automatic success on 20 at all either, so it evidently isn't the rule that bothers you as much as the fact that it affected you. Removing it may give you the sense of a new lease on the game (and I would question the merit of one that would give up on a game over a rare bad roll)
While your first paragraphs are somewhat true, there are in fact many situations in NWN where you *are* spammed *within a single encounter* and the law of averages raises its ugly head.
The difference between auto-success on 20 and auto-fail on 1 is the difference between having a 5% chance of surviving a fatal attack and a 5% chance of delivering a fatal attack -- the odds of your day being ruined because an enemy rolled a 20 (or your day being saved because you rolled a 20) is extremely low. If you got hit with one 95% chance of dying attack, chances are you'll be hit with another (and if you survive both of those then you are 1 out of 400 people). And probably a third or fourth for good measure. Likewise, even if an enemy lucks out and survives one attack he shouldn't, chances are you so outclass said enemy that it doesn't really change anything. Note that I'd be perfectly fine with removing auto-20s (like, y'know, already exists for skill checks).
And regarding giving up on a game -- well, not every situation is one where you can easily laugh off a "bad roll" and reload (PWs or potentially DMed campaigns, as two examples). And some situations, as mentioned, involve getting spammed and thus a bad roll is extremely likely to happen at some point during that encounter.
I agree that the auto-fail-on-1 is pretty dumb system. I don't think any player should feel bad about disabling it. I also think most PWs (certainly any that I have played) would benefit from disabling it. In a party situation, the auto-fail rule is not as catastrophic as it is when soloing. But, anyone running a PW (even a party-focused one) should understand that soloists benefit the server, because then there is someone on to heed the call when someone shouts to see if anyone wants to team up. If no one feels safe soloing because the players know that they will eventually roll that one, then fewer players will be on to form parties.
Preach it, brother!
I especially love worlds that tout "MASSIVE DEATH PENALTIES! SO COOL! JOIN UP!" that have situations like that.
Where are you playing these days, btw?
But, it's worth pointing out that you didn't fail that save because of the auto-fail rule. Not that that is an argument in favor of the rule (I say dump it if you don't like it), but it's an odd jumping off point for this thread. :-)
Do not discourage the converts.
Do not discourage the converts.
Do not discourage the converts.
Even with a successful DC check or when cast by an actual caster, such spells have only a 1 percent chance on my PW of instant death. I've applied this to AA's death arrows as well.
To be clear, you mean a roll of 1 effectively results in rolling a d5 and if another 1 is rolled *then* the creature dies? I realize the exact method might vary but that's the idea?
For those curious, if you use my earlier numbers (24 instant death casts) that results in a 21.5%ish chance of succeeding versus over 70%. I do wonder why you even keep the chance at that point. If you expect your players to figure out tactics beyond "Pray for an auto-fail on instant death" then why not commit to that idea? If you can't instantly kill it legitimately, then you can't instantly kill it.
Also, am I reading your scroll check correctly? A rogue with 14 Charisma and full UMD would need to be level 19 in order to never fail using a Fireball (caster level 5) scroll?
I heard about the term fairly recently, too (five years maybe?); but I certainly engaged in the "shameful" activity in the first Fallout (and perhaps in older games, too!)
My world has been shattered. I don't know if we can be friends anymore.
Also note that many creatures have low DC abilities that would be rendered ineffective if the auto-fail on 1 were disabled. Should a PC's average saves allow him to rush into a basilisk's nest and go full tilt slaughter? Taking away the auto-fail will often remove intended elements of the game.
Given the default game mechanics, yes. See MrZork's post before mine for alternatives that don't suck.
