|
|
Post by mabon5127 on May 17, 2013 21:58:53 GMT -6
The party was attacked by 8 Ghasts in the old section of Khromarium. They rolled badly on top of facing tough foes. Every single character was paralyzed and hauled away to be eaten. They will have an opportunity to escape as they will be interrogated by the big boss (or just die later).
My question is as a ghast has three attacks per round do you make a paralysis save for every hit that does damage or just one for the entire round regardless? I chose to allow the character to have to save once in the round regardless of the number of hits.
What say the rest of you?
Morgan
|
|
|
|
Post by blackadder23 on May 17, 2013 23:20:16 GMT -6
I require a separate save for every hit; IMO ghouls and ghasts are supposed to be terrifying. On the other hand, I use them sparingly because it's a potential TPK every time.
|
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 17, 2013 23:56:07 GMT -6
I don't know about AS&SH, but in OD&D combat rounds are abstract things a minute long. An attack roll doesn't necessarily represent exactly one hit, it represents the overall performance across the minute long round. Under that paradigm it wouldn't make sense to require save on every hit because we never really know exactly how many "hits" there were.
I'm guessing the fact that it rolls three attacks per round means it's something closer to a GH/AD&D combat round... I'm not sure how long those are meant to be.
Regarding being captured and eaten by the bad guys later... sounds like a perfect opportunity for one of those rolls where charisma decides "whether or not a witch capturing a player will turn him into a swine or keep him enchanted as a lover." ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by mabon5127 on May 18, 2013 9:29:34 GMT -6
The rounds are 10 seconds long. Still a pretty long time in terms of furious combat.
I'm leaning toward the one save vs a save per hit. I think its enough of an advantage to have three chances to trigger a save.
They rolled so bad and went down so fast it was unbelievable. Of Course Old Khromarium is a dangerous place...
Morgan
|
|
|
|
Post by Ghul on May 18, 2013 17:14:22 GMT -6
I do one save for the round, not per hit in the attack routine.
|
|
|
|
Post by blackadder23 on May 18, 2013 20:13:59 GMT -6
I'll consider that the official answer for how to handle it in AS&SH.  I still think you guys are softies though.  (What level are these characters anyway? Eight ghasts sounds worse than anything in the Tomb of Horrors.  Or are your PCs playing "iron man" style?) |
|
|
|
Post by Ghul on May 19, 2013 6:18:22 GMT -6
Sure, and one could also argue in 1e that since claw/claw/bite is considered a single attack routine (and not 3 attacks), one save is all that is required, but I am no Sage. Still, play it how you feel best, ba23! |
|
|
|
Post by mabon5127 on May 19, 2013 7:35:49 GMT -6
I'll consider that the official answer for how to handle it in AS&SH. I still think you guys are softies though. (What level are these characters anyway? Eight ghasts sounds worse than anything in the Tomb of Horrors. Or are your PCs playing "iron man" style?) They were making a foray into the haunted old city. I doubled the range of number encountered on ghasts from 1d4 to 1d8 due to the dangerous nature of the area and guess what.... I really thought they would prevail but they rolled very bady, didn't use their silvered weapons, and the creatures rolled very well! It happens! They needed a little lesson in the danger of combat and so it goes.... Morgan |
|
Keps
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 118
|
Post by Keps on May 19, 2013 9:16:48 GMT -6
I used to always check the groups chance to save. That many Ghasts, I'm assuming a high-level game which still makes it about a 50-50 chance to save. If the parties average save is above a 14, you as the DM can't say, "They just rolled bad". Also, only one check for each PC hit for the whole encounter. And lastly, when you set up an encounter with a creature that paralyzes, always assume it will paralyze the fighters, so always make the number appearing an amount the wizard and thief can handle alone.
|
|
|
|
Post by mabon5127 on May 19, 2013 10:16:16 GMT -6
I used to always check the groups chance to save. That many Ghasts, I'm assuming a high-level game which still makes it about a 50-50 chance to save. If the parties average save is above a 14, you as the DM can't say, "They just rolled bad". Also, only one check for each PC hit for the whole encounter. And lastly, when you set up an encounter with a creature that paralyzes, always assume it will paralyze the fighters, so always make the number appearing an amount the wizard and thief can handle alone. I agree the encounter was very tough. Too tough for their level. But as to rolling I in my head was referring to them hitting and being hit. I wouldn't play one save per encounter but different strokes... I don't necessarily balance encounters, close counts, given the equipment they had I thought they may pull it off. So given my responsibility in the mess and their abysmal rolls they were captured for interrogation to give some 2nd chance. Thanks for the input. Morgan |
|
|
|
Post by owlorbs on May 19, 2013 10:49:59 GMT -6
Ghasts are nasty indeed.
This looks to me like a good opportunity for a "devil's bargain" with the ghast's leader/demon. Perhaps the characters will walk away, but at what cost?
|
|
Keps
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 118
|
Post by Keps on May 19, 2013 12:36:04 GMT -6
I wouldn't play one save per encounter but different strokes... 1 save/creature, no matter how many times he hits you, but if you fight a different one in the same encounter, and he hits you, save again. 'turn to stone' I would do multiple times per same creature |
|
|
|
Post by waysoftheearth on May 19, 2013 17:05:57 GMT -6
when you set up an encounter with a creature that paralyzes, always assume it will paralyze the fighters, so always make the number appearing an amount the wizard and thief can handle alone. That's not really the "old skool" way. The ref is not meant to set up a series of beatable encounters that the PCs can win. He's meant to present the PCs with whatever the game rolls up. It's up to the players to decide whether they should run, or chance a fight. |
|
Keps
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 118
|
Post by Keps on May 19, 2013 17:58:12 GMT -6
when you set up an encounter with a creature that paralyzes, always assume it will paralyze the fighters, so always make the number appearing an amount the wizard and thief can handle alone. That's not really the "old skool" way. The ref is not meant to set up a series of beatable encounters that the PCs can win. He's meant to present the PCs with whatever the game rolls up. It's up to the players to decide whether they should run, or chance a fight. I agree 100%......with creatures that don't paralyze you. |
|
|
|
Post by blackadder23 on May 19, 2013 19:02:40 GMT -6
I agree 100%......with creatures that don't paralyze you. It seems to me you could make the same argument about pretty much any special ability. We're going to play Old School... except for monsters that paralyze you. Except for monsters that petrify you. Except for monsters that poison you. Except for monsters with spells. Except for monsters with multiple attacks. Except for monsters with a bonus to surprise. Where do you draw the line? The training wheels have to come off sometime, right? In my view, the party thieves and magic-users shouldn't expect to beat a foe that took out the party fighters, especially not in melee. Such a foe is ipso facto beyond them, and they should most likely be running. They can always come back later with a better plan (and to bury what's left of the fighters, of course). |
|
|
|
Post by mabon5127 on May 19, 2013 19:50:09 GMT -6
Ghasts are nasty indeed. This looks to me like a good opportunity for a "devil's bargain" with the ghast's leader/demon. Perhaps the characters will walk away, but at what cost? Sweet idea! I think this time it will be a cut scene opportunity as something really awful wanders by scattering the ghasts in fear but having no time to bother with the petty machinations of a party of paralyzed adventurers. This will give them a fearful view of the power behind this small section of the old city! Perhaps a light touch will connect one of the characters with this being for a time until boredom with the mortal plaything sets in. Your suggestion has "wormed" its way into my characters future.... Thanks! Morgan |
|
|
|
Post by rabindranath72 on May 31, 2013 3:07:22 GMT -6
when you set up an encounter with a creature that paralyzes, always assume it will paralyze the fighters, so always make the number appearing an amount the wizard and thief can handle alone. The ref is not meant to set up a series of beatable encounters that the PCs can win. He's meant to present the PCs with whatever the game rolls up. It's up to the players to decide whether they should run, or chance a fight. Perhaps not, but Gygax himself advocates the creation of balanced encounters. What are pre-set encounter tables by level if not algorithmic prescriptions of balance? |
|
|
|
Post by blackadder23 on May 31, 2013 8:39:09 GMT -6
Perhaps not, but Gygax himself advocates the creation of balanced encounters. What are pre-set encounter tables by level if not algorithmic prescriptions of balance? Algorithmic suggestions of balance? I do agree with you, to some extent. I would never put a hill giant or an ancient red dragon in a dungeon for first level characters and say, "Well, they'll just have to be smart enough to avoid it". As DM I feel a certain responsibility to present a challenge, and getting hopelessly slaughtered isn't really much of a challenge. So I do agree that a DM should at least try to eyeball a rough and ready sort of "balance", at least in my philosophy of running the game. What I object to in the statement you quoted is the idea that PCs are entitled to fight everything they meet and win. In my view, they are not. Frankly, 90% of the time, the whole party should retreat on sight of ghouls or ghasts (not to mention energy draining monsters) if escape is an option. Why risk it, unless truly fabulous treasure (or something else vital) is at stake? You don't have to fight everything you meet just for the sake of fighting it. At the very least, the party should try to find an alternative to hand-to-hand combat with ghouls, ghasts, wights, etc. (such as a missile ambush or setting a flaming oil trap, to give two possible examples). I also strenuously object to the idea that the party thieves and magic-users are entitled to win a combat against creatures that took out the party fighters. Combat is the purview of fighters in Old School games. Old School thieves are not ninjas, and Old School magic-users are not really "combat mages". I know I sound like a broken record here, but it bears repeating: if monsters have taken out the party fighters, unless the magic-users have truly powerful spells memorized and a clear chance to use them before being overwhelmed, they should be RUNNING. The party thieves should be RUNNING. If they elect to hang around and melee with ghouls that just made short work of the party fighters, in my mind they deserve to have their gnawed bones share a pile with the gnawed bones of the fighters. Just one old DM's opinion. |
|
|
|
Post by Ghul on May 31, 2013 9:22:11 GMT -6
Perhaps not, but Gygax himself advocates the creation of balanced encounters. What are pre-set encounter tables by level if not algorithmic prescriptions of balance? Algorithmic suggestions of balance? I do agree with you, to some extent. I would never put a hill giant or an ancient red dragon in a dungeon for first level characters and say, "Well, they'll just have to be smart enough to avoid it". That's funny, because Gary had me put a hill giant in the first level of Castle Zagyg, but it was set up in such a way that the players could avoid and/or outsmart him. As Kenny would say, "You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, Know when to walk away and know when to run." |
|
|
|
Post by blackadder23 on May 31, 2013 10:48:53 GMT -6
That's funny, because Gary had me put a hill giant in the first level of Castle Zagyg, but it was set up in such a way that the players could avoid and/or outsmart him. As Kenny would say, "You got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, Know when to walk away and know when to run."That just proves you and Gary are more hardcore than I am. ;D But I agree with your sentiment. Players should ask "Can I handle this?" and "What's in it for me?" before every fight. "Because it's there" is not a good enough reason to fight anything, and especially not creatures with paralysis and the like. |
|
|
|
Post by jasonzavoda on Jun 5, 2013 17:04:17 GMT -6
Perhaps not, but Gygax himself advocates the creation of balanced encounters. What are pre-set encounter tables by level if not algorithmic prescriptions of balance? Algorithmic suggestions of balance? I do agree with you, to some extent. I would never put a hill giant or an ancient red dragon in a dungeon for first level characters and say, "Well, they'll just have to be smart enough to avoid it". As DM I feel a certain responsibility to present a challenge, and getting hopelessly slaughtered isn't really much of a challenge. So I do agree that a DM should at least try to eyeball a rough and ready sort of "balance", at least in my philosophy of running the game. What I object to in the statement you quoted is the idea that PCs are entitled to fight everything they meet and win. In my view, they are not. Frankly, 90% of the time, the whole party should retreat on sight of ghouls or ghasts (not to mention energy draining monsters) if escape is an option. Why risk it, unless truly fabulous treasure (or something else vital) is at stake? You don't have to fight everything you meet just for the sake of fighting it. At the very least, the party should try to find an alternative to hand-to-hand combat with ghouls, ghasts, wights, etc. (such as a missile ambush or setting a flaming oil trap, to give two possible examples). I also strenuously object to the idea that the party thieves and magic-users are entitled to win a combat against creatures that took out the party fighters. Combat is the purview of fighters in Old School games. Old School thieves are not ninjas, and Old School magic-users are not really "combat mages". I know I sound like a broken record here, but it bears repeating: if monsters have taken out the party fighters, unless the magic-users have truly powerful spells memorized and a clear chance to use them before being overwhelmed, they should be RUNNING. The party thieves should be RUNNING. If they elect to hang around and melee with ghouls that just made short work of the party fighters, in my mind they deserve to have their gnawed bones share a pile with the gnawed bones of the fighters. Just one old DM's opinion. I wouldn't put a hill giant or red dragon in a 1st level adventure all the time, but if it seemed appropriate I would. There isn't much difference between 1st level players encountering a 6HD opponent and a 12HD opponent. Either should be able to kill the entire party. Life just isn't fair and sometimes the players will come up against opponents they cannot defeat in combat. They will need to find a way to continue that doesn't involve combat. Running away is a good option, but the game is as full of other options as the expanse of the players imagination and I always find that imagination is what the game is really all about. |
|
|
|
Post by mabon5127 on Jun 5, 2013 17:12:54 GMT -6
Welcome back jasonzavoda!
|
|
|
|
Post by blackadder23 on Jun 5, 2013 17:20:46 GMT -6
To be honest, I personally wouldn't spring a 6 HD monster on a beginning party either. An ogre (I mean "mountain ape") is about my limit to use on complete greenhorns. I still have the stocking tables from the old DMG stuck in my head I guess. |
|
|
|
Post by jasonzavoda on Jun 5, 2013 17:37:06 GMT -6
Welcome back jasonzavoda! Thanks! Don't know how long I will be around before taking time out for an extended hospital stay but I'm going to try to get as much creative work done as possible while I have the chance. |
|
|
|
Post by Ghul on Jun 5, 2013 19:42:53 GMT -6
Welcome back jasonzavoda! Thanks! Don't know how long I will be around before taking time out for an extended hospital stay but I'm going to try to get as much creative work done as possible while I have the chance. I wish you good health and fortune for whatever you're going through, Jason. You'll be in our thoughts! Be well. --Jeff T. |
|
|
|
Post by mabon5127 on Jun 5, 2013 19:50:16 GMT -6
Me too, what Jeff said!
Morgan
|
|
I still think you guys are softies though. 
Or are your PCs playing "iron man" style?)
