"Fixed duration" to "save ends"

[Mouseferatu]

The purpose of the saving throw mechanic changed in 4E. It's no longer to avoid a given effect; that's what the array of defenses are for. Rather, it's a (normally) fixed difficulty to shake off an effect. Its purpose, on the meta-level, is to take the place of duration-tracking. You no longer have to keep track of whether it's been three rounds or four since the effect began; you just roll each round to see if it ends.

And that's fine, as far as it goes. It definitely runs more smoothly in that respect.

Unfortunately, the ease and smoothness break down when you get to powers that aren't "save ends." Powers or effects with durations like:

• Until the start of your next turn.
• Until the end of your next turn.
• Until the start of the target's next turn.
• Until the end of the target's next turn.

I find that those often become something of a headache to track. Oh, it can be done--it can be done fairly smoothly by a well-prepared DM--but it still gets tedious, at times.

As I may be running a game in the near future--for the first time in a few years, I must admit--I've been contemplating this. And I've come up with a house rule that I'd like to test, but I'm interested in what other gamers think.

In essence, I would eliminate every one of the aforementioned durations. Every power with an ongoing effect is "save ends." But...

There are now two levels of saving throw. Every power that is currently a "save ends" power gets a "hard save," which is 10+, as the game currently stands. Every power that currently has an "until X" duration gets an "easy save," which is 6+.

The practical effects of this are that, most of the time, such powers will only last until the end of the creature's next turn. (And with solos, they'll automatically end, since the +5 save bonus means even a 1 makes the 6 DC, and saves aren't included in the "auto-hit/auto-miss" rules that apply to attack rolls.) But on occasion, they'll squeak out an extra round or two.

Now, I recognize that this isn't 100% analogous to the old system. There are subtle but important differences between "until the end of the creature's next turn" and "until the end of your next turn." In the latter case, you yourself get to take advantage of whatever effect you put on the creature, during your next attack; in the former, you don't. My system loses that level of granularity--or rather, makes it less predictable. But I think it'll average out to close enough for most powers. And for those powers that really seem nerfed by the change, we can house rule the power as well to tweak it back to equality with others.

So rather than having to keep track of whose turn effect X ends on, or whether it's at the start or the end of the turn, all the DM has to do when someone suffers an ongoing effect is to mark H or E next to the description, and roll accordingly. No tracking, no real bookkeeping; just a few die rolls at the end of the turn.

Thoughts, opinions, and any implications you don't think I'm seeing are all welcome.

 

[fba827]

I admit that i too dislike the 4 non-save ways that effects can end (EoTNT, BoTNT,EoNT,BoNT), it is tedious to track. As you said, it can be done, but it is tedious.

Your brainstormed proposal, however, in a way, is replacing one thing (when to end an effect) with another (whether it's an easy or normal save)... in both instances, it is something you'll need to track. Without actually experiencing it, I can't say if it's "easier" or not. But at face value, it seems like just as much tracking to handle.

Other things you may want to take in to consideration:
* If your party often has leader classes that provide bonus saves (clerics and bards do this the most, i think). You could have a scenario where no one in the group has any effect since a cleric is often able to grant a bonus save before that target's turn ever comes up (whereas originally, the effect should have affected them at least once).
* As you pointed out, there is some level of granularity lost
* poor rolls can keep an effect on someone much longer than ever intended (and i've seen some players roll the statistical anomaly of multiple 1s and 2s in a row).
* save bonuses (i.e. "target gets +X power bonus to next save) could also minimize the the save to a triviality, but I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing since you wanted this to be easy to begin with
* on the other hand, save penalties (from enemy controllers), could make a save more difficult than you meant it to be

But in any case, as long as you recognize the changes that are happening from your proposal, then no reason you can't find a way to account for it or agree as a group that it's okay for your table's houserules.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Your brainstormed proposal, however, in a way, is replacing one thing (when to end an effect) with another (whether it's an easy or normal save)... in both instances, it is something you'll need to track. Without actually experiencing it, I can't say if it's "easier" or not. But at face value, it seems like just as much tracking to handle.

There's a little bookkeeping--easy or hard. But to me, that seems a lot easier that tracking A) whether it ends on the start or end of turn, and B) whether it's the attacker's or defender's turn it ends on, and C) if the former, which attacker was it? I've see lots of time and mental energy wasted on this. With the dual-save idea, there's a lot less detail to worry about. You mark the effect, you mark H or E, and done.

As an aside, you should give some consideration to whether or not your party typically has leaders that grant bonus saves (particuarly clerics and I think bards?). With bonus saves (such as a cleric that tosses around sacred flame), people could be consistently shrugging off any effect before their turn comes around, thus never actually even getting the effect of it even once (whereas EoNT, for example, would have meant it happens once).

That's a fair point. It would make some of these effects a lot easier to shake for a party with a bonus-save-heavy leader. As to whether that's a big enough difference, I'd probably have to see it in play to decide.

 

[fba827]

I edited my previous post to make it a little more readable, but it's the same content-wise..

you were too quick to reply!

 

[fba827]

But, yeah, nothing I mentioned is in any way a "major obstacle" to what you're proposing.

I was just brainstorming little things that should at least be taken into consideration.
If there is anything "major" i haven't been able to think of it yet

I do definetly want an easier effect tracking system than there is now. Not all the players in my group are able to keep up with tracking when the different things end that are on them and the DM often has to remind them (if they even remember what is on them from round to round as it is).

(as an aside, i did not notice much in terms of the odd tracking in the few powers i read from the essentials line -- that's not to say they aren't there, for i haven't read enough of it to know one way or the other, but it did seem 'less' from what i read)

 

[Rune]

Could work nicely for what you want it to do. Alternatively, if you don't care about details like what part of the turn an effect ends on (as, it seems, is the case), consider giving out tokens for each effect. When the character is affected by the effect, discard the token. Simple, fast, and, importantly, tactile, so harder to forget.

 

[toshi]

Often 'save ends' is much weaker than 'until ...' because elites/solos have bonusses to saves,
and leaders can give additional save rolls to players. Or just think of a warden...

So why is the save DC for 'until ...' conditions lower? Seems odd to me.

 

[Saeviomagy]

First up, I'm not sure I see that there's a huge bookkeeping effort going on. Most monster groups aren't going to mix similar effects with different durations, and secondly most players can keep track of their own effects.

Compared with keeping track of who marked who, who's granting CA to who, who's stealthed from who, and how all your monster abilities interlock it's an insignificant issue.

However what you lose is every single power intended to aid a player on their next go. Because "EONT" powers are suddenly "usually the end of the monster's next turn", you're not going to, say, be able to grant yourself combat advantage. Any power which requires the target be in a specific condition is going to require someone else to set you up. In and of itself, that's workable: the powers become slightly less good, and you require more teamwork to set things up. The rogue is probably the hardest hit by the change: there's a lot of powers who's prime reason for inflicting a condition until EONT is to enable sneak attack next round. That functionality just goes away.

There's a fair few "the target grants combat advantage to you until EONT". All those powers become close to completely worthless.

Personally I think it's a pretty heavy impact on the game (and an unbalanced one, because EONT powers are not evenly spread) for a minimal improvement in bookkeeping.

 

[UnknownAtThisTime]

I have had, for some months now, the exact same general idea as Mouseferatu with regard to the "standardizing" of effects durations.

My opinions (not facts) Below:

1. The varying conditions and, specifically, their varied durations is the SINGLE BIGGEST headache to our game. I recognize that these are crucial to the game design, but they really are a pain (for us) and they really tie up game speed.
2. Standardizing to an all "Save Ends" mechanic would certainly save our group time and ease on book-keeping attack effects that target opponents ... but ....
3. Unfortunately, it is not just "save conditions" against targets that trip us up. This applies as much or more to "buffs" targetting allies or areas.

Because of reason three, I am inclined to "do nothing", and not implement a suggestion such as Mouse's, because it is only a partial solution to my larger problem. It is much more likely that I or the player forget the Cleric used his healing surge and gets a bonus to his AC when the Black Pudding attacks him later in the round.

Make no mistake, a group that is more "on top of things" with a "competent DM" instead of my band of short attention spanners led by a bumbling DM (me) would not have as much difficulty as we encounter.

 

[Stalker0]

Probably the biggest change this makes is to durations that are "until the end of my next turn".

For example, many controller powers will daze or stun a monsters "until the end of the controller's next turn".

So after the controller casts it, there's a full turn of initiatives of kicking the bad guy before he loses the effect.

With a saving throw, the effect has the potential to end on the monsters turn, meaning that duration can be much shorter.


Controllers can minimize this effect by delaying till right after the monster, but that can be considered a little cheesy.

Not saying this is a problem for your system necessarily, but it is something to keep in mind.