D&D 5E Ranking Conditions

[Esker]

You might have an easier time divorcing conditions from durations if you break up the existing conditions into their component ingredients, and try to assign some kind of point value to those ingredients. For example, most conditions consist of some combination of:

1. adv/disadv on ability checks
2. adv/disadv on attacks
3. adv/disadv on attacks against you
4. adv/disadv on a type of saving throw
5. auto-fail a type of saving throw
6. can't take an action
7. speed halved
8. speed reduced to zero
9. close range hits against you become crits
10. you can't see
11. you can't be seen
12. you can't hear

And then there are some conditional versions of these (e.g., frightened impairs your movement in a particular way that isn't a flat reduction to speed). We have

Blinded = (2)+(3)+(10)
Deafened = (12)
Grappled = (8)
Incapacitated = (6)
Invisible = (2)+(3)+(11)
Paralyzed = (3)+(5)+(5)+(6)+(8)+(9)
Petrified = (3)+(5)+(5)+(6)+(8)+(special)
Poisoned = (1)+(2)
Prone = (2)+(3*)+(7)
Restrained = (2)+(3)+(4)+(8)
Stunned = (3)+(5)+(5)+(6)
Unconscious = (3*)+(5)+(5)+(6)+(8)+(9)
Exhaustion 1: (1)
Exhaustion 2: (1)+(7)
Exhaustion 3: (1)+(7)+(2)+(4)+(4)+(4)
Exhaustion 4: (1)+(7)+(2)+(4)+(4)+(4)+(special)
Exhaustion 5: (1)+(7)+(2)+(4)+(4)+(4)+(8)+(special)

I would probably bin these ingredients into:

Trivial: (12)
Minor: (1), (4), (7)
Moderate: (8), (10), (11)
Major: (2), (3), (5), (9)
Severe: (6)

 

[dave2008]

That conditions shouldn't be divorced from the mechanics surrounding them.

"Petrified" is a condition, but the fact that petrified is a "Save against X, or be Y, then save against Y repeatedly; on 3 failures, you get Petrified, on 3 success you are free" is part of the package for petrified.

Ranking it in isolation (a) encourages non-5e style effects, and (b) is less useful than ranking a package if you want to do 5e style effects.

I disagree to some extent. I would like, ultimately, to have many variables that interact. When you factor in all the interactions you get something akin to a 5e spell. However, the design goal is not to re-create 5e spells or a model to make similar spells. The goal is to create an improved method of improvised spell and maneuver effects. Perhaps you missed this post where I explained it more.

So the plan is to rank things in isolation and then develop a method for them to interact. So you can pick condition A, duration, B, and range X and the formula spits out the result and the player and I (DM) can understand without much fuss what the "mechanical effect" of the crazy idea is. So, in theory, the player can say on want to cast two fireballs and we just look at the chart(s) and determine the range, area off effect, and damage. Basically, there are no spells, just the character's imagination.

 

[dave2008]

You might have an easier time divorcing conditions from durations if you break up the existing conditions into their component ingredients, and try to assign some kind of point value to those ingredients. For example, most conditions consist of some combination of:

1. adv/disadv on ability checks
2. adv/disadv on attacks
3. adv/disadv on attacks against you
4. adv/disadv on a type of saving throw
5. auto-fail a type of saving throw
6. can't take an action
7. speed halved
8. speed reduced to zero
9. close range hits against you become crits
10. you can't see
11. you can't be seen
12. you can't hear

And then there are some conditional versions of these (e.g., frightened impairs your movement in a particular way that isn't a flat reduction to speed). We have

Blinded = (2)+(3)+(10)
Deafened = (12)
Grappled = (8)
Incapacitated = (6)
Invisible = (2)+(3)+(11)
Paralyzed = (3)+(5)+(5)+(6)+(8)+(9)
Petrified = (3)+(5)+(5)+(6)+(8)+(special)
Poisoned = (1)+(2)
Prone = (2)+(3*)+(7)
Restrained = (2)+(3)+(4)+(8)
Stunned = (3)+(5)+(5)+(6)
Unconscious = (3*)+(5)+(5)+(6)+(8)+(9)
Exhaustion 1: (1)
Exhaustion 2: (1)+(7)
Exhaustion 3: (1)+(7)+(2)+(4)+(4)+(4)
Exhaustion 4: (1)+(7)+(2)+(4)+(4)+(4)+(special)
Exhaustion 5: (1)+(7)+(2)+(4)+(4)+(4)+(8)+(special)

I would probably bin these ingredients into:

Trivial: (12)
Minor: (1), (4), (7)
Moderate: (8), (10), (11)
Major: (2), (3), (5), (9)
Severe: (6)

That is a great idea and thank you for the advice and input. I will take that into consideration most definitely!

 

[NotAYakk]

I disagree to some extent. I would like, ultimately, to have many variables that interact. When you factor in all the interactions you get something akin to a 5e spell. However, the design goal is not to re-create 5e spells or a model to make similar spells. The goal is to create an improved method of improvised spell and maneuver effects. Perhaps you missed this post where I explained it more.

So the plan is to rank things in isolation and then develop a method for them to interact. So you can pick condition A, duration, B, and range X and the formula spits out the result and the player and I (DM) can understand without much fuss what the "mechanical effect" of the crazy idea is. So, in theory, the player can say on want to cast two fireballs and we just look at the chart(s) and determine the range, area off effect, and damage. Basically, there are no spells, just the character's imagination.

No I didn't miss that.

But I'm saying that "petrified" should be a slow, preventable process in 5e, with an initial condition that develops into fully being stoned. And that is actually part of what it means to be petrified in 5e. The rules for the "petrified" condition don't reflect that, they just describe the mechanical bundle of what happens at the end of the process.

The "story" of petrified -- that you have an initial save, then a process as you harden, then you are stone -- is as core to the petrified effect in 5e as the rules for the petrified condition.

By splitting off that mechanical bundle of effects, you do harm to a core 5e design philosophy, and that harm is completely unneeded.

If you look at what Esker did, he did it for the purpose of analysis. But imagine if you actually started building new effects using those 12 elements instead of the conditions in 5e.

By ranking effects and not effect stories you are going to encourage yourself to do that.

I can give a concrete example. An effect that makes you both invisible and stunned is qualitatively different than an effect that does either, and the rankings of either invisible or stunned tell you next to nothing about how you should rank the combination. I mean, you can say "it is worse than self-invisbile" and "better than self-stunned" without analyzing how they interact with some reasonable chance of being right.

A slow invisibility, that starts out by forcing disadvantage on attacks, then you gain advantage on attacks, then you go invisible, is another "effect story" that is very different than "pop, I am invisible". An invisibilty that breaks when you take damage, or breaks when you attack, or doesn't, are again very different things than invisibility.

I could even go further. The fact that stunning blow is a melee-range ability that targets con makes it worse than it would otherwise be, because melee range is easiest to get on a melee foe, and melee foes often have higher con than non-melee foes. The fact it is on a monk makes it not as bad as it could be, because the monk can disengage as a bonus action and move very fast to engage back line foes.

A con-based ranged stun is a bigger upgrade than doing the same with an int-based melee stun to a ranged stun, because high-int foes often seek to avoid melee, while high con foes tend to want to force melee. You'll more often want to use the int-based stun on a foe who is in melee than you'd want to use the con-based stun on a foe who is in melee.

What I'm saying is you should build effect stories and rank those, instead of ranking mechanical conditions divorced from the surrounding machinery. You can make these effect stories generic and not tied to specific spells.

Then instead of invoking an effect, you can find an effect story that is similar to the story of the effect they are improvising, and use that to rank how powerful it is.

 

[dave2008]

But I'm saying that "petrified" should be a slow, preventable process in 5e, with an initial condition that develops into fully being stoned. And that is actually part of what it means to be petrified in 5e. The rules for the "petrified" condition don't reflect that, they just describe the mechanical bundle of what happens at the end of the process.

The "story" of petrified -- that you have an initial save, then a process as you harden, then you are stone -- is as core to the petrified effect in 5e as the rules for the petrified condition.

It seems I wasn't clear. I am not interested in "what it means to be petrified in 5e." I am interested in the petrified condtion and how it be applied different based on the caster's creativity, without relying on DM fiat.

By splitting off that mechanical bundle of effects, you do harm to a core 5e design philosophy, and that harm is completely unneeded.

That is exactly what is needed. This whole concept is partially against the core D&D philosophy. I am trying to do something distinctly different from the core 5e experience.

If you look at what Esker did, he did it for the purpose of analysis. But imagine if you actually started building new effects using those 12 elements instead of the conditions in 5e.

By ranking effects and not effect stories you are going to encourage yourself to do that.

I can give a concrete example. An effect that makes you both invisible and stunned is qualitatively different than an effect that does either, and the rankings of either invisible or stunned tell you next to nothing about how you should rank the combination. I mean, you can say "it is worse than self-invisbile" and "better than self-stunned" without analyzing how they interact with some reasonable chance of being right.

A slow invisibility, that starts out by forcing disadvantage on attacks, then you gain advantage on attacks, then you go invisible, is another "effect story" that is very different than "pop, I am invisible". An invisibilty that breaks when you take damage, or breaks when you attack, or doesn't, are again very different things than invisibility.

I could even go further. The fact that stunning blow is a melee-range ability that targets con makes it worse than it would otherwise be, because melee range is easiest to get on a melee foe, and melee foes often have higher con than non-melee foes. The fact it is on a monk makes it not as bad as it could be, because the monk can disengage as a bonus action and move very fast to engage back line foes.

A con-based ranged stun is a bigger upgrade than doing the same with an int-based melee stun to a ranged stun, because high-int foes often seek to avoid melee, while high con foes tend to want to force melee. You'll more often want to use the int-based stun on a foe who is in melee than you'd want to use the con-based stun on a foe who is in melee.

What I'm saying is you should build effect stories and rank those, instead of ranking mechanical conditions divorced from the surrounding machinery. You can make these effect stories generic and not tied to specific spells.

Then instead of invoking an effect, you can find an effect story that is similar to the story of the effect they are improvising, and use that to rank how powerful it is.

We are trying to do different things. I appreciate the effort you put into your responses, but you are missing the point of my goals. You have different ideas, that is great, but they are of little help to me and my project. Thank you again for your time and effort. Good luck!

 

[NotAYakk]

Ah. Then just use the pieces that Esker mentioned.

1. adv/disadv on ability checks
2. adv/disadv on attacks
3. adv/disadv on attacks against you
4. adv/disadv on a type of saving throw
5. auto-fail a type of saving throw
6. can't take an action
7. speed halved
8. speed reduced to zero
9. close range hits against you become crits
10. you can't see
11. you can't be seen
12. you can't hear

Nevermind the existing named conditions. "speed halved plus cannot take an action", or "disadvantage on ability checks and you can't see" (but you don't have disadvantage on attack rolls).

They are mechanical things with fixed effects on the game and no attachment to the "story" part of the game, and should be what you need. With the story torn off, you don't need to give then names like "stunned" or "petrified" (which has little mechanical impact, other than some spells which target named conditions), nor do they have to be clumped in any way beyond your fiat.

Dumb Looking Ice Boots: Target has its speed reduced to zero and auto-fails intelligence saving throws.
Chicken Drumstick: Target has its speed halved, has advantage on attacks against you, and disadvantage on wisdom saving throws.
Full Body Camo Paint: You cannot be seen, you cannot see, and you have disadvantage on all ability checks and advantage on all attack rolls.

The existing named conditions only exist in order to hook them into the narrative fiction of 5e. Keeping them together when you want to discard the connection to the existing fiction of 5e is not needed.

Btw, that list is missing "cannot move towards you" (from frightened).

 

[Esker]

What I'm saying is you should build effect stories and rank those, instead of ranking mechanical conditions divorced from the surrounding machinery. You can make these effect stories generic and not tied to specific spells.

Then instead of invoking an effect, you can find an effect story that is similar to the story of the effect they are improvising, and use that to rank how powerful it is.

So you essentially want to make PECOTA for D&D...

 

[dave2008]

Ah. Then just use the pieces that Esker mentioned.

1. adv/disadv on ability checks
2. adv/disadv on attacks
3. adv/disadv on attacks against you
4. adv/disadv on a type of saving throw
5. auto-fail a type of saving throw
6. can't take an action
7. speed halved
8. speed reduced to zero
9. close range hits against you become crits
10. you can't see
11. you can't be seen
12. you can't hear

Yes, when I get time to dive a little deeper I think I will use @Esker 's idea as a cross check / fine tuning of the concept.

Nevermind the existing named conditions. "speed halved plus cannot take an action", or "disadvantage on ability checks and you can't see" (but you don't have disadvantage on attack rolls).

They are mechanical things with fixed effects on the game and no attachment to the "story" part of the game, and should be what you need. With the story torn off, you don't need to give then names like "stunned" or "petrified" (which has little mechanical impact, other than some spells which target named conditions), nor do they have to be clumped in any way beyond your fiat.

The existing named conditions only exist in order to hook them into the narrative fiction of 5e. Keeping them together when you want to discard the connection to the existing fiction of 5e is not needed.

No the value as a shorthand that I want to keep. Picking 2-4+ different effects is less efficient than picking one condition.

Also, the story isn't torn off, it is liberated to become a greater part of our story. It is not shackled to the limit concept of the 5e story, it is free to engage in the story my players want to tell in new and exciting ways!

Btw, that list is missing "cannot move towards you" (from frightened).

Thank you for catching that! EDIT. Actually Esker did mention that.

 

[dave2008]

Btw, that list is missing "cannot move towards you" (from frightened).

Also missed "dead" too, but I caught that already (from exhaustion level 6)