D&D 4E 4e - Is it really D&D Yet?

[Felon]

From what we've seen so far, the answer is no...at least in the 3e sense. In 4e, it appears you have 3 kinds of durations.

Save ends. A round per round spell that has no set limit, simply a saving throw roll.
Encounter. The spell lasts the encounter. No more, no less.
Longer duration. This is the fuzzy one, we haven't heard much about this. We know fly can last for up to 5 minutes. Who knows how long rituals last.

But at least for combat purposes, dms will no longer have to track durations.

By your own words, 4e spells do in fact have durations, they're just not fixed. A "save ends" still has to be tracked just like one that lasted a set number of rounds. It's a random duration, but that hardly means that DM"s won't find themselves looking at an NPC and wondering if a spell is still affecting him. And since it's random, it will invariably be gone right away for some NPC's and run for the course of the battle for others.

When I think about having to keep track of multiple "save ends" effects, it seems like a bit of a nightmare. My prediction: we'll be seeing posts here longing for the days of simple set durations instead of the chaotic coin-tossing. You heard it here first.

 

[Cadfan]

When I think about having to keep track of multiple "save ends" effects, it seems like a bit of a nightmare. My prediction: we'll be seeing posts here longing for the days of simple set durations instead of the chaotic coin-tossing. You heard it here first.

I highly doubt it.

First, beneficial abilities don't end on saves. They end at the end of the encounter, or when the caster stops sustaining the ability. This means miminal record keeping from these abilities.

Second, its faster to say "Oh, I have three negative effects on me. I'll roll three dice. Ok, that one's gone. Now I have two." than it is to count out three negative effects each with a different duration, all of which have to be incremented.

 

[Hussar]

By your own words, 4e spells do in fact have durations, they're just not fixed. A "save ends" still has to be tracked just like one that lasted a set number of rounds. It's a random duration, but that hardly means that DM"s won't find themselves looking at an NPC and wondering if a spell is still affecting him. And since it's random, it will invariably be gone right away for some NPC's and run for the course of the battle for others.

When I think about having to keep track of multiple "save ends" effects, it seems like a bit of a nightmare. My prediction: we'll be seeing posts here longing for the days of simple set durations instead of the chaotic coin-tossing. You heard it here first.

Depends on where you game I suppose. Having a scratch pad on hand where I write initiatives, I can easily see myself short handing effects underneath and writing initiative times to roll the saves. I do exactly that in 3e now. That's actually not a huge change for me.

 

[Felon]

Second, its faster to say "Oh, I have three negative effects on me. I'll roll three dice. Ok, that one's gone. Now I have two." than it is to count out three negative effects each with a different duration, all of which have to be incremented.

Nothing you just said makes that sound like a faster method.

The bottom line is this: the whole thrust behind spell durations being a supposed bookkeeping hassle is the fallibility of memory. You're still doing the bookkeeping, you've just switched from tracking what round it is to what spells are still in effect on which characters, regardless of what round it is.

 

[Felon]

Depends on where you game I suppose. Having a scratch pad on hand where I write initiatives, I can easily see myself short handing effects underneath and writing initiative times to roll the saves. I do exactly that in 3e now. That's actually not a huge change for me.

Yes, if you were good at bookkeeping--if making a check mark isn't a hassle for you--this is a total non-issue.

 

[Hussar]

Nothing you just said makes that sound like a faster method.

The bottom line is this: the whole thrust behind spell durations being a supposed bookkeeping hassle is the fallibility of memory. You're still doing the bookkeeping, you've just switched from tracking what round it is to what spells are still in effect on which characters, regardless of what round it is.

Well, yes and no. Generally, most spells with duration lasted at least the length of the encounter. That's not usually the problem. You mark the effect, and that's it. Anything measured in rounds wasn't going to be much of a hassle. Same with anything measured in hours - it's pretty much an all day thing fairly quickly - within a few levels anyway.

Where the problem comes in is with durations measured in either minutes or tens of minutes. Now you have the PC's buffing the crap out of themselves and then running through killing as much as they can before those durations run out. Plus, you have the problem of just how much time does it take to move the party down that corridor, listen at that door and start the next combat. If they stop to talk to something, do you start measuring time in real time? What if they chuck a skill check in there?

It's just a major PITA. You wind up with situations where you more or less stay in round by round combat mode for the duration of the entire dungeon, or at least until you run out of duration. Or, you hand wave it and when the players ask you how much time is left on their Bull's Strength spell, you say, "umm, yeah, should be good for one more fight" or "Oh, I think that's run out by now."

Going with durations that are linked to individual encounters is a MUCH better way of doing it. Yes, you might run into situations where the players want to game the system by continuing an encounter, but, typically, the players don't have that much control over pacing. And, with the refresh rate for abilities also tied to encounter, you have a nice tension between the two - do you continue, hoping that the current effect is good enough or do you stop and refresh?

I think it's a nice balance.

 

[FabioMilitoPagliara]

I play D&D since 1984 red box->1st->2nd->3rd->looking forward to 4th

how cannot it be D&D, it gots classes, and hp, and magic and dragons and you roll a d20 to hit and another nice dice for damage

what has changed is detail that often hindered playing a class or another (at low levels or high levels)

before a magic-user at the very low level was a magic-user once a day, now a wizard can keep doing his magic stuff all day long, but he still have a vancian daily spell, and a few vancian encounter spells.... good and good and better

at high levels a fighter was lost w/out a lot of magical weapon, buffs and armor now he can give out the mighty exploits, now a fighter is much more integrated in a magical world he got moves of martial arts that make sense in a high magical world

and so for all the classes

for me it's like "Ultimate D&D"

 

[Midknightsun]

I have no problem with the OP expressing his opinions, despite the fact that I am liking what I see of 4e very much (with a few exceptions). But I am disappointed with the touchyness displayed by some grownups over a game.

A game!

Some people like to argue, I guess.

Viva la forum posting!

 

[Howndawg]

I have no problem with the OP expressing his opinions, despite the fact that I am liking what I see of 4e very much (with a few exceptions). But I am disappointed with the touchyness displayed by some grownups over a game.

A game!

Some people like to argue, I guess.

Viva la forum posting!

I think part of the touchiness is that some gaming groups have split when people in the group want to move in different directions. When gaming groups split, people tend to blame the other faction for splitting up the group. The "Let's try something new" vs the "Let's not" is probably the most common. I do feel a bit of anger when I read posts by people who don't want to try something new just because it's different. But I try to hold my tongue mainly because they are entitled to their opinion just as much as I am, and they probably feel anger towards people like me who they see as someone who always has to have the newest and shiniest toy regardless of whether it's better.

 

[Felon]

Going with durations that are linked to individual encounters is a MUCH better way of doing it. Yes, you might run into situations where the players want to game the system by continuing an encounter, but, typically, the players don't have that much control over pacing. And, with the refresh rate for abilities also tied to encounter, you have a nice tension between the two - do you continue, hoping that the current effect is good enough or do you stop and refresh?

I think it's a nice balance.

I'm fine with encounter-long durations. It's the application of the "saved ends" stuff that's rather lousy. When I throw sleep on a bunch of kobolds, I want them to actually sleep for more than a round or two.

I prefer M&M's approach to powers like these.