Balancing (Save Ends) with UENT

[C4]

Preamble: I'm transcribing Chapter 9 of the PHB into a pdf, including all errata. I'm also tweaking a few things that the official errata hasn't addressed.

One of those issues is the fact that (save ends) conditions are often inferior to those that last Until the End of Next Turn (UENT). If you're not aware, here's why:

1. UENT guarantees that a condition will last one full round, while (save ends) guarantees nothing. So if an ally inflicts a UENT condition upon an enemy, you're guaranteed the opportunity to take advantage of that condition. But if an ally inflicts a (save ends) condition upon an enemy, it might end before your turn even comes up. Which brings us to the next point...

2. If a leader is present, or you're playing a paragon/epic level game, saves become even easier to make. It's easy to get bonus saves and save bonuses, so (save ends) conditions can frequently be ended before the target is even effected by them. (There's at least one at-will power, a shaman attack, that grants a bonus save. And you don't even have to hit!)

Clearly, the devs intended (save ends) to be scarier than UENT but it often works out otherwise. So, what to do about this problem, if anything?

 

[Garthanos]

Preamble: I'm transcribing Chapter 9 of the PHB into a pdf, including all errata. I'm also tweaking a few things that the official errata hasn't addressed.

One of those issues is the fact that (save ends) conditions are often inferior to those that last Until the End of Next Turn (UENT). If you're not aware, here's why:

1. UENT guarantees that a condition will last one full round, while (save ends) guarantees nothing. So if an ally inflicts a UENT condition upon an enemy, you're guaranteed the opportunity to take advantage of that condition. But if an ally inflicts a (save ends) condition upon an enemy, it might end before your turn even comes up. Which brings us to the next point...

2. If a leader is present, or you're playing a paragon/epic level game, saves become even easier to make. It's easy to get bonus saves and save bonuses, so (save ends) conditions can frequently be ended before the target is even effected by them. (There's at least one at-will power, a shaman attack, that grants a bonus save. And you don't even have to hit!)

Clearly, the devs intended (save ends) to be scarier than UENT but it often works out otherwise. So, what to do about this problem, if anything?

I have certainly heard a number of proponents of an upgrade to Save Ends - including some very simple ones that dont allow save to end it until end of next turn ....

 

[Neubert]

I myself have given this issue some thought recently. There are two approaches to this issue: Assuming save ends is balanced with the rest of the game and changing UENT, or vice versa.

I haven't given the following suggestion much though (and I would assume it has come up before), so feel free to shoot it down.
Version 1: Let the affected target roll a save against UENT at the end of their turn.
Version 2: Let the affected target roll a save against UENT when granted a save.
Version 3: 1+2 combined.

I don't know if it makes UENT too weak. An option could be to add a penalty for the saving throws (but this would increase the complexity of the house rule).

Edit: I have also heard of adding UENT as an aftereffect of save ends, but I am not sure I like the increased power of save ends (particularly in regards to solo monsters).

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

It seems to me the problem is that save conditions operate on a different 'calendar' than UENT conditions. Saves are made on the target's turn, whereas UENT conditions end on the attacker's turn. Well, why not put both on one calendar? Either:

Saves are rolled at the end of the attacker's turn, or
UENT becomes 'until end of target's next turn.'

 

[Neubert]

It seems to me the problem is that save conditions operate on a different 'calendar' than UENT conditions. Saves are made on the target's turn, whereas UENT conditions end on the attacker's turn. Well, why not put both on one calendar? Either:

Saves are rolled at the end of the attacker's turn, or
UENT becomes 'until end of target's next turn.'

This is very true and I have given it some thought. As I mentioned in my earlier post, it basically boils down to whether save ends or UENT is balanced with the rest of the game. Once that has been determined, we can change the other.

I see some issues however:
- Rolling saves at the end of the attackers turn has the added tracking of knowing who inflicted which condition on which creature.
- UENT is sometimes used for setting up next turn's attack (such as Rogue powers giving the Rogue Combat Advantage UENT), which will become almost worthless.

The problem is not with all UENT effects. Granting CA to a single opponent is not as big of a problem, but being stunned is (you lose actions and all the opponents benefit). So is the issue with conditions that affect the attacker and all their allies?
Perhaps splitting conditions up into two categories, whether they affect the entire party or not.

 

[C4]

This is very true and I have given it some thought. As I mentioned in my earlier post, it basically boils down to whether save ends or UENT is balanced with the rest of the game. Once that has been determined, we can change the other.

You're right.

For my part, I think UENT is closer to the balance that the devs intended than (save ends). [Unless we're talking about elites and solos, but I won't get into that now.] UENT is basically "duration: 1 round," which allows everyone the opportunity to take advantage of a condition. It's simple and straightforward, so it's hard to imagine that it isn't exactly what the devs intended.

Unfortunately, UENT tracking is also one of the common complaints made by 4e gamers. If it weren't for those set-up powers you mention, I'd say "Screw it, saves are rolled during the target's turn!" As it is though, I don't want to reduce those powers to near-uselessness and I don't want to go through all the powers in the game to categorize them into 'party advantages' or 'character advantages.' I have a bit of free time, but not that much free time.

So I'm leaning toward 'saves are rolled during the inflictor's turn.' It's more to track, but we already track UENT conditions that way anyway. So I think it's the lesser of two evils.

 

[eamon]

Changing the schedule makes things more complicated. UENT is fairly easy to track, as is save ends - but save ends on the attackers turn is not, even though it's more reasonable.

One thing we do, which makes save-ends effects nastier, is allow overlapping effects (i.e. two identical effects don't stack, but you do need to save twice). This is reasonable from the perspective that the duration of two non-stacking effects overlaps: you are affected until the longer duration ends. If both effects are save-ends, then the longer duration is the effect you save against last. In effect we simply scrap the rule that identical effects never require multiple saves.

This has a few subtle tactical consequences which are actually quite nice. Consider an effect that lasts UENT, e.g. dazed. Now, if (later in the initiative order but before the end of that effect) another creature can make an attack that imposes dazed UENT, the attacker has a choice: he can attack the same creature, but in doing so wastes part of the attack; the durations overlap, so he won't be imposing a full round of extra duration, just a partial round. Similarly, if a victim of such an effect chooses to charge past enemies (provoking OA's that impose the effect), there is some risk - it's not the "full" risk because durations overlap but don't stack, but some risk. On the other hand, by RAW, save-ends effects never stack and their duration doesn't even overlap either! So that means it's completely useless to affect a creature already affected. Quixotically, for the victim it means he's got temporary immunity: he can try to draw lots of fire or OA's or whatever imposes those conditions without worrying about the consequences, since there will be none. Removing the rule that a save-ends effect has no effect if the target is already affected removes this oddity: each additional save-ends effect is less powerful than the previous, but the risk is never quite zero.

And in general, I love house rules that actually remove or simplify the base rules .

One drawback, which isn't very serious if you use tokens to track conditions is that there will be more conditions in play, and without tokens things can get confusing.

 

[lwp]

Couldn't the issue with Save Ends conditions be handled with player tactics? I.e. if you throw a defense debuff on an enemy and you wanted to make sure all your allies have a chance at gaining from it you could delay your turn until just after the enemy goes?

 

[andy3k]

I like the idea of overlapping but not stacking conditions. Someone suggested adding addition save rolls to remove the condition. A simplification of this plan is: every time a specific effect is overlapped, the condition gains "duration: +1 round".

Example: Larry slows Foe (save ends). Moe slows Foe (save ends or UENT). On Foe's turn, he is slowed and cannot save this turn. On Foe's next turn, he may now make a save. If Curly goes before Foe's second turn and slows Foe (save ends or UENT), then Foe must wait until his third turn to start saving. Same result but less die rolling.

The result is that Foe might stay permanently slowed as long as 1 person hits him with another slowed condition before he makes his save. Another minus to my method is that someone who gets benefits from rolling saves will not get as many benefits because he rolls his save less often.

This makes me come to the conclusion that conditions were not meant to stack OR overlap because that would mean conditions, once they appear on the battlefield, could remain indefinitely, which gets messy and complicated, especially in long battles with lots of conditions.

 

[eamon]

I like the idea of overlapping but not stacking conditions. Someone suggested adding addition save rolls to remove the condition. A simplification of this plan is: every time a specific effect is overlapped, the condition gains "duration: +1 round".

The way we play is that the effects are completely independant and have their own saves. If you've got slow (save ends) twice, you get a save for each effect. If you have ongoing 5 fire three times, you three saves: once for each effect. Whether two effects are identical or any type of ongoing damage is simply irrelevant under this system.

Without save distributions, this results in the following duration distribution:
1 save-end effect(s): mean duration of 1 turn + 0.818 more.
2 save-end effect(s): mean duration of 1 turn + 1.382 more.
3 save-end effect(s): mean duration of 1 turn + 1.793 more.
4 save-end effect(s): mean duration of 1 turn + 2.108 more.
5 save-end effect(s): mean duration of 1 turn + 2.359 more.
6 save-end effect(s): mean duration of 1 turn + 2.569 more.
7 save-end effect(s): mean duration of 1 turn + 2.747 more.
8 save-end effect(s): mean duration of 1 turn + 2.904 more.
9 save-end effect(s): mean duration of 1 turn + 3.043 more.
10 save-end effect(s): mean duration of 1 turn + 3.168 more.
11 save-end effect(s): mean duration of 1 turn + 3.282 more.

i.e. diminishing returns.

Example: Larry slows Foe (save ends). Moe slows Foe (save ends or UENT). On Foe's turn, he is slowed and cannot save this turn. On Foe's next turn, he may now make a save. If Curly goes before Foe's second turn and slows Foe (save ends or UENT), then Foe must wait until his third turn to start saving. Same result but less die rolling.

This would work - but I think simplicity is a very important virtue in all rules but particularly in house rules. So while this may be a little fairer in the normal case, it's also more complicated, and I don't think it's necessary.