Balancing (Save Ends) with UENT

[Neubert]

eamon, I am intrigued... and a little confused.
Let me set up an example to see if I understand your system correctly.

UENT:
Player A hits Monster Z with a UENT daze. Player B then takes his turn. He also hits Monster Z with a UENT daze. Now the daze lasts till the end of Player B's turn, instead of Player A. Correct?

Save ends:
Again, Player A hits Monster Z with a daze (this time save ends). Player B then hits Monster Z with a daze (save ends). Monster Z takes its turn (but only has 1 action since it is dazed). At the end of the turn, it rolls 2 saves, one for each daze condition.
If it saves against both, it is no longer dazed.
If it saves against one, it is dazed and have to roll a single save next turn.
If it doesn't save against either, it is dazed and have to roll two saves next turn.
Correct?

Question: If you gain a save outside of your turn, under your house rule, is it only possible to save against one of the two daze conditions?

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.

With the amount of bonus saves at higher levels, will save ends still end up better when rolled on the inflictors turn?

Thinking about it, it does make a little sense to have the roll on the inflictors turn. I often find that players more easily remember the conditions they put on the monsters than the conditions they themselves are afflicted by.

Also: Does the Warden change in any way then? I would assume not and they still roll an additional save at the beginning of their turn?

lwp also brings up delaying to prevent the save from happening. But this is already an issue with UENT (and I really can't remember how it is dealt with right now?).

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

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.

Have you ever tried saving on the attacker's turn? No doubt it's more annoying than saving on the victim's turn, but I can't see it being any more a nuisance than ending UENT effects on the attacker's turn. The only difference is "Okay it's my turn, so roll a save" rather than "Okay it's my turn, so the condition ends."

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?

There is an argument to be made for "Just delay," but it's not a very satisfying one for anyone with a high initiative bonus. (Why did I bother taking Improved Initiative? Why am I playing a rogue instead of say, a barbarian?)

 

[C4]

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.

My gut reaction is to love this idea! I may have to steal this one, but just to play devil's advocate: overlapping Slow or Daze effects aren't so bad, but have you ever had overlapping Stun or Dominate effects in your game?

I suspect that the non-overlapping rule was written to prevent players (and killer DMs) from piling the really nasty conditions onto one target. (I'm thinking especially about elites and solos here.)

With the amount of bonus saves at higher levels, will save ends still end up better when rolled on the inflictors turn?

That's a good question. I suspect (save ends) would still kinda suck, comparatively, in the presence a dedicated save-granting leader and/or high levels. Hm, the second idea of your post is looking interesting right now: any condition can be ended with a save. In other words, UENT conditions would operate as per RAW except that bonus saves could potentially end them.

Assuming UENT and (save ends) are on the same inflictor's-turn schedule, it'd make (save ends) clearly superior to UENT, it'd make bonus saves more valuable, and most excitingly...

Also: Does the Warden change in any way then? I would assume not and they still roll an additional save at the beginning of their turn?

...It'd create a simple way for elites, solos and wardens* to escape any condition early. All you'd have to do is give elites and solos a few bonus saves at the beginning of their turn (say, 2 or 5 respectively). Getting locked down with lots of conditions, particularly UENT conditions, has been a perennial problem for boss monsters and a few bonus start-of-turn saves could be a great fix.

*Although I don't think the warden needs the potential to end any condition at the start of his turn, ending a condition early is the purpose of his bonus save. The fact that by RAW he can't end a 'lesser' condition is weird, and I don't think that letting him do so is overpowering.

lwp also brings up delaying to prevent the save from happening. But this is already an issue with UENT (and I really can't remember how it is dealt with right now?).

I believe there's some clause that prevents permanent conditions by delaying.

 

[Umbran]

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.

You are welcome to discuss the rules issues all you want. Nothing wrong with that.

But, transcribing parts of the PHB into pdf for anything other than your own use qualifies as infringement of copyright. EN World does not support such activities. Please don't discuss your infringing activity here. Thanks.

 

[Oldtimer]

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.'

In my heavily house-ruled version of 4e, I've changed all UENT to "until end of target's next turn". That way you remove all afflictions on you at the end of your turn, either automatically or with a saving throw.

It does change the benefit of some powers radically, so I've had to change a few of them. As Neubert pointed out, you can no longer set up a condition to take advantage of it yourself in your next turn. Also, you might want to delay until just after the target's turn before you hit it with that heavy de-buff. Which makes for more tactics and tactics is good.

 

[C4]

It does change the benefit of some powers radically, so I've had to change a few of them. As Neubert pointed out, you can no longer set up a condition to take advantage of it yourself in your next turn. Also, you might want to delay until just after the target's turn before you hit it with that heavy de-buff. Which makes for more tactics and tactics is good.

Ending everything on the target's turn certainly does make tracking simpler, but I have a few questions:

1. How did you decide which powers to change? Do you change them on a case-by-case basis, or did you go thru your books to find all the powers that need changing?

2. What did you change about them?

3. Do you have any high-initiative PCs in your group? Do they enjoy essentially giving up that advantage whenever they want to inflict a condition on a monster that happens to be one or two places lower in the initiative order?

I'm all for tactics, but there're a couple guys in my group who'd be mighty annoyed if they had to give up their initiative advantage because of a house rule.

 

[eamon]

Have you ever tried saving on the attacker's turn? No doubt it's more annoying than saving on the victim's turn, but I can't see it being any more a nuisance than ending UENT effects on the attacker's turn. The only difference is "Okay it's my turn, so roll a save" rather than "Okay it's my turn, so the condition ends."

Hmm, when you put it that way; yeah, that does sound doable. You'd have to try it, I suppose.

One difference is that save require some player action; whereas doing those on someone else's turn means an extra moment of administration. Particularly for a DM, more "moments" of administration might make things slower. But, you've got me doubting it'd matter much, that's for sure. How 'bout balance - there's no new issues there? I can't think of any serious ones...


On the topic of ensuring a save-ends effect can be enjoyed by others via delaying...

There is an argument to be made for "Just delay," but it's not a very satisfying one for anyone with a high initiative bonus. (Why did I bother taking Improved Initiative? Why am I playing a rogue instead of say, a barbarian?)

Yeah, and I also think lots of delaying makes for a bogged down combat. If you have to do it, fine, but constantly shuffling initiative order is just going to slow things down. It's not just the fact that you've got to adminster a new init order, it's also that everyone gets confused - and not in a surprising, exiting tactical way, just confused in an administrative way. I love it when people kind of know what they want to do by the time their turn comes up - and that's much harder when turns get taking in different order all the time. And then there's issues with how delay ends sustainable effects too...

 

[eamon]

eamon, I am intrigued... and a little confused.
Let me set up an example to see if I understand your system correctly.

In short each effect is resolved independently of any others, regardless of source, what they do or whatever.

UENT:
Player A hits Monster Z with a UENT daze. Player B then takes his turn. He also hits Monster Z with a UENT daze. Now the daze lasts till the end of Player B's turn, instead of Player A. Correct?

Yep - no change from base system - each effect is individually resolved, so the last one to end effective determines the duration.

Save ends:
Again, Player A hits Monster Z with a daze (this time save ends). Player B then hits Monster Z with a daze (save ends). Monster Z takes its turn (but only has 1 action since it is dazed). At the end of the turn, it rolls 2 saves, one for each daze condition.
If it saves against both, it is no longer dazed.
If it saves against one, it is dazed and have to roll a single save next turn.
If it doesn't save against either, it is dazed and have to roll two saves next turn.
Correct?

Yep: The target has two effects on him, and each is resolved independently. The fact that they happen to do the same thing (and thus not stack) is irrelevant to how you save.

Question: If you gain a save outside of your turn, under your house rule, is it only possible to save against one of the two daze conditions?

Yep: each effect is resolved seperately. (You could certainly choose to do this differently, but part of the point is to not have to care exactly what stacks with what - each token is one save ends effect, and there no interaction between them).

With the amount of bonus saves at higher levels, will save ends still end up better when rolled on the inflictors turn?

you say still end up better when rolled on the inflictors turn. Doesn't rolling on the inflictors turn simply make save-end durations take longer? Basically, these two house-rules are orthogonal, they have no influence on each other.

Thinking about it, it does make a little sense to have the roll on the inflictors turn. I often find that players more easily remember the conditions they put on the monsters than the conditions they themselves are afflicted by.

Yeah, but if you put tokens on the minis that can be the other way around: you see all the stuff under your mini and think: uhh... what was that one again? Oh that's already over. And that? oh yeah, nasty critter, slowed and dazed eh... etc. But I can definitely see the logic.

Also: Does the Warden change in any way then? I would assume not and they still roll an additional save at the beginning of their turn?

I see no reason additional saves would need to change. However, there are abilities that state something like "you may save at the start of your turn instead of the end", and that's fine with the independent-resolution house rule, but you'd need a workaround for the (rare) cases if you use the save-on-inflictors-turn houserule; probably just that you have to remember not to save on the inflictors turn.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Hmm, when you put it that way; yeah, that does sound doable. You'd have to try it, I suppose.

One difference is that save require some player action; whereas doing those on someone else's turn means an extra moment of administration. Particularly for a DM, more "moments" of administration might make things slower. But, you've got me doubting it'd matter much, that's for sure.

I wonder if it would help to pass your power card to a target's player/DM after it's been inflicted? Or just an index card saying "You've been stunned by Lizzy the Wizard's smokin' hot bod...I mean, spell! Get over it (or roll a save) or her turn, BIATCH!"

Okay, not exactly like that, but I think it's worth a try.

 

[Neubert]

you say still end up better when rolled on the inflictors turn. Doesn't rolling on the inflictors turn simply make save-end durations take longer? Basically, these two house-rules are orthogonal, they have no influence on each other.

Ah, I am not sure if I specified, but the second part of my post was for C4. If the only house rule is that save ends are rolled on the inflictors turn, I was wondering if it is enough to make save ends better at the later levels when bonus saves are easier to come by.


I do have two more questions for you eamon. You should take that as a compliment - I really like your implementation, which is also why I am asking so many questions. I want to make sure I get it right

How does save ends and UENT interact in this system? I assume adding save ends on top of UENT simply changes the duration to save ends, but adding UENT on top of save ends does nothing?

2 players doing ongoing 5 fire damage would result in the monster taking 5 fire damage, but having to save twice against it. Easy enough. What happens if one player does ongoing 5 fire and another ongoing 10 fire? Only a single save against the ongoing 10 fire?