Conditions against PCs

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I'm pretty sure that all the leaders can help with saves to some degree.. As I said, I made that post purely by memory. I am certain that if I look through the Cleric section of the PHB alone, there's going to be lots of options to obliterate conditions.

Well, our Shaman didn't have that many.

But it just depends on the build vs. the type of condition. Bards beat the pants off any movement limitations, but they're not so great against other problems like weakened or dazed, etc. I've seen quite a few powers from other classes (the Psion I believe) which addresses powers effecting the will defense or at least dazed/dominated stuff.

Two things.

1) I don't like stun as a condition anyways. But a monster that can, say, daze as an at-will for a round IMO isn't bad. As long as, for instance, you're not just shooting the Fighter every round with the daze power. If one round you hit one player, the next round you hit another, then everyone is sharing the pain, as opposed to you putting a bucket over the head of one player for the entire encounter.

The problem is that it's probably a tactical good choice to lock down a particular character.

Not to mention that if the monster has the condition on just an AW, in my experience the monster isn't using that AW all that often. Because you, the DM, want to use its encounter powers, and monsters typically have more than one. So for at least half of its life span, it's not using those AWs.

The monsters encounter powers are not free of conditional effects. If you use a varied set of monsters that all have some kind of conditional effects going on, you still can't escape this.

The problem (at least for me) are (save ends) conditions. I've had encounters where the Fighter is weakened for 4 consecutive rounds. That massively sucks. It really effects the pace of the battle because you're only doing half damage, and it's just frustrating the condition stays.

A fighter that is weakened deals less damage, but he can still mark and do his thing.

2) As pointed out above, the bolded portion is as much a part of encounter design as anything. You don't want all your enemies to do the same thing, no matter if that's conditions or if it's an encounter of all Soldiers Variety is important, no matter what, and with conditions this is especially true.

I agree that encounter design is important. It seems to me as if the WotC encounters of this particular evening at least still favored a lot of conditions applying to the PCs. (We played one encounter from a Dungeon Delve and two more from a Dungeon adventure.)

My goal would be to change this. Use conditions that "feel nasty" without being frustrating.

Disagree there. See the comment on solos. A solo typically has several minor action powers and something on a move, so a Daze really crimps its style. Immobilziation is going to nuke a skirmisher unless it's a teleporter. And many monsters do have minor action powers.

Solos (and Elites) of course suffer more from these conditions. But that is a separate issue. I am focusing on the deal for PCs and players.

The DM has a slightly different perspective in most cases. He "commands" multiple monsters. It's rare that all his monsters are locked down and unable to act. But as a player, you control only one character. If you consistently lose this control due to strong, repeating conditions, the game is less enjoyable.

 

[Rechan]

The problem is that it's probably a tactical good choice to lock down a particular character.

Just because it's tactically sound within the rules doesn't mean it's what you should do.

I mean, it's tactical to kill the Leader first, so no one can get healing. But if every fight was "Keep the bad guys from squishing the Warlord/Shaman/Cleric", that'd quickly get unfun. Same with focus-firing on the weakest target and CDGes.

So I don't see it as a "Problem".

The monsters encounter powers are not free of conditional effects. If you use a varied set of monsters that all have some kind of conditional effects going on, you still can't escape this.

Which takes us back to monster selection.

It also calls up something about saving your condition effects for when their most important. My example of PCs using Slow on a fleeing enemy. If the monster wants to rush the back ranks, it'll incur opportunity attacks, so if it has a Daze or Blind power, it should use them before charging the front ranks.

A fighter that is weakened deals less damage, but he can still mark and do his thing.

And yet it's still frustrating (a condition lasting very long) and grinds the combat, which is my point.

 

[Reigan]

Is this where, tough, ranged strikers like warlocks come in to their own?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Is this where, tough, ranged strikers like warlocks come in to their own?

Yes, I think they have their perks in such situations. As do Controllers that don't rely only on close blast/burst powers.

Just because it's tactically sound within the rules doesn't mean it's what you should do.

I mean, it's tactical to kill the Leader first, so no one can get healing. But if every fight was "Keep the bad guys from squishing the Warlord/Shaman/Cleric", that'd quickly get unfun. Same with focus-firing on the weakest target and CDGes.

So I don't see it as a "Problem".

I do. I like "tactical" gaming. I don't like if the right tactical choice is straightforward and boring. So, ensure that with all the conditions flying around and all the abilities of the various classes and monsters, that they aren't.

So, maybe I need to clarify things, there are two things I hope for the future from "others" - be it my DMs, be it WotC, be it myself:
- Create and use monsters that use conditions in a way that creates interesting and varied tactical choices for players and monsters.
- Create and use monsters that use conditions in a way that it changes the cost for certain actions and choices. (Ties in with the aforementioned point.)
- Do not create and do not use monsters that use conditions in a way that merely deny choices.
- Create adventures and encounters that avoid "lock-downs" of individual PCs or monsters for a longer time.
- Create character (and monster) abilities that allow "circumventing" conditions at a price. (Examples exist, like taking damage to end a condition. Expand on that with powers and feats and maybe make it more interesting)

 

[Reigan]

I've got this horrible feeling good encounter design is a lot harder than we've been lead to believe.

Mind you a good 4e encounter blows anything else out of the water.

 

[Stalker0]

I've got this horrible feeling good encounter design is a lot harder than we've been lead to believe.

Its different than in 3.5.

In 3.5 one of the hardest parts of encounter design was balancing difficulty. It was a tough balance to make a combat tough without making it too deadly.

In 4e, the XP system is very good about judging difficulty. Also, PCs are not as likely to die from bad luck. However, that deadliness of 3.5 creates tension and excitement, so without it, a DM has to work more to make the encounter interesting.

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

Also, taking feats that give Defence bonuses, instead of just attacks, is kinda of a good idea
same with magic items that give saves, resists etc

 

[Jhaelen]

Well, I've got no experience with epic gameplay in 4E, yet. Still, limiting the number of monsters with at-will action-denial abilities makes a lot of sense to me.

However, I also suspect this is a situation that gets worse because of LOL: Lack of Leaders.

Even with our limited heroic tier game play I noticed the positive effect of multiple leaders (our party had three!). Granting saving throws and negating conditions should become a high priority in higher tier play. If the party isn't prepared for that they'll probably suffer.

Polls seem to indicate a general player preference to play strikers and a dislike for leaders, though. Imho, that's a real problem, too.

As a closing comment, I'd like to compare the situation with my 3E campaign:
My players think that Huge (or larger) grappling monsters suck, as do monsters that are invisible and stealthy. Obviously, one solution to the problem would be not to use any of these monsters. I prefer another solution, though:
The pcs look for ways that allow them to defeat/ignore/negate these sucky monster abilities.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, I've got no experience with epic gameplay in 4E, yet. Still, limiting the number of monsters with at-will action-denial abilities makes a lot of sense to me.

However, I also suspect this is a situation that gets worse because of LOL: Lack of Leaders.

Even with our limited heroic tier game play I noticed the positive effect of multiple leaders (our party had three!). Granting saving throws and negating conditions should become a high priority in higher tier play. If the party isn't prepared for that they'll probably suffer.

Polls seem to indicate a general player preference to play strikers and a dislike for leaders, though. Imho, that's a real problem, too.

As a closing comment, I'd like to compare the situation with my 3E campaign:
My players think that Huge (or larger) grappling monsters suck, as do monsters that are invisible and stealthy. Obviously, one solution to the problem would be not to use any of these monsters. I prefer another solution, though:
The pcs look for ways that allow them to defeat/ignore/negate these sucky monster abilities.

I certainly don't regret playing a Inspiring Warlord in our Savage Tides campaign. Lots of extra saves. And the Paladin/Justicar also helps a lot here - one free reroll for a failed save if adjacent to him. This has been useful all around.

 

[OchreJelly]

It might be a stretch to say it, but action-denial conditions are like 4E's save-or-die, contrary to what the designers' goals were. In practice they can be just as frustrating as being knocked out of a fight in earlier editions. While saving every round gives the player something to do when they're stunned, it can actually compound the frustration when they get a string of bad rolls. As was said earlier, it's more like that 'nickel and dime' frustration as opposed to the "I'll go play xbox until the encounter is over" frustration.

All that said, I think they are a necessary evil. For one thing, they aren't too bad in isolation. Secondly, denial is a needed tactic to add spice to the game. If I were a 4E designer what would I change? I would probably put conditions like stun or restrain on a track. Like if you save vs. stun you remove it, but if you fail your save it downgrades to a daze.