Fewer conditions?

[AbdulAlhazred]

So, let's guesstimate for a moment that I've done, say, 500 sessions of 4e, with 3 combats per session. So, out of those 1500 combats, I'm willing to say that no more than 100 of them would slow have made a crucial difference (defender is forced to use ranged weapons and can't defend, leader can't get into range to buff or heal, etc), beyond forcing someone to Run for one round or possibly not get an attack at all for one round, which would have had scattered appearances (mostly depending on terrain, initiative and enemy choice) in, say, another 200 combats - which, btw, is a benefit closer to Blind or Daze at that point, so still not bad.

The trick is that if Slowed does last for the encounter and you can count on doing it, you're further encouraging Ranged, and you're further encouraging parties that can exploit it. So, your party shifts to becoming more ranged and picks up a couple slowed and starts beginning combats 20 squares away. Now the Brute requires 3 rounds of full out Running just to reach the enemy, which means the combat is over before he gets to roll an attack roll (and miss, poor guy).

In quite recent memory, some examples from published adventures where Slowed would have been a serious problem (as in, not being able to do melee attacks that combat) if inflicted on my character:
2 Underdark fights where melee had to move 10-20 squares, some over difficult terrain, or jumping gaps to engage each other from first sighting
1 fight over floating earth motes that required jumping from platform to platform while being ranged attacked on the way in - this combat actually had traps that slowed, and they entirely changed the combat even though thankfully I avoided them for the first 12 or so squares of movement.

1 fight out in a Jungle where the enemy drakes and harpies were 10+ squares away to start and had a 40 ft pit to drop people into (Ugh, being slowed at the bottom of a 40 ft pit = 4-8 rounds of climbing! And can't even make ranged attacks from down there)
1 fight in a huge tomb where we had to get past a gauntlet of enemies and get under a sliding door to disarm the trap and save the day (get the treasure) in just a few rounds

EAST1-6, IMPI1-6, and SPEC2-1 P2 from LFR so not like just fights my DM was making up.

If I make the party all ranged, Slowed becomes far more useful since it's very very common for fights to start more than 4 squares apart - and such a party often has ways of controlling some portions of the battlefield further. Perhaps upping it to a crucial difference - if turned into a whole encounter penalty (removing a monster from consideration of combat, drastically altering the tactics of the combat) on 500-1000 of 1500 combats. I imagine in a lot of cases you'd see a reaction from the DM/adventure design where suddenly melee was always much closer, and the terrain was less choked or difficult, so that slowed would be less useful.

Mmmm, yeah, that's probably not radically different from what I've seen, but I'd have to say that your average party is still not having a lot of problems with being slowed. It definitely will come up some, but I don't think the game would change a huge amount if the condition didn't exist.

Were I intent on redesigning 4e to have less conditions I guess I'd just eliminate immobilized (restrained will do basically the same thing), slowed, and I'd make weakened something like a to-hit penalty perhaps.

I don't personally have a problem with marking mechanics. Yes, they're ubiquitous but the very ubiquity kind of makes them reasonably easy to deal with. You KNOW that whatever the fighter was just engaging is marked. Heck we don't even generally bother to track it, though with multiple defenders it could easily get a bit more complex.

The core of the issue is just the sheer number of little minor variations on very similar effects. I think if I were starting with a blank slate I'd actually consider adding a couple of conditions to reflect the most common effects. I'd strongly consider regularizing them all to have durations ending on the end of the turn of the target (with save ends or encounter long being more rare options). Then I would simply NOT design very many powers doing 'fiddly' things. Make most of them daily, make the maximum possible number of them instantaneous, and try to use one or another standard condition as often as humanly possible. I think this aspect of the game could have been made 2-3 times simpler without measurably impacting tactical depth. Some other things could also have been done to compensate and present additional tactical challenges, like slightly increasing the effects of terrain in general.

I'm tempted to delve into a bit deeper reflection on how the various parts of the 4e design ended up fitting together that bear on this whole subject, but I won't. Its a good design, just like anything when you go back and look at it afterwards hindsight usually shows some potential improvements. Its still one of the best designed RPGs around today overall.

 

[KarinsDad]

There is more than one flaw with this new defender mechanic w/o marks.
1) Punishment stacking

Not quite sure what you mean by this.

2) Once the defender punishes in a round all other monsters are free to do whatever they want - there is no -2 to hit or what ever could keep them attacking the defender.

Yeah, I explained that totally wrong.

I was forgetting the II aspect of CC and hence, the fact that it is once per round. Instead, it should be like Opportunity Attacks. Every foe within range of the Fighter's weapon gets attacked if he shifts or attacks another (without attacking the Fighter) instead of the current CC where the first marked foe gets attacked and is at -2, other marked foes are at -2, and unmarked foes are not really hindered at all.

The -2 does not occur on every foe, but the free attack does. A free attack is a lot more stickier, especially since it would work on what are currently considered unmarked foes.

And in the current situation, the -2 to attack a squishier foe for those foes after the first got CCed is usually a better strategy anyway.

This system makes it a better strategy to not get attacked and attack the Fighter instead.

With the 4E diagonal movement system, OAs have mostly become a joke in 4E. Free damage or attacks via marks are the new OAs.

Slow:
Slow is no spectacular condition but combined with the ultra rare terrain feature difficult terrain it becomes really hard to close a distance.

Sure you can make your party in a way to soften the impact of slow, your party had to give something up to be prepared for that - there is at least an opportunity cost.

There are topics about all ranged parties and how do you think they can kite the monsters - the cheapest way is obviously slow.

Which is historically the problem with all ranged parties. There typically is no way to consistently slow (or daze or immobilize) every single foe. There are very few foes that cannot do melee back to the PCs. There is a reason for that. That's why all ranged parties should each have a way to melee back as well. Just like melee PCs should each have a way to range.

Opportunity cost? Sure.

But, not a great one. Well rounded PCs with several PC having the ability to handle any given situation are vastly superior as a group compared to extremely specialized PCs where the foes (traps, terrain, etc.) can take advantage of each PC's weaknesses.

If the DM does Stunned (save ends) on the Leader and nobody else has healing or has a way to give extra saves to the Leader, a few bad dice rolls can lead to a TPK easier than in more typical similar level encounters.

It's always better to not put all of your eggs in one basket. The PCs will typically win every single encounter in either case, but they will rarely be in serious trouble with the group with well rounded individual. This also decreases the chance that a given player will find himself in a situation where his PC cannot do anything.

The Slowed Fighter that has the Heal skill and cannot get to foes can sometimes give an ally a Second Wind or a free Saving Throw. It's not all about attacking every single round. There are a lot of other good options out there (e.g. Aid Another, 3 PCs shifting around a single foe so that every single PC gets flank every single attack) that can be used in unusual situations if the players just know about them.


In my group, one of the players has taken the Linguist feat twice. It has an opportunity cost for that PC of a few points of damage per round probably, but it has allowed the PCs to acquire a lot of knowledge when the monsters speak out loud (both tactically within an encounter and acquiring campaign knowledge that the monsters know but the PCs wouldn't necessarily find out any other way). This in turn makes the party strategically stronger for the overall campaign. They can sometimes avoid encounters or prepare for them better because of info this PC picks up once in a while.

Opportunity costs rarely add up to the point that they tip the balance in favor of the monsters. The overall benefit of them is usually greater than the individual loss.

 

[Black Knight Irios]

Not quite sure what you mean by this.

Current marking system:
8 defenders sourround a medium sized foe, one defender marks it. The foe attacks not the "marker", marker punishes.
Your system:
8 defenders sourround a medium sized foe. The foe attacks any one of the defenders, he gets punished 7 times. That is punishment stacking.

Yeah, I explained that totally wrong.

I was forgetting the II aspect of CC and hence, the fact that it is once per round. Instead, it should be like Opportunity Attacks. Every foe within range of the Fighter's weapon gets attacked if he shifts or attacks another (without attacking the Fighter) instead of the current CC where the first marked foe gets attacked and is at -2, other marked foes are at -2, and unmarked foes are not really hindered at all.

The -2 does not occur on every foe, but the free attack does. A free attack is a lot more stickier, especially since it would work on what are currently considered unmarked foes.

And in the current situation, the -2 to attack a squishier foe for those foes after the first got CCed is usually a better strategy anyway.

This system makes it a better strategy to not get attacked and attack the Fighter instead.

With the 4E diagonal movement system, OAs have mostly become a joke in 4E. Free damage or attacks via marks are the new OAs.

Ok, now with a DM that often doesn't attack the defender will probably come to the conclusion that defenders can now easily outdamage strikers.

Which is historically the problem with all ranged parties. There typically is no way to consistently slow (or daze or immobilize) every single foe. There are very few foes that cannot do melee back to the PCs. There is a reason for that. That's why all ranged parties should each have a way to melee back as well. Just like melee PCs should each have a way to range.

Opportunity cost? Sure.

But, not a great one. Well rounded PCs with several PC having the ability to handle any given situation are vastly superior as a group compared to extremely specialized PCs where the foes (traps, terrain, etc.) can take advantage of each PC's weaknesses.

If the DM does Stunned (save ends) on the Leader and nobody else has healing or has a way to give extra saves to the Leader, a few bad dice rolls can lead to a TPK easier than in more typical similar level encounters.

It's always better to not put all of your eggs in one basket. The PCs will typically win every single encounter in either case, but they will rarely be in serious trouble with the group with well rounded individual. This also decreases the chance that a given player will find himself in a situation where his PC cannot do anything.

The Slowed Fighter that has the Heal skill and cannot get to foes can sometimes give an ally a Second Wind or a free Saving Throw. It's not all about attacking every single round. There are a lot of other good options out there (e.g. Aid Another, 3 PCs shifting around a single foe so that every single PC gets flank every single attack) that can be used in unusual situations if the players just know about them.


In my group, one of the players has taken the Linguist feat twice. It has an opportunity cost for that PC of a few points of damage per round probably, but it has allowed the PCs to acquire a lot of knowledge when the monsters speak out loud (both tactically within an encounter and acquiring campaign knowledge that the monsters know but the PCs wouldn't necessarily find out any other way). This in turn makes the party strategically stronger for the overall campaign. They can sometimes avoid encounters or prepare for them better because of info this PC picks up once in a while.

Opportunity costs rarely add up to the point that they tip the balance in favor of the monsters. The overall benefit of them is usually greater than the individual loss.

I question the statement that there is no reliable way to make opponents slowed. Psion LVL3 at-will force hammer area burst 1 within 10; Seeker Grappling Spirits LVL1 at-will Ranged Weapon; Invoker LVL1 at-will Grasping Shards area burst 1 within 10. There are probably more powers that can slow at-will.

And you can absolutely do things while slowed, no one said you can't. Are you doing something efficient would be the better question.

There are classes that have a hard time getting a good ranged attack that is usable at-will - like Chaladins.

And making a well-rounded char as well as a party is a good idea but that doesn't change the fact that slowed UEoE will take the fun away from most melee chars even those with ranged options b/c they are probably still w/o ranged powers.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Just sort of thinking out loud here, and I haven't thought through the ramifications of this yet...

But one way of making this easier might be completely removing non-condition penalties. (I'm not talking about house rules for 4E here--this is, as someone else said, "major surgery"--but more possible ideas for streamlining in future similar editions.) Here's what I mean:

There are still penalties that exist as parts of conditions (i.e. the -2 to attack from being marked). But all other penalties are instead transformed into bonuses. For instance, rather than an attack power saying "and the target takes a -2 to Will defense until the end of your next turn," it would instead say "you and your allies gain a +2 to attacks against the target's Will defense until the end of your next turn."

Okay, that sounds like mathematically the same thing, right? Except that it puts the fiddly bonus in the hands of the player to track, rather than the DM, which can help reduce the "processor" load on the DM.

It also helps us standardize things. Once we do that, we can then establish some blanket rules:

*All power-granted bonuses now fall into one of three categories:

1) Next attack only.

2) Until end of bonus-provider's next turn.

3) Until end of encounter.

*All conditions now also fall into one of three categories:

1) Until end of condition-bestower's next turn.

2) Until save.

3) Until end of encounter.

All that said, if we want to make even more changes...

We could potentially--and again, I'm just theorizing, and have not gone back looking for balance issues--eliminate "until end of next turn" conditions and replace them with a second category of saving throw.

*At-will powers: Do not bestow conditions (other than prone, perhaps).

*Encounter powers (and dailies on a miss): Bestow condition (easy save ends).

*Daily powers: Bestow condition (standard save ends).

An "easy save" could either require a lower difficulty than the standard 10, or could enable the creature to roll twice and take the higher result.

This makes battles a little more swingy, since--depending on luck--it's vaguely possible for these effects to last longer than one round. But odds are that most of the time, they won't. Of course, it also means that if the creature saves, the effect doesn't even last through the attacker's next turn, but if the system's designed that way from the word go, and if the bonuses still last until the attacker's next turn (as described above), it should be workable.

Of course, this does add extra rolls to the game, which could slow things down, and there's still some bookkeeping involved, in that the DM has to keep track of which saves are easy and which are standard. But it might prove easier that tracking multiple different durations (end of attacker's turn, end of target's turn, or save ends).

(Again, this is all spitballing/theorizing. Feel free to poke holes in it and tear it apart. )

 

[KarinsDad]

Current marking system:
8 defenders sourround a medium sized foe, one defender marks it. The foe attacks not the "marker", marker punishes.
Your system:
8 defenders sourround a medium sized foe. The foe attacks any one of the defenders, he gets punished 7 times. That is punishment stacking.

Good point. I concede that this is a flaw in my suggestion. That's why we discuss this type of thing.

I question the statement that there is no reliable way to make opponents slowed. Psion LVL3 at-will force hammer area burst 1 within 10; Seeker Grappling Spirits LVL1 at-will Ranged Weapon; Invoker LVL1 at-will Grasping Shards area burst 1 within 10. There are probably more powers that can slow at-will.

Not every PC is a Psion, a Seeker, or an Invoker.

Below level 17, there are 10 such At Will powers. Warden's Grasp, Executioner's Noose, Avenging Shackles, Grasping Claws, Grasping Shards, Grappling Spirits, Weight of Earth, Ray of Frost, Force Hammer, and Force Grasp.

Only 2 of them are area powers, 8 are single target. So that really restricts class in order to accomplish this beyond one potential foe per round. And, not all DMs allow Dragon Magazine and/or PHB3 in their games. Half of these powers come from those sources.

There are 43 Encounter powers that slow, but it's hard to spam one or two Encounter powers over an entire Encounter.

The tactic just seems difficult to achieve effectively without certain specialized class builds. And, it achieves in reverse what you are arguing for. If the 5 ranged PCs are throwing out a bunch of At Will Slowed powers, then they aren't using their more fun Encounter powers.

And you can absolutely do things while slowed, no one said you can't. Are you doing something efficient would be the better question.

There are classes that have a hard time getting a good ranged attack that is usable at-will - like Chaladins.

What's wrong with a magical throwing axe or javelin (or even a Trident for more damage, but less range) and Melee Training?

Chaladins have a lot of great features (decent damage, great AC, healing, helping out fellow PCs). Ranged attacking isn't one of them. To do a decent ranged attack, the player of a Chaladin PC has to work at it a bit.

That's not unreasonable.

And Chaladins can get Encounter powers like Dazzling Flair or Beckon Foe.

But, picking a class that has few ranged attacks as one of their weaknesses and saying that Slowed is strong because that class exists is a bit misleading.

Parties typically don't consist of 5 Chaladins.

And making a well-rounded char as well as a party is a good idea but that doesn't change the fact that slowed UEoE will take the fun away from most melee chars even those with ranged options b/c they are probably still w/o ranged powers.

People throw that "if the PC is impeded, the player isn't having fun" idea around a lot. I personally think that this idea is horse pucky.

If the PC cannot do any actions for several rounds like Stunned, sure, I buy it. Being unable to do any actions for multiple rounds sucks.

But, not if the PC is just hindered in some minor way. That's a player entitlement fun argument that just doesn't hold water for most mature players.

The game is not challenging and fun if the PCs are not challenged.

Eight year olds think that the game is not fun if something hindering happens to their PC and they cannot use their most effective attack on the following round. Most adults do not. They just accept bad things happening to their PC as part and parcel of playing the game.

I have a player whose Swordmage purposely gets into the face of foes that Daze and Stun. Why? Because he thinks it's his job to suck up attacks and protect the rest of the party from debilitating conditions. That player seems to have a lot of fun playing. It's not just about "how much damage can my PC do this round?".

 

[Stalker0]

This thread has inspired me. I think I'm going to try my hand at a new condition system, wish me luck!

 

[KarinsDad]

(Again, this is all spitballing/theorizing. Feel free to poke holes in it and tear it apart. )

Good thoughts here.

I'll have to look it over later, but I think standardizing is important.

I also think the designers should standardize effects and conditions based on role and power source more than they currently do as well.

 

[keterys]

What's wrong with a magical throwing axe or javelin (or even a Trident for more damage, but less range) and Melee Training?

Mostly, the fact that it doesn't work at all, since ranged basic attacks and melee basic attacks are not the same. Other than that whole not working thing, though, it is a nice thought

I think shifting from penalties to bonuses, and standardizing all of those, would help immensely. End of the day, we don't need stuff like the -2 to Will on the Imp's poison (what?) or Priest's Shield's +1 AC for a turn to that guy who was next to him (whee...).

 

[Pseudopsyche]

Okay, that sounds like mathematically the same thing, right? Except that it puts the fiddly bonus in the hands of the player to track, rather than the DM, which can help reduce the "processor" load on the DM.

I think this concept is the essential ingredient. I would go so far as to say that the player is responsible for tracking ALL of the rules that result from his or her actions.

For my next campaign, I might try the following house rules:
(1) Monsters do not roll saving throws. Instead, players roll "continuation throws."
(2) Players are responsible for enforcing conditions and effects they inflict.

Corollary: If a player neglects to roll a continuation throw, their effect or condition ends. (I would be exactly as forgiving here as I would be for players who neglect to apply a triggered action.)

I also think that the flip side of players' power cards should be condition cards that they can use to help track the effects and conditions they've created.

Then again, maybe I'm just lazy. I also use Players Roll All the Dice, so I only roll damage rolls and recharge rolls. The other house rule I want to explore is the ars ludi initiative tracking, and I wonder how that might synergize with simplified condition tracking.