Fewer conditions?

[KarinsDad]

Would it be feasible or would there be too many mechanical problems if I would leave only two duration effects in the game; end of next turn of the affected and save ends? Both would end at the same phase of the turn, only save ends durations could last longer.

I thought of this simplification, but I discarded it in my earlier message due to the following problem:

Cleric casts -2 AC Debuff on Foe. Initiative is:

Cleric
Foe
Fighter
Rogue
Wizard
Ranger

The -2 does nothing. Since the Foe gets to go before all of the rest of the PCs, none of the rest of the PCs get to benefit from the debuff.

It would work for attack debuffs, just not defense debuffs.

The only solution is a debuff that last until the end of the user's turn. In this case, the Cleric.

It cannot even be the start of the user's turn because if you have a 1 on 1 of Cleric vs. Foe, the Cleric would not be able to benefit from his own Prayer.

 

[YRUSirius]

What if I theoretically wouldn't care and I'd call it a feature instead of a bug, taking this as a way of introducing a new tactical component to the battle? Say, the cleric shouldn't try to debuff his foe and do something else instead on his turn (say buff his allies instead). Could this have the neat intended side-effect of decreasing the amount of active status effects; buffs and de-buffs or would this only decrease de-buffs in those specific situations?

In other words, are these specific situations uncommon enough so that they are neglibile if I'd want to simplify the tracking of effects with only those two durations?

 

[Black Knight Irios]

What if I theoretically wouldn't care and I'd call it a feature instead of a bug, taking this as a way of introducing a new tactical component to the battle? Say, the cleric shouldn't try to debuff his foe and do something else instead on his turn (say buff his allies instead). Could this have the neat intended side-effect of decreasing the amount of active status effects; buffs and de-buffs or would this only decrease de-buffs in those specific situations?

In other words, are these specific situations uncommon enough so that they are neglibile if I'd want to simplify the tracking of effects with only those two durations?

I wouldn't do it. It makes several powers less useful while making others more useful. You have to pay more attention to initiative order. Players' turns can take longer b/c now they have to think about wether or not it is worth using power x depending on the initiative order.

Power Cards are awesome. Let it lie open at your place as long as any of its effects apply. I think advancing your trackingskills is the better idea.

 

[YRUSirius]

What about other 'reasonable' simplifications to a standarized effect duration?

Like End Of Next ROUND instead of turn? So the effects would be active for atleast one whole round and then some turns additionally?

Say at the end of the next round every effect will expire after everyone had their turns. Say there is a special effect expiration round on an imagined initiative 0 turn for those effects that came into play the round before?


(EDIT: This would also put more emphasis on initiative, because the higher the initiative the longer the duration of the effect through additional turns in the round the effect was cast, right?)

 

[Mouseferatu]

I wouldn't do it. It makes several powers less useful while making others more useful.

Just for instance, several rogue powers cause the target to grant CA until the end of the rogue's next turn. That's a huge difference, for the rogue, than a power that grants CA until the end of the target's next turn; it's a difference of whether the rogue gets SA damage that following round or not.

Honestly, if you were to standardize the "non-save" lengths--and I don't honestly think it's the right way to go, because there are plenty of other little issues that would come up and several effects that would become overpowered, but if you were--I'd standardize them all to "end of attacker's next turn."

 

[KarinsDad]

What about other 'reasonable' simplifications to a standarized effect duration?

Like End Of Next ROUND instead of turn? So the effects would be active for atleast one whole round and then some turns additionally?

Say at the end of the next round every effect will expire after everyone had their turns. Say there is a special effect expiration round on an imagined initiative 0 turn for those effects that came into play the round before?


(EDIT: This would also put more emphasis on initiative, because the higher the initiative the longer the duration of the effect through additional turns in the round the effect was cast, right?)

This introduces the same clunkiness issues as end of target's next turn. The players have to now keep track of where the foes are in the initiative order to determine whether they should use a power or delay or what.

For someone using a whiteboard to keep track of initiatives, it might not be that big of a deal.

For someone rotating through 3x5 cards, it's suddenly more difficult. Did the BBEG go early in the round, or later???

And it also introduces metagaming considerations into the power decision making process. The decision is not made on the appropriate target, but on metagaming information as to where the target's initiative lies in the order. I don't want players making decisions as to whom to target based on an initiative system that the PCs themselves are unaware of.


This just introduces a big mess and exacerbates the problems that 4E bookkeeping already has.


Again, the easiest simplification is at End of User's Turn instead of End of Target's turn or End of Round. That way, it is totally equitable for all powers and people don't need to have the game be even more complex by having the players make decisions based of foe's initiative order. The buff or debuff or condition lasts for exactly one round plus a portion of the user's initial round.

 

[YRUSirius]

Okay, thanks for all of your responses. Actually I was just trying to find a way to simplify this duration tracking process for casual D&D beginners I'd like to dm for eventually. I'm pretty sure they, as total beginners, would hardly care a lot about the metagaming aspect of End of Round durations or even the initiative order at all like real hardcore D&D optimizers. So I was searching for a quick and dirty fix - even if this would overpower some powers slightly.

But now I got a clearer picture, and think I will indeed use end of user TURN durations as the simplified standard for now. That way I can write "+ slowed for 1 round" onto the players' power cards, I'll explain them that this means "until the end of your next turn" and I'll tell them to place the power card near or onto the battlegrid when the power inflicts an effect so everyone can be reminded of it when they have a look at the grid. When their next turn comes up they will remove the used power card from the grid at the end of their round and the effect will end.

It seems to be the best to lay the responsibility of tracking the duration of the effect into the hands of the effects user. It will be his job that the effect will be remembered and used and it will be his job to notify everyone when it ends.

Thanks for your help.

For someone using a whiteboard to keep track of initiatives, it might not be that big of a deal.

Actually I had the use of a small whiteboard with dry erase marker in my mind, which I'd place near the battlegrid so everyone would have their initiative in plain sight.

 

[keterys]

My brainstorm notes on duration from that same simplified dnd project:
Unless otherwise specified, any bonus, penalty, or condition applied to your character lasts until the end of your next turn.

The most common three exceptions to the default duration:
(Save) - This penalty or condition requires a successful save to remove.
(Attack) - This bonus or penalty lasts until after you finish using a single a
ttack power.
(Encounter) - This bonus, penalty, or condition lasts until the end of the encounter. A save will not remove it.


So, you might hit an enemy and Daze it. It removes that at the ENT. Also, any time you get a save, you can make a save against the conditions that ENT, making (Save) _always_ better than ENT. I wrote that somewhere else...

Bonuses go on the recipient, and are removed at ENT, encounter, or after next attack.

Generally, I think the game should avoid having so many little things, especially on at-wills. Priest's Shields and Guiding Strikes and Lance of Faith and Psychic Lock...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Just for instance, several rogue powers cause the target to grant CA until the end of the rogue's next turn. That's a huge difference, for the rogue, than a power that grants CA until the end of the target's next turn; it's a difference of whether the rogue gets SA damage that following round or not.

Honestly, if you were to standardize the "non-save" lengths--and I don't honestly think it's the right way to go, because there are plenty of other little issues that would come up and several effects that would become overpowered, but if you were--I'd standardize them all to "end of attacker's next turn."

Well, I pretty much agree with you, but at least as far as I'm concerned the only reason it won't work is its just too late. Had the 4e devs not gone stark raving insane with fiddly effects and produced 20-something books full of hard to track stuff then the game COULD have gotten along fine with a much more constrained set. There would be plenty of powers that would have come out differently and a few that might not have been feasible but the game could have been designed that way and I doubt it would have had any significant impact overall, except combat would be a fair amount less like a final exam in accounting.

It's really water under the bridge though at this point, like most 'lets fix the game' sorts of retro-design it really isn't feasible, unless you want to go back to playing with a couple 3 ring binders full of house rules. I'll live with the annoyance, its not a show stopper, just one aspect of the game that could have been thought out better.

 

[Dr_Ruminahui]

My understanding of the thread was to discuss whether there were too many conditions, and what could be done about it.

And yes, I probably agree with you that it would be difficult to standardize all conditions - most from a power level, but some also from a playability one (for example, marks are much more confusing if they end at the end of one's turn rather than the beginning). As well, I say "power to them" to those groups and DMs who want to have a go at it... and eagerly await their responses on how it affects the game.

That said, bringing up the problem and discussing it makes it more likely that whenever 5th ed. comes out, that these concerns will be addressed, and perhaps through the implementation of the changes suggested here. Not that I'm suggesting some designer will come by and read this thread and go "hmmm...", but by shear probability, the more an issue is discussed and tried, the more likely it is that it will come to the designers ears.

After all, (and note, I have only my own feelings to back this up) its likely that the upped damage to monsters in MM3 is a result of players and DMs complaining about damage levels, then discussing how that might be fixed on places like this.

Oh, and I love your ideas, Keterys - I would give you XP but it won't let me (said I must spread XP around first), ... probably because you were too awesome lately (as I haven't XPed you recently, that can't be it).