Fewer conditions?

[AbdulAlhazred]

I actually think a lot of the confusion and delay might be removed if all effects were just (save ends) at least then they would be easier to track.

Instead of creatures marking they could inflict a flat -1 or -2 penalty to attack rolls (save ends).

Player marks would probably have to stay the same, but at least they are easier to track (player, not DM based).

From a monster point of view it is the PCs "until the end of their next turn" powers that are the most troubling (especially with creatures that act more than once in a round) so changing them to save ends would be good, or at least predictable.

As for the niggling -1 and -2's the problem with those is that many of them seem to come from at will powers, but I don't think I would have a problem with them all becomming (save ends). Though it might cause problems with the creature being hit with the same power twice and the effect stacking when really it shouldn't.

Eh, the problem I have with save ends is it really can nerf a character for the whole encounter. I can recall this happening a number of times. One time the wizard was bitten by a phase spider on round 1. That was it for the wizard, never did save until 4 rounds later and the player sat twiddling her thumbs for half an hour. Another time the cleric got knocked prone and dazed (save ends) by a custom monster. Same thing, the character spent the next 4 rounds sustaining Spiritual Weapon (so couldn't afford to stand up) and couldn't seem to save. It was an interesting encounter but it did start to get frustrating for that player, especially when the rogue died because she couldn't get up and move back into the fight to issue a healing word. Just last week the dwarf got weakened by a hit from an Orc Gruumsh Sworn and again it was an encounter long nerf that pretty well took the character effectively out of the fight.

I don't think its excessive to have some save ends effects and the above examples were all interesting encounters where the condition created tactical complications that were fun, but I'm not convinced I'd like to see tons of it. Maybe at high levels where bonus saves are easy to come by it stops being an issue, but if you have a bunch of monsters that all issue a save ends effect things can get ugly fast.

 

[Mesh Hong]

yeah I see your point, and dont get me wrong I have played from level 1 to 27 so far and we have got used to it. Like you I have also seen massive runs of not saving, even with extra saves including +4 bonuses.

In my group it is not unusual at all to hear the warlord say; "I am in the most tactically sound position" or in other words he has just failed his save verses immobilise for the umpteenth time.

Really its the UEoNT effects from PC powers that cause me the most grief from a design stand point. But that is really only because now we are in the Epic Tier I use quite a few creatures that act more than once in a round, so those powers are vastly superior to save end powers as they can deny a creature 3 turns instead of 1.

In all fairness that isn't a problem with the RAW, its a problem with my monster design, though Tiamat would suffer the same way.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

Also relating to conditions, and as I ranted about in this thread (http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/277821-lolth-4.html#post5208171) WotC needs to give some thought as to which is meant to be a better condition - save ends or end of next turn. Frankly, as the PCs gain experience, "end of next turn" is simply a better condition to inflict, which makes powers that are "save ends" on a hit and "end of next turn" on a miss somewhat exasperating - hoping to miss just seems wrong.

I would love to see "save ends" and "end of next turn" unified. Something like:
(1) All effects end at (the end of) the initiative count in which they started.
(2) All effects require a saving throw to end in principle, but the DC varies

Then "save ends" becomes "Save DC 10" and "end of next turn" becomes "Save DC 0". Powers that grant saving throws allow creatures to escape any negative effect.

Of course, I'm not sure what the fallout would be on game balance. Probably the more practical approach is to allow players to choose the miss effect, if they prefer.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

Rather, I have 2 issues with condition tracking:

1. The various "niggling conditions"; and
2. The varied condition durations - save ends, end of target's next turn, end of "casters" next turn, start of target's next turn, start of "casters" next turn.

I would add a third issue, as I said above.

3. The varied limitations on the conditions. A +2 bonus to hit can be:

a. For all characters, characters within 5 squares, a single character, the next character to attack.
b. Against all opponents, bloodied opponents, a single opponent
c. For all attack ranges, melee attacks, ranged attacks
d. For all attacks, for OAs

The same thing goes for defense bonus, damage bonuses, etc.

 

[KarinsDad]

I would like to see most one round durations go.

A lot of the conversation here revolves around ENT, SNT, save ends, etc.

Why do we need most of this stuff for buff and debuff?

Why can't many effects be: "you are at -1 to hit for the rest of the encounter", "when an opponent shifts, you can shift with him until the end of the encounter"?

Simple. Done. Mark it down on your sheet and move on.

What's this obsession with one round effects?

We do need some one plus round system for stun and daze and other more heavily debilitating effects, but there are some effects that it is ok to have occur for the entire encounter.

You are slowed until the end of the encounter. You are deafened until the end of the encounter.


And "save ends" is not the one plus round solution either for some effects. There really does need to be a "until end of next turn" one round solution (and this should be user of the power, not target).

For example, Wizard is off in the corner and casts a defense debuff with save end on the foe near him. The foe goes next in the initiative and makes his save. The debuff did nothing. The Wizard (or anyone else in the group) never gets to take advantage of the fact that the foe was debuffed.


And effects like Mark just make the issue more complex. Do we really need a Mark system in the game? Isn't it easier to have something like "Combat Challenges works on any foe next to the Fighter". Period. Done. No need to mark for a Fighter. And, this same type of mark rule could apply to all Defenders. The foes you actually threaten are the foes that you lock down. Yes, it takes some tactics out of the game system, but it also takes complexity and bookkeeping out of the game system.

I don't know how many times we've had the conversation at our table of "no, this isn't my normal swordmage mark, this is my other one". The amount of information the DM has to know about every PC starts increasing a lot.

In fact, as a DM, I no longer know some percentage of the abilities of the 6 17th level PCs in my home game because there are just too fricking many of them. I have to rely on my players to really know their PCs and that they are not doing the wrong thing because they misunderstand an ability. If there is an adjudication question, they have to hand their power or feat sheet to me so that I can read it and make a ruling because I sure as heck cannot remember what a lot of the 60 feats and 84 powers and dozen or so items powers are supposed to do. But if there is not a question asked by me or the player, I am mostly clueless if a player is using a power or feat correctly or not.

 

[keterys]

I would like to see most one round durations go.

Sounds good.

Why can't many effects be: "... for the rest of the encounter"

Sounds horrible.

Basically it works for two types of effects:
1) Dailies
2) very very minor bonuses/penalties

And now you're tracking as many things as before, en total, but more per round since they never go away, except now the system will have ways to remove bonuses/penalties with dispels, and... argh.

Unless you also mean 'and we hand out 1/20th of the bonuses and penalties'

What's this obsession with one round effects?

More - what's with this obsession with bonuses and penalties? Do your forced movement, prone, with your extra damage or healing, shifts, whatever... and be done. No lingering effects. All set.

We do need some one plus round system for stun and daze and other more heavily debilitating effects

Avoid them as much as possible, and make the ones you use save ends?

You are slowed until the end of the encounter.

That would suck so much. It's absolutely crippling for many monsters, dreadful for many PCs in certain situations.

You are deafened until the end of the encounter.

Well, that's fine, though it's more a RP thing than anything.

For example, Wizard is off in the corner and casts a defense debuff with save end on the foe near him. The foe goes next in the initiative and makes his save. The debuff did nothing. The Wizard (or anyone else in the group) never gets to take advantage of the fact that the foe was debuffed.

So, don't put those types of debuffs in the system? Give your allies a bonus, or do something else. If the system models something badly, don't do that thing.

And effects like Mark just make the issue more complex. Do we really need a Mark system in the game? Isn't it easier to have something like "Combat Challenges works on any foe next to the Fighter". Period. Done. No need to mark for a Fighter. And, this same type of mark rule could apply to all Defenders. The foes you actually threaten are the foes that you lock down. Yes, it takes some tactics out of the game system, but it also takes complexity and bookkeeping out of the game system.

Biggest question whenever anyone wants to do something like this: How do you handle multiple defenders?

 

[Black Knight Irios]

Removing "marked" from the player's side will be bad:

• Punishment stacking
• balance between defender marking mechanics<<>>punishment gone
• if the defender is out of range for his punishment effect - nothing happens not even a penalty to the attack bonus

Removing marked on the monster side is just trivial.

Durations for buffs:
There are leader buffs that grant extremely high bonuses no one sane would grant them for the whole encounter.

You need at least 3 durations:
1) until the end of the encounter: buffs and debuffs
2) until the end of "casters" next turn: buffs and debuffs
3) save ends: debuffs

Whatever you do, you will lose tactical options (maybe you gain new ones) and strenghten some powers while weakening others.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

All of this is why I say for 4e this boat has already sailed. Maybe its more productive to talk about ways to more efficiently handle it at the table since this kind of surgery is at best going to be a massive house rule (and I think its safe to say 4e is not going to get some vast revision to enact something like any of these suggestions, as good as some of them are).

 

[keterys]

Depends - you can do things like say:

'Okay, for this game, none of your at-will or encounter powers can give a penalty or bonus that isn't instantaneous or encounter long'

It'd be a lot tougher for leaders and controllers, of course, but still mostly dealable. Lot more shifts, heals, higher base damage attacks, rather than buffs, debuffs, etc.

 

[Zaran]

All of this is why I say for 4e this boat has already sailed. Maybe its more productive to talk about ways to more efficiently handle it at the table since this kind of surgery is at best going to be a massive house rule (and I think its safe to say 4e is not going to get some vast revision to enact something like any of these suggestions, as good as some of them are).

I have to agree with this. I do not want to go over every power and rerwrite how things work. I don't want to tell my players not to pick some power or the other. We just have to find ways of dealing with and limiting the use of such powers by the monsters. I think the players dealing these things isn't so bad as long as there is a good way to track them.

I listened to a podcast about thunderspire. All I can say is "wow". These guys had a mini for every monster and each mini had a little flag pole where they could put condition flags on each mini individually. I'm sure that helped so much but I do not think the majority of us could do such a thing whether it's due to cost or time. Of course, condition tracking is one of the reasons why I want an online gaming table.