Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Fewer conditions?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5209588" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 5209588, member: 82106"] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Fewer conditions?
Top