Improving "slowed"

[keterys]

The '2 max' no matter what rule is interesting... but slow is already strong in that situation. I'm not sure that making it even stronger for denying people the ability to get into conflict at all is a good idea.

That is to say, I don't want to increase the situations in which slow denies a creature the ability to act at all (because that leads to boredom) but rather increase the usefulness of slow in situations in which there is not a lot of movement required (such as when creatures are in melee)

Not allowing shifts would perhaps have too much synergy with the fighter. Treating everything as difficult terrain would mean a slowed creature moves as easily on road as through brambles (actual difficult terrain) so that's less exciting. A penalty to Reflex would make for interesting synergies with other powers, hmm.

 

[Rechan]

If your incentive is to increase its usefulness in melee when there's no movement involved... then are you also going to beef up immobilized, since if your'e in melee and not moving, immobilization does little.

 

[the Jester]

Ket,

You should try using "2 squares max" for a couple of sessions that include several slow-inflicting encounters and see what you think. When we started playing 4e, we played "2 per move action," but when we switched I noticed a dramatic increase in the coolness of slow effects. They still aren't a combat-winner under most circumstances, but "2 max" slow is much more interesting tactically. You might like it; if not for a couple sessions, try running a couple of playtest encounters that way and see what you think of it.

Melee characters who get slowed have to use suboptimal (ranged) attacks, but that's ok. Ranged specialists who get enemies adjacent to them have to use suboptimal (melee) attacks, too.

 

[keterys]

Fair enough - I can try giving the wizard with ray of frost an item that imposes that maximum, potentially.