Moment of Glory

[Mapache]

How I deal with MoG:
DM: "Is that the end of your turn?"
P1: "yes."
DM: "P2, you're up, btw the resist 5 is gone"
P1: "wait, I sustain minor!"
DM: "I asked if that was the end of your turn and you said yes, no sustain"

I don't let players sprinkle in damage after thier turns end from stuff they forgot, unless it was attatched to a feat or something. I hold the same to my monsters, if I forgot to do X, the players benefit. If a player can't say at least "Sustain minor" before end of turn, they lose it.

Of, course, i'm playing a psychological game by asking if they end thier turn, hoping that in the rush, they forget that small detail.

Yeah, I generally find that GMing like an antagonistic jerk and trying to trap players into Gotcha! with no takebacks is an excellent way to tone down player effectiveness. Sometimes it even keeps them from showing up to the game in the first place!

 

[jimmifett]

Yeah, I generally find that GMing like an antagonistic jerk and trying to trap players into Gotcha! with no takebacks is an excellent way to tone down player effectiveness. Sometimes it even keeps them from showing up to the game in the first place!

How is it antagonistic? I ask the player if they are done. If they say 'yes', before they remembered to sustain, the effect is over. In the hurry to get Team Evil's turns over and done with quick (so the encounter doesn't take forever), I will sometimes forget an effect for the monster. If I go back and say "oh, wait, you need to take another 1d6 dmg bc he was adjacent to bob the barbarian" after that monster's turn is ended, my players would balk.

Mistakes happen in games with rules. You lift your fingers from your piece in chess, the move is locked. You live with it and move on, or you can whine like a baby that it's not fair.

As long as end of turn enforcement is enforced globally to player and DM alike, things are fair.

 

[Raikun]

This is one that I really don't think needs fixed. Especially after starting a new campaign (and using Reavers of Harkenwold). It's maybe much against level 1 encounters..but it's not going to be used for those. But I've seen encounters of level 2 or 3 dealing 10-15 damage hits to the players from that module, (or more!) so even by level 4 or 5 when they're dealing with level 6-7 encounters, DR 5 isn't hard for monsters to outdo.

And for those very early levels where DR5 is more significant...any DM worth his salt should have no trouble tweaking encounters to balance it if he feels it's needed.

And he only needs to do so for one encounter per game day. Give the boss and his minions +3 damage, and voila...Moment of Glory still has a significant contribution but is not breaking anything.

If it's even needed. One of the final encounters in Reavers of Harkenwold (which will be met by a level 3 or 4 party) has one monster that has average 16 damage (max 25 damage) hits, and other monsters with average 15 (max 24) damage hits...and that's after the level 4 encounter with the Spined Devil that can do 3d6+7 damage against the party.

 

[Raikun]

How is it antagonistic? .

To be fair... antagonistic can mean showing active opposition.

So when you "Play a psychological game by asking if they end thier turn, hoping that in the rush, they forget that small detail." as a way to "deal with MoG" (using your words)...that is taking active opposition, and is therefore antagonistic.

 

[jimmifett]

To be fair... antagonistic can mean showing active opposition.

So when you "Play a psychological game by asking if they end thier turn, hoping that in the rush, they forget that small detail." as a way to "deal with MoG" (using your words)...that is taking active opposition, and is therefore antagonistic.

I'll grant you that in that light, definitely antagonistic
But hardly a jerk.
"Is that the end of your turn" is the player's queue to recall anything they may have forgotten. If they can't, thems the breaks, live and learn.

 

[Kinneus]

[MENTION=55006]jimmifett[/MENTION]: A thing to keep in mind is that you, as the DM, can view and have access to the PC's powers and stat blocks. The players, however, do not have access to and cannot view the monster's statblocks. Therefore, while you have a good to pretty good chance at catching a PC who forgets to sustain, the players do not have much of a chance of catching you forgetting to sustain, since they have no idea of knowing if a particular effect is a terrain effect, a sustaining power, or an "until the end of the encounter" power. This might be where the perception of unfairness comes in.

There's also the argument that even if the player forgot to sustain, the character wouldn't. In the in-game fiction, if that Wizard didn't do anything with his minor action that turn, why wouldn't he used that minor action to sustain? Although I suppose that could always be refluffed as the Wizard losing his concentration, or something.

 

[Mapache]

How is it antagonistic? I ask the player if they are done. If they say 'yes', before they remembered to sustain, the effect is over. In the hurry to get Team Evil's turns over and done with quick (so the encounter doesn't take forever), I will sometimes forget an effect for the monster. If I go back and say "oh, wait, you need to take another 1d6 dmg bc he was adjacent to bob the barbarian" after that monster's turn is ended, my players would balk.

How is it antagonistic? You're trying to harry the player into forgetting to make a completely obvious move. You're engaging in social pressure to make the person screw up. The Cleric wouldn't just "forget" to keep sustaining the spell, yet you're trying to get the player to do that. At my table, we have a cooperative experience in which I try to provide opposition that is just strong enough to make the players feel a risk of defeat, but not actually defeat them. We all work together to make sure everyone is playing their A-game. That's clearly not what's going on at your table, turning it into a hostile players-vs-game-master eke-out-any-advantage-you-can environment.

Mistakes happen in games with rules. You lift your fingers from your piece in chess, the move is locked. You live with it and move on, or you can whine like a baby that it's not fair.

As long as end of turn enforcement is enforced globally to player and DM alike, things are fair.

It's "fair", but it also falls under my definition of stressful as opposed to fun. If I wanted to play in that kind of environment, I'd be at a Magic tournament instead of running an RPG for my friends at home. It may be fun for you and your group, but I and mine would walk out.

 

[jimmifett]

How is it antagonistic? You're trying to harry the player into forgetting to make a completely obvious move. You're engaging in social pressure to make the person screw up. The Cleric wouldn't just "forget" to keep sustaining the spell, yet you're trying to get the player to do that. At my table, we have a cooperative experience in which I try to provide opposition that is just strong enough to make the players feel a risk of defeat, but not actually defeat them. We all work together to make sure everyone is playing their A-game. That's clearly not what's going on at your table, turning it into a hostile players-vs-game-master eke-out-any-advantage-you-can environment.

It's "fair", but it also falls under my definition of stressful as opposed to fun. If I wanted to play in that kind of environment, I'd be at a Magic tournament instead of running an RPG for my friends at home. It may be fun for you and your group, but I and mine would walk out.

Playing one's "A-game" means not making mistakes.

I let them have thier turn, and after a moment when it seams like they are waiting, I confirm if they are done. I'm not stealing an action from them, they used the power, it is thier responsibility for it's upkeep as part of the faustian bargain. The player's words end's there own turn. I've waited for players with MoG active to tell me they are done with thier turn before I even ask. If they have not said "sustain minor", it's gone. plain and simple.
It only takes once, and the player puts out a marker or something else so that they remember the next time.

Stressful is having to track damage/condition that the player forgot to tell you about almost a turn ago bc they forgot thier power was active. The DM is responsible for multiple creatures' effects and powers, a player only has to remember one creature. If they can't remember before they end thier turn, they can cry me a river. I expect no less of myself when I'm the player and if i've forgotten something, or remember right after the words leave "end turn" leave my moouth, I snap my fingers, say "damn", and let it go.

 

[corwyn77]

I'll grant you that in that light, definitely antagonistic
But hardly a jerk.
"Is that the end of your turn" is the player's queue to recall anything they may have forgotten. If they can't, thems the breaks, live and learn.

My response as a player would be, when using the power, to state that every turn I will be sustaining the power assuming I have a minor action to do so. To everyone at the table it's pretty obvious that that's the number one priority of the character is maintaining that "I Win" power, and the character isn't likely to forget, even when the player might due perceived pressure.

If the gm is still saying no, you have to state it every time, and if you miss once, I gotcha, that smacks as being an antagonistic jerk. It's no different from 3e players stating their characters power attack every round unless they say otherwise. It's what they do.

Anyway, even if you go for your method, relying on a player to forget to sustain is a lousy way to balance an abusive power.

 

[jimmifett]

My response as a player would be, when using the power, to state that every turn I will be sustaining the power assuming I have a minor action to do so. To everyone at the table it's pretty obvious that that's the number one priority of the character is maintaining that "I Win" power, and the character isn't likely to forget, even when the player might due perceived pressure.

If the gm is still saying no, you have to state it every time, and if you miss once, I gotcha, that smacks as being an antagonistic jerk. It's no different from 3e players stating their characters power attack every round unless they say otherwise. It's what they do.

Anyway, even if you go for your method, relying on a player to forget to sustain is a lousy way to balance an abusive power.

I have indeed had this very situation come up, with the player telling me that exact same thing. The first time I allowed it. Two turns later, they took a move, a standard, and a minor to heal. When their turn ended, I informed the next player that the MoG is ended as the player used his minor to heal instead of sustain. The MoG player then tried to rewind his whole turn, having forgotten the sustain minor requirement, and needing to change his whole strategy. Players groaned and started erasing hit points, and I erasing damage from monsters.

It was after this that I started enforcing sustain minors be spoken every turn for effects, and enforcing "end my turn" meaning ending the turn, no take backs. The players also now explicitly label thier damage types to ensure any weakness is taken advantage of.

"I do 12 axe in the face damage"
"I do 8 necrotic damage"

Making players responsible for thier actions, turns and effects may be the signs of an antognistic jerk. Attempting to "reserve" a sustain minor in advance are the hallmarks of an incompetant and/or lazy player.