Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Herremann the Wise" data-source="post: 5945006" data-attributes="member: 11300">Personally, I attribute the comparative reduction in swinginess in 4e more to other factors such as less differentiation between defenses (compared to 3e saves) as well as funnelling almost everything through hit point attrition rather than having a variety of different glass jaws and an overall increase in hit points (which monster vault/MM3 addressed to put a little more zing into combat). However, my point was that whenever we play 4e, the difference between encounters where characters are full (dailies and everyone has an action point) and when they are pretty much just on encounter powers and below is quite different in terms of "swinginess".4e power fluff really does not work for our group (it's a little too wahoo/over the top for our group's conservative types). As such its the keywords that really define things for us and so yes, there certainly isn't nothing but (and please understand this is really only my personal opinion) such keywords really epitomise for me the mechanics first, fluff second approach that I feel 4e emphasized. It is a little harder to connect such things to the campaign world when the fluff that should be doing this doesn't. [Where my obvious preference is for fluff first that the mechanics grow from; much less elegant with great holes left in the various permutations of design space but heh...]I love this type of discussion and information that gets at the heart of things so well done again.What I think you are getting at is not "how long should an effect last?" but "when should an effect end". In this respect, an instantaneous effect is most likely the easiest duration to manage as it gives a single window of opportunity for characters to react/interrupt, the effect happens and then the effect no longer needs to be tracked. Compare this to an effect that ends at the end of your next turn or one that lasts for x number of rounds and you have something that needs to be carefully tracked. Too many of these at the table in the one encounter and you have a whole stack of effort expended in trying to ensure these more finicky durations are being carefully tracked. We use an initiative tracker which is somewhat helpful for the latter x rounds but useless for the former end-of-next-turns. As such, both these durations are ones I'd prefer to see abandoned.Now just as you mention the awkwardness of the one hour duration, the encounter duration while better can still produce situations such as your example upthread where a power that lasts until the end of the encounter is taken advantage of by continuing to go on. However this stretches my "believability". Perhaps when I DM 4e, I have a comparatively stricter definition of encounter duration (if the players choose to continue on without an opponent the encounter should end).However with this stricter defining, I find that an "encounter" works much better as a unit of duration than a limiter of action. Just as I would prefer that range is more abstractly described as either close, standard or long (where close is within 30', standard is somewhere on a conventional battlemat, and long is anywhere within visual range) I would rather see duration as a more abstract instantaneous, concentration, encounter, day(s)/week(s)/month(s)/year(s) etc., semi-permanent (contingent upon a specific trigger not occuring), and permanent (cannot be undone). These are all duration-finishing triggers that are easy to manage (with encounter being potentially the most contentious duration but also perhaps the most common).Anyway, good discussion again - you deserve more XP that hopefully a few extra people can provide.Best RegardsHerremann the Wise</blockquote>

Verification