Saving throws are a coin toss?

[RigaMortus2]

I don't know about you, but in my games, Sleep spell only lasted about 1 or 2 rounds anyway. Either the allies awoke them within that time, or the enemy crept over and did a CdG within that time.

 

[Stalker0]

I think it will be extremely frustrating as a wizard to find that there's really nothing non-blasty that you can do inside of combat (we have no idea how rituals will work) that you can count on to last more than a couple of rounds.

I think that's the point. If you look at the variety of character powers and monster powers we've seen, status effects seem very easy to do, but their duration is very short.

I mean if you look at sleep, even if you FAIL, you slow down an entire group of creatures for at least one round, and half of them will drop out of the fight on the next round. That's extremely useful, and it doesn't even have a HD cap.

WOTC has realized that long term durations pretty much screw a player or a monster out of the combat. Glitterdust is a fine example, blinded for 3 or more rounds and your pretty much gimped for that entire fight. With spells that come in easily but last only a short time, it increases the dynamics of a combat.

Let us also remember that while a wizard spell may not last as long, wizard's don't have to worry about resources as much. While yes there sleep is once per day, they will often per encounter spells that can do cause status effects.

 

[small pumpkin man]

I actually think I've got a pretty good handle on it. I understand that the "save" mechanic is the way of figuring durations in 4E. The problem I have is that, from what I understand, this is the standard way of dealing with durations of debilitating spells in 4E.

So unless there are higher level spells that "break" this rule and state that their effects last until the end of the encounter, or until dispelled, or until 24 hours passes, then yes. I would also have a problem with that. Wouldn't 3E seem weird if every spell combat-oriented had 1d6-2 rounds for a duration?

I don't remember anyone ever complaining about the random durations on color spray or blasphemy, and I've seen a lot of weird complaints, although obviously blasphemy had other problems. It was a tad weird because they were about the only ones that had durations like that, but as a universal mechanic, I don't have a problem with it.

I think it will be extremely frustrating as a wizard to find that there's really nothing non-blasty that you can do inside of combat (we have no idea how rituals will work) that you can count on to last more than a couple of rounds.

I don't think a Wizard should EVER be able to take a creature completely out of a combat with a standard action (except for with hp damage), that's an awful idea, short durations on effects allows particular effects to stay relatively powerful, without walking into 3.x Save or Suck territory.

 

[hong]

I'm not disputing that some spells may get more powerful versions. But I'm worried that they'll all follow the pattern of a Hit effect that's cool that you can only count to last a round or two, and then some inconvenience effect that lasts until the end of the encounter. That's cool and all, but I'd like to at least know that the primary effect lasts more than a couple of rounds on *something*, even if it's vastly below my level.

Well, let's wait until the book comes out before getting carried away, yes?

 

[Mephistopheles]

The point is because the attack roll (the equivalent of the DC in 3.5) scales by level, and because most creatures do not seem to get a bonus to saves, a 30th level Wizard can cast it on a 30th level creature, and it's just as likely to work as a first level caster on a first level creature. For example, it's more effective on the pit fiend than on the hobgoblins we've seen (assuming the caster is appropriate level).

So yeah, that is important when discussing it's power level.

That's a fair point on it's own merit, although I'd expect a level 30 wizard has more interesting options than playing losing odds at putting level 30 monsters to sleep. It still has nothing to do with 3.5E, though. Regardless of how the 3.5E sleep spell works the 4E sleep spell still has the odds against it of actually putting anything to sleep. I made the comment more as an observation than as a criticism, yet the tired old "But in 3.5E..." routine was brought into it anyway.

Edit: Just to add, I think it's entirely possible that the spell as written is balanced within 4E as it has other things going for it to even out the odds so long as the caster can make sure he catches plenty of targets in the AoE. However, the smaller the number of targets caught in the AoE the more random the impact of the spell becomes as the 45-55 split approaches pretty close to 50-50 odds. That will probably be a common routine when considering the use of AoE powers in 4E as it looks like it will be in the casters best interest more than ever to get as many targets into their AoE as possible.

 

[Terramotus]

I don't remember anyone ever complaining about the random durations on color spray or blasphemy, and I've seen a lot of weird complaints, although obviously blasphemy had other problems. It was a tad weird because they were about the only ones that had durations like that, but as a universal mechanic, I don't have a problem with it.

I don't think a Wizard should EVER be able to take a creature completely out of a combat with a standard action (except for with hp damage), that's an awful idea, short durations on effects allows particular effects to stay relatively powerful, without walking into 3.x Save or Suck territory.

It's not the randomness, it's the shortness. Off the top of my head, here's some things you probably can't do with durations that end with a save. None of these uses seem like rituals to me either.

*Incapacitate a gate guard without killing him so that he can't open the gate to allow more enemies in while you make good your escape.
*Incapacitate or slow a fleeing NPC who leaves a ton of thugs to block you so you can catch him after dealing with the thugs.
*Kidnap the feisty damsel who doesn't know what kind of danger she's in without beating her her senseless.
*Blind or otherwise incapacitate a lookout while entering stealthily into a fortress.
*Charm a guard into opening a complex series of locks or doors.

And that's just for starters. Sure, you can accomplish all of these things with good 'ol murder, but sometimes you don't want that. Not everything is about all-out combat. Many of these problems might be mitigated with a 4E save that wasn't just a 55% chance of negating, since many of these scenarios might have a target who's lower level than the party.

Well, let's wait until the book comes out before getting carried away, yes?

True enough. This has just got me extremely worried, since I've liked practically everything else I've heard about 4E. Depending on how this is handled, it could be a total deal-breaker for 4E magic for me. Which sucks. I thought we weren't going to have to worry about durations, not that they'd practically be removed.

 

[Roman]

Perhaps I am misunderstanding it, but from what I have seen of it I dislike the new save mechanic. It appears to be based completely on randomness and does not seem to account for how 'tough' the creature saving is against the specific effect (no bonuses from fortitude, will...) nor does it take into account the power of the creature causing the effect and the power of the effect itself (DC). That seems like a huge step backwards for saving throws. Hopefully, I am misinterpreting the mechanic, but that is what I got so far.

 

[Incenjucar]

*Incapacitate a gate guard without killing him so that he can't open the gate to allow more enemies in while you make good your escape

This would be perfect for a sleep potion that you or sleep ritual that comes off as a lullabye. Or just a sneaky person knocking the guy out with a blackjack.

Or, if you really must be able to do this as a normal spell, a SINGLE TARGET Extended Sleep spell that won't become more powerful than a fireball in normal combat. I mean cripes, a sleep spell is half way to Time Stop if enough opponents fail their initial saves. Think about it.

*Incapacitate or slow a fleeing NPC who leaves a ton of thugs to block you so you can catch him after dealing with the thugs.

Yeah.

Then we have to make dragons immune to sleep.

*Kidnap the feisty damsel who doesn't know what kind of danger she's in without koshing her over the head.

Gag+Ropes=Win

*Blind or otherwise incapacitate a lookout while entering stealthily into a fortress.

Get a rogue.

*Charm a guard into opening a complex series of locks or doors.

Get a bard with Diplomacy when they come out.

And that's just for starters. Sure, you can accomplish all of these things with good 'ol murder, but sometimes you don't want that. Not everything is about all-out combat. Many of these problems might be mitigated with a 4E save that wasn't just a 55% chance of negating, since many of these scenarios might have a target who's lower level than the party.

So. How do you propose to make this not unbalance combat like mad?

Honestly, most of this sounds like you want everything to be solvable soley by the wizard.

 

[Danzauker]

One of the things I read somewhere (correct me if I'm wrong) is that in 4E they are trying to get away from previous editions assumptions that low level spells will get unuseful when you go up in character level.

So, you will always get some use of a 1st level spell even if you are an Epic character. Of course, a low level spell should be less powerful than a high level spell.

That's why 1st level sleep only puts out of combat an opponent for 2-3 rounds. I can easily foresee a higher level Improved Spell that gives a flat malus to the saving throw, thus lasting longer.

 

[Terramotus]

So. How do you propose to make this not unbalance combat like mad?

Ok, last post before I get some sleep. First of all, there are the normal defenses against attacks - Fort, Ref, Will, and AC. If saves were actually based off of the power of the attack vs a defense of the afflicted, that would also be a step forward, allowing longer but still manageable durations against mismatched foes.

Second, a system could be designed where leaders have methods of removing debuffs, either through a generic dispel magic or through abilities that remove certain types of status effects.

Honestly, most of this sounds like you want everything to be solvable soley by the wizard.

Take out solely, and I'll agree to that. I understand not wanting magic to overpower, but I really don't think having mundane means be superior to magic in most all situations is desirable either. Heck, at least a fighter or rogue CAN (theoretically - no specific answers to this that I know of) do nonlethal damage. But the wizard has no options but to blow your face off or to inconvenience you and then blow your face off? That doesn't seem right to me. Maybe if he were called the warmage instead...