Something Awful leak.

[keterys]

Once you are giving everyone Combat Advantage for the round is the moment that you are handing out a duration: until the end of the user's next turn.

No... that's not what I'm suggesting. But, it's fair that you think that's easier to track than I do. That duration, though, is the _hardest_ one to track from my personal experience.

Hence I'd much rather everyone tracks their own stuff. Get a benefit or penalty? Ends at the end of your next turn, move along.

Your end of target's turn preference also has other side effects. For example, the monster that is at -2 to hit until the end of it's turn. If that monster goes immediately after the caster, that monster does not get -2 to hit on Opportunity Attacks for an entire round. If he goes immediately before the caster, he does.

Save ends has all these problems too - your point?

Also, yours has the problem that save ends is often a _lesser_ condition to end of turn. Neatly solved my way

And, really, you gave the monster -2 to attacks on its turn. Who cares about OAs? (and, again, why do you keep coming up with fiddly +/-2 stuff? I thought we just said we shouldn't be tracking a billion things that only last a round or less?)

And note: in 5E, it's possible that durations might be things like 1 round per level or some such again. So if that does happen, having the user of the spell or power do the bookkeeping is preferable when one is using a power that lasts for 4 rounds.

I'd imagine that "lasts 4 rounds" is a pretty good example of another bad duration that'll cause tracking headaches C'mon, in for a penny, in for a pound. Either clean it up, or don't.

If lots of fiddly conditions with varying durations is a problem, it can be addressed, but the way to address it is not to just change the durations to a variant that's still opaque (err, what round is it? did A act yet? how about B? What about the fact that A delayed in round X?) and to keep around all the same fiddly conditions.

 

[KarinsDad]

No... that's not what I'm suggesting. But, it's fair that you think that's easier to track than I do. That duration, though, is the _hardest_ one to track from my personal experience.

I don't quite understand why though.

Could you explain why it is hard to track?

Isn't it just a case of "the caster at the end of his turn does all of his saves and ticks off any effect that he cast the previous round".

It's still tracked at the end of the turn, just at the end of the turn of the guy who used it.

I don't get why you find this so complex whereas ticking it off of EVERYONE's sheet at the end of their turn is more likely to have someone forget to do so.

Hence I'd much rather everyone tracks their own stuff. Get a benefit or penalty? Ends at the end of your next turn, move along.

I see your point. But, everyone has to write it down on their sheet. Everyone has to remember to check it off.

Instead of one guy.

More bookkeeping = bad.

Save ends has all these problems too - your point?

I hate that phrase "your point" cause it's disingenuous. You knew darn well my point.

Also, yours has the problem that save ends is often a _lesser_ condition to end of turn. Neatly solved my way

This is a real problem? Seriously?

While what you state is true, it's pretty much non-sequitor. It's such a minor point that it's hardly worth mentioning. Save ends usually is for something nastier than a simple debuff that rarely even affects the outcome of the encounter (a -2 debuff on a monster for a round affects one encounter in 10).

Save ends is often something that definitively affects an encounter. A blinded foe is often less effective. A stunned foe is less effective.

There are save ends that are less effective like Slowed, but then, those effects don't matter when they stop because they are so wimpy, and again are non-sequitor to the duration discussion.

So the fact that save ends CAN be a tiny bit less effective than until end of users next turn ignores the fact that the effect of save ends is typically greater then end of users next turn effects, and ignores the fact that save ends can be a LOT more effective duration-wise.

If this is your big reason that end of user turn is bad, it's pretty weak.

And, really, you gave the monster -2 to attacks on its turn. Who cares about OAs? (and, again, why do you keep coming up with fiddly +/-2 stuff? I thought we just said we shouldn't be tracking a billion things that only last a round or less?)

We shouldn't. I'm assuming, though, that WotC won't get rid of that. If they replace one round durations with longer durations, then this discussion on when to end a single round duration is a bit moot.

I'd imagine that "lasts 4 rounds" is a pretty good example of another bad duration that'll cause tracking headaches C'mon, in for a penny, in for a pound. Either clean it up, or don't.

Totally agree.

If lots of fiddly conditions with varying durations is a problem, it can be addressed, but the way to address it is not to just change the durations to a variant that's still opaque (err, what round is it? did A act yet? how about B? What about the fact that A delayed in round X?) and to keep around all the same fiddly conditions.

I agree. If they clean it up in 5E, they should clean it up to three basic in combat durations:

Save Ends
End of Encounter
Instantaneous

Done. That removes an awful lot of bookkeeping from the 4E model.

I also think that End of Encounter durations should sometimes be breakable. The monster uses a Standard Action to shake off the Slowed Until End of Encounter effect. The monster gets out of the webs, or clears its head, or breaks the ice off of its feet, etc.

They can have other "out of combat" durations like one hour per level or 24 hours or whatever, but the in combat ones should be simplified.


Edit: Note: The reason for one round durations is for buffs though. Buffing for the entire encounter is a bit powerful, even something simple like +1. So, I doubt that we'll see the removal of one round durations unless they change all buffing to debuffing. Debuffing can be save ends on the target.

 

[Hassassin]

For the non-combat abilities, you do what I mentioned before for dragons: slap on training in Arcana and give the creature any rituals you like.

For combat abilities, choose three or four "spells" you want it to use and just give it to them. You don't have to justify caster level, supernatural abilities, which ability score to use, etc.

Want your marilith to be able to raise skeletons to fight for her? Just say "Minor action: four [insert skeleton name here] appear in unnocupied squares within 5 squares of the marilith". You don't need to follow the rules for animate dead, you just give her the ability to create whatever you need, be it skeletons, ju-ju zombies or jujubees.

I use the MM *because* I don't want to invent what my monsters can do myself. If the MM monsters get too boring without tweaking, there may be something wrong with it.

 

[keterys]

I agree. If they clean it up in 5E, they should clean it up to three basic in combat durations:

Save Ends
End of Encounter
Instantaneous

Done. That removes an awful lot of bookkeeping from the 4E model.

First things first - agreed! My suggestion was to have that, but if you must have minor debuffs/buffs, you add a single extra line which is
End of Turn - and those effects go away when you either end your turn and check saves -or- when someone gives you a save you can save against them.

But either way, I figure you need those 3 durations, so a minimum of other durations is best.

Edit: Note: The reason for one round durations is for buffs though. Buffing for the entire encounter is a bit powerful, even something simple like +1. So, I doubt that we'll see the removal of one round durations unless they change all buffing to debuffing. Debuffing can be save ends on the target.

Easy to have less buffs, and certainly easy to have less minor buffs. Nothing wrong with having an encounter long +1 to hit instead of a single round +5 to hit. You can write it right on the map or let folks track it on their sheets, but you do it, you move on.

Could you explain why it is hard to track?

Because someone not you is tracking things that affect you, that they may or may not remind you of when it's your turn, or someone else's turn who is affected. Someone whose initiative / turn order might change, or who might forget to let you know?

I'm not talking from a theoretical perspective. I play D&D three or more times a week, and it is _consistently_ the most screwed up duration.

I don't get why you find this so complex whereas ticking it off of EVERYONE's sheet at the end of their turn is more likely to have someone forget to do so.

If everything goes away, then everything goes away. It's consistent and easy to deal with. You might have a couple people who go "do I still have that +6 to hit"... and those people will quickly learn to stop being ignorant, since no, they will _never_ still have it

I see your point. But, everyone has to write it down on their sheet. Everyone has to remember to check it off.

Instead of one guy.

More bookkeeping = bad.

Yeah, I play a bunch of leaders... and I've taken to handing people sticky notes, or using table tents, or writing on the map... because otherwise they won't know the bonuses I've given. Doesn't matter how often I say "Everyone has +6 to damage". They need to track it, one way or another, and mostly I'm still going "Did you remember my +6 to damage?"

So, yeah, the bookkeeping is there regardless.

I hate that phrase "your point" cause it's disingenuous. You knew darn well my point.

No, I don't. Save Ends has problems with init order - end of turn stuff has problems with init order. They're different problems, that deal better or worse with things like delay and ready and whatever.

This is a real problem? Seriously?

Umm, yes, a very serious problem. I'm shocked you missed all the discussions about it, but the fact that you can grant saves to save ends and not end of turn, and elites / solos get bonuses to saves, but are often out of luck on end of turn - and may even get hit 2 or 3 times by end of turn because they act 2 or 3 times in a round? Yeah, it's a very big issue. I've seen a rogue _intentionally miss_ with a daily to get an end of turn effect rather than a save ends effect. Further, PCs almost always prefer save ends to end of monster's next turn - you can grant saves, have abilities like Disciple of Freedom to just pop right out, and even ready actions more effectively "I ready a charge for when I make my save".

While what you state is true, it's pretty much non-sequitor. It's such a minor point that it's hardly worth mentioning. Save ends usually is for something nastier than a simple debuff that rarely even affects the outcome of the encounter (a -2 debuff on a monster for a round affects one encounter in 10).

So, let's take a step back - don't throw a -2 debuff, certainly not for one round. It's not worth the time of tracking it. Make it last the whole encounter, sure.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Just out of curiousity EW, what would you consider a good (for a given value of good) pace of a round? Presume 5 players and a DM, low to mid-low level and no really funky stuff going on. How long should a round take and how long should a given player take to resolve his turn?

5-10 minutes of real time per combat round. Its more than possible because I have done it, with 7 players. This assumes an opposition roughly equal to the PCs in numbers. A large horde could take longer for the DM to resolve especially if there were groups with varying abilities.

 

[Hassassin]

5-10 minutes of real time per combat round. Its more than possible because I have done it, with 7 players. This assumes an opposition roughly equal to the PCs in numbers. A large horde could take longer for the DM to resolve especially if there were groups with varying abilities.

Halve that and you are closer to what I'd like to see.

And that's for the first round. Optimally combat should accelerate as characters die and options grow fewer, so that once the outcome is no longer in doubt we don't have to waste time on it. As is, it mostly slows down as the number of conditions and hit point totals to keep in mind grows, except when there are a lot of enemies to start with. I fix this by having the enemy flee/surrender as soon as the combat seems decided.

I'd much rather have my thirty minute boss fight take ten three minute rounds than three ten minute rounds. That would mean players never have to wait long for their turn.

 

[Incenjucar]

To me, the real question isn't "how long should a round last?", it's "how many encounters should you be able to fit into a session without rushing?"

The answer, for me, is twelve to twenty.

Whut.

I don't have that many encounters in a session of playing Marvel vs. Capcom.

 

[Incenjucar]

While I realize that the 4E durations are complicated for some people, the effect they have on the game is tremendous. Removing them basically prevents entire tactical concepts from being available.

 

[Klaus]

How long a play session?

Ideally, for me: 3-hour play session, 1 DM and 3-4 players, 2 to 3 combat encounters plus exploration and interaction per session. So about 20-30 minutes per combat encounter, on average.

 

[Klaus]

I use the MM *because* I don't want to invent what my monsters can do myself. If the MM monsters get too boring without tweaking, there may be something wrong with it.

At one point, you're bound to exhaust your options. The DMGs are filled with templates and themes that can be used to customize monsters in less than 5 minutes.