Something Awful leak.

[Lanefan]

Pre-4e, the only conditions non-casters can deal out with any regularity is prone.

They're usually pretty good at dealing out "dead", too.

Prone: lying on the ground but able to get up or otherwise act.
Dead: lying on the ground with no interest in doing anything.

Lan-"5e must be a VERY high-level Cleric, to try and raise 4 dead editions all at once"-efan

 

[nightwyrm]

They're usually pretty good at dealing out "dead", too.

Prone: lying on the ground but able to get up or otherwise act.
Dead: lying on the ground with no interest in doing anything.

Lan-"5e must be a VERY high-level Cleric, to try and raise 4 dead editions all at once"-efan

Since we're talking about having too many conditions, I assume it's a problem with tracking the high amount of them during the game. As far as I know, there's no need to track the dead condition for anyone.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Meh, I'd have to say that to a large extent those sorts of 'tactical concepts' are ones we can live without. I'd rather streamline and then rely on less gamist tactical concepts. If you want to use tactics then the basics of surprise, flanking, cover, concentration of firepower, range, and mobility should be the core concepts you're leveraging, not "this is a good tactic because we can sequence these 3 powers in such a way that their durations let is put a pile of hurt on X". I don't HATE that kind of thing, but I think it inevitably leads to the need for both complex tracking and complex decision making, which slows down fights.

I also think people lose track of the fact that when you push things down to the micro level like that too much you don't NET gain anything. You make each single combat long and intensive, but a series of short engagements with the players using their heads to figure out how, where, and when to hit the enemy is just as much fun and involves just as many interesting choices. It just FEELS like a faster paced game and allows for more plot choices and flexibility on the part of the DM.

Honestly, I think a lot of trashing on 4e is a pity because really it isn't going to be that hard to achieve this within basically the structure of the 4e rules. It requires a bit different take on PC options and whatnot, but the actual rules need not change much at all. I HIGHLY suspect that a lot of the issues people focus on with 4e would largely go away if combat was just say 50% quicker and more straightforward. Some other things would go along with this of course, but again 90% of it follows from streamlining and moving away from 'fiddly' things to less granularity and just emphasizing the more abstract 'operational' level of the adventure (such as strengthening longer running effects and consumables and having a bit cleaned up ritual system to encourage more planning).

Sadly the whole focus devolved down onto nitpicking hit points and stuff like that, which really was largely not the issue. Damn, now I'm once again hankering to dive into the whole thing, lol. See what you did to me!

 

[keterys]

It's funny how many people complain about monsters having too many hp in 4e, when I'm used to the other side of it, where stuff does so much damage that I have to work to make combats last more than 2 rounds.

I've done 8 combats in 45 minutes before in 4e, though more to see if I could than as an... optimal use of my RP-ing time.

For a more intentional and well paced game, I did run a 4e epic game (L23) not long ago. 8 hour day, 8 combats - most of them quite complex (like, poisonwater rapids through the demonweb, in combat skill challenges, traps, illusory walls, etc), several RP scenes (including a big negotiation with a goddess), a puzzle, a break for lunch. It's no 15 combats, but I suppose it could have been if they were _much simpler / easier combats_. It wouldn't really have been more fun, though.

My preference is for around 45 minute combats with probably 10-25 minutes being the first round of the combat. Enough time to casually start up, let folks RP their taunts and insults, discuss things, maybe avert combat early through RP, figure out what they're doing in the combat, etc.

Most of it requires knowing the encounters and having players who don't spend 1-5 minutes _doing absolutely nothing_. (We have a joke in one group when we start and end a discussion about a non-game topic because nothing's happening "Uh, whose turn is it... oh, wait, it must be Bob's")

TLDR, it's totally possible to run 4e faster if you want, even at epic, is I guess what I'm trying to say. Ditto every edition of D&D.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think a reason people found 4e to have too many conditions is because everyone in 4e can inflict those conditions. Pre-4e, the only conditions non-casters can deal out with any regularity is prone. Everything else is the province of casters, and mainly the wizards who focuses on debuffing. If there's only 1 debuffer in the whole party, there's going to be a lot less conditions to track.

Right. I'm not at all sure that I want the casters to be in that exclusive club, but the NUMBER of conditions applied per combat could be reduced a lot. If I were actually redesigning 4e I would cut back a decent amount on the number of powers overall (at least combat ones, I might add more non-combat ones). Fewer powers, more impact for each one. Again, it follows from my quicker and less granular combat with more quicker tactical situations. You can get away with having ONE encounter power or TWO encounter powers if the fight is over in 20 minutes flat.

The thing with AD&D for instance was that combats tended to be either decided quickly or left to the melee combatants largely. when the casters got involved in a big way there weren't conditions, there was just dead most of the time.

Each fight was usually smaller and focused, or if it was larger it was often lots of 'mooks' and AD&D mook type monsters were simple. An orc did ONE thing, swing a sword, period. Usually when you hit him he died.

I think we can step up from that, but I think both PCs and monsters would mostly use at-will type attacks that had only instant effects. Then you'd have an encounter power that might have a one-round effect, and your daily power or two that you probably wouldn't use more than one of in a whole fight for the whole party unless it was a big boss fight. Even many of those don't need lingering effects.

I'd also have a much smaller variety of effects, with most of them inflicting some sort of condition. Dazed for instance is great. It doesn't negate a monster, but worst-case it IS a debuff, and used cleverly it can be a total action negator. Prone, likewise, and blind, weakened, and slowed are perfectly fine too. Restrained, unconscious, stunned, dominated, all good for your higher level or daily type moves. Monsters would just rarely have these things, so you'd probably have 4 monsters with just an MBA and maybe a racial feature thing, and then the one more interesting monster with a couple powers that do fun things maybe. If you want a 'mook' to do much, then give him some terrain power or add something to him, but it would be rare.

I'd also add a bit to the potency of situational stuff. Make CA a +3. Have surprise round allow a full set of actions. Spell out a couple other advantages like 'set weapon vs charge' and 'higher ground'. This encourages more tactical thinking vs power jiggering thinking. It means you can have simpler stripped down encounters with just one salient feature, keep it simple, and still have it be interesting and involve some tactics for that quick duration of the fight.

I think this also encourages a more AD&D style of making up quick encounters where you really only need to know the defenses, one attack, and the hit points of the 'orcs'. There can be a full stat block in the MM, but you don't NEED to go look it up 90% of the time.

 

[SensoryThought]

Fortunately, the rules for adding spells to things is in the DMG. Sadly, you have to actually read the DMG to know that, because that is how books work.

Epic tier sarcasm.

 

[Incenjucar]

I asked for an example. Saying what the result is without having a good example for where the power definitely gains something real doesn't mean anything. For what At Will does this significantly matter where End of Your Next Turn wouldn't work just as well?

For example:

Devastating Strike. The difference between Start of Your Next Turn and End of Your Next turn means that if you provoke an OA (a relatively rare occurrence which player controls) against the foe and if you are not raging, the foe gets +2 to the hit roll which means that maybe 10% of the time * 10% of the time or probably less than 1% of the time, this could actually matter.

Is a 1% difference in outcome worth it when compared to simplifying the rules? Not in my book.

The movement inhibitors would shut down a lot of reactive movement abilities, and some feats and abilities trigger off of status effects: Net Snare, Iron Soul Flurry of Blows, etc.

Aura and zone abilities could be more easily abused in conjunction with movement powers, and you could even have TWO of them up at the same time in the right circumstances: Ignition, Rotting Doom, Body Double, etc.

Special combos can crop up where you can use one ability to magnify another: Karmic Bond+Unconscious Assault, Paint the Bulls-Eye+Direct the Strike, etc.

Abilities that start creating a stacking loop that amplifies the effect: Memory Hole/Eyebite, Playful Torment, Brash Strike, etc.

These are also examples of why action points are so powerful - you can layer abilities in ways normally unavailable.

And please note, that's JUST At-Will powers. The combos you can do with Encounter and Daily powers can get nuts. I also ignored anything to do with OAs, since that can be more game-dependent and you don't consider them valid arguments anyway - which means you chose Devastating Strike as a strawman argument.

Also also keep in mind that this includes not only current powers, but hypothetical powers. In fact, the whole point of this is that 5E's powers will have to be more limited than 4E's powers if this happens, if it's to maintain anything resembling balance.

It only typically allows you to double dip if you are using an Action Point. For example, Blistering Flourish. If this power wasn't until end of your next turn, it wouldn't do anything above a melee basic.

You can triple-dip if you include action points, actually.

Ardent Outrage, for example, could trigger from an OA or other damage at the start of your turn, after which you could make an attack. With an action point, you'd get two extra standard actions to utilize that effect. You'd also have a chance of getting some boosts between your turns.

And, there are a ton of powers where there is no such thing as double dipping. Burden of Earth only allows a single +1 bonus. Shield Feint only allows a single +3 bonus.

Yes. They'd get an increase in power here, too, and could be combined with whatever you use on your next turn to give a target a double-whammy, say with a to-hit bonus AND a damage bonus instead of just one or the other.

Or, powers that allow double dipping, but it requires subpar play. For example, Vicious Mockery is a debuff, so the only way to double dip it is to provoke an OA with it. Hardly something worth discussing.

Funny how all of your examples are things you consider not worth discussing... Come on, guy. Just say "I do not consider OAs to be worth tactical consideration." and then talk about things that do not involve OAs so we can have a real discussion.

A lot of "until the start of your next turn" is actually for whether something happens, not for a buff or debuff or nasty effect for that duration. For example, Escalating Violence. And like the Devastating Strike example above, the Barbarian would have to provoke an OA if EV was an end of your next turn power in order to get a slight bonus to hit and damage. Sure, it would be an option, but hardly game breaking.

Can you give an example of a throttle back with this?

See above.

It's not important at all. Until the end of your next turn is a superset of end of target's next turn and also ensures that the effect WILL affect the target, so this option isn't needed. It has no significant gain.

Unless you have an example where end of target's next turn is balanced and end of your next turn isn't.

"End of your next turn" allows you to take advantage of something directly.

"End of your target's next turn." only allows you to take advantage of something passively unless you use an action point.

Ardent Strike would outright suck if it was "End of your target's next turn." unless initiative order was just so, and "Erupting Flare" wouldn't force enemies to flee to protect their allies if it was "End of your next turn." because those allies would be able to flee on their own.

There really is no need for 4 different types of partial round durations. One is sufficient.

No durations at all ever is also good. Conditional durations is also good. There is no magic number, but I far prefer mine to yours, as it allows for more possibilities, but isn't as complex as conditional durations. And someone out there would just LOVE conditional duration D&D.

 

[Hassassin]

Three minutes to play through a round seems mighty fast even by 1e standards.

Of course, if the combat is 4 PCs vs. a straightforward monster e.g. a dumb Giant then the rounds will go by really fast.

Yes, I clarified in a later post that I assumed 4 PCs and 1-2 (types of) monsters. While large parties should certainly be supported, I believe 4-5 PCs is a good benchmark to approximate typical groups.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The movement inhibitors would shut down a lot of reactive movement abilities, and some feats and abilities trigger off of status effects: Net Snare, Iron Soul Flurry of Blows, etc.

Aura and zone abilities could be more easily abused in conjunction with movement powers, and you could even have TWO of them up at the same time in the right circumstances: Ignition, Rotting Doom, Body Double, etc.

Special combos can crop up where you can use one ability to magnify another: Karmic Bond+Unconscious Assault, Paint the Bulls-Eye+Direct the Strike, etc.

Abilities that start creating a stacking loop that amplifies the effect: Memory Hole/Eyebite, Playful Torment, Brash Strike, etc.

These are also examples of why action points are so powerful - you can layer abilities in ways normally unavailable.

And please note, that's JUST At-Will powers. The combos you can do with Encounter and Daily powers can get nuts. I also ignored anything to do with OAs, since that can be more game-dependent and you don't consider them valid arguments anyway - which means you chose Devastating Strike as a strawman argument.

Also also keep in mind that this includes not only current powers, but hypothetical powers. In fact, the whole point of this is that 5E's powers will have to be more limited than 4E's powers if this happens, if it's to maintain anything resembling balance.



You can triple-dip if you include action points, actually.

Ardent Outrage, for example, could trigger from an OA or other damage at the start of your turn, after which you could make an attack. With an action point, you'd get two extra standard actions to utilize that effect. You'd also have a chance of getting some boosts between your turns.



Yes. They'd get an increase in power here, too, and could be combined with whatever you use on your next turn to give a target a double-whammy, say with a to-hit bonus AND a damage bonus instead of just one or the other.



Funny how all of your examples are things you consider not worth discussing... Come on, guy. Just say "I do not consider OAs to be worth tactical consideration." and then talk about things that do not involve OAs so we can have a real discussion.



See above.



"End of your next turn" allows you to take advantage of something directly.

"End of your target's next turn." only allows you to take advantage of something passively unless you use an action point.

Ardent Strike would outright suck if it was "End of your target's next turn." unless initiative order was just so, and "Erupting Flare" wouldn't force enemies to flee to protect their allies if it was "End of your next turn." because those allies would be able to flee on their own.



No durations at all ever is also good. Conditional durations is also good. There is no magic number, but I far prefer mine to yours, as it allows for more possibilities, but isn't as complex as conditional durations. And someone out there would just LOVE conditional duration D&D.

Lets just grant that everything you say here is 100% entirely accurate, which I don't really dispute, so what?!?!

Regardless of what sort of system is created you then design a set of powers which works with the tools at hand and produces a game which does what you want it to do. I don't see a problem. Given that 5e will ALMOST CERTAINLY have, and certainly SHOULD have, a goal of providing a tactically interesting but faster-paced and less granular game who cares? OK, so there are some awesome combos. The developers will know that. The game will be designed around that knowledge. The challenge level and capability of monsters will be built with that in mind. As long as the designers of the game factor in how good combos are and provide the monsters with the ability to either withstand them adequately or be present in the numbers and types required to maintain a good threat level to the party it is irrelevant.

I'd much rather see a system where a good use of your resources in a clever way is rewarded by a good solid visible result than not. All too often in 4e the problem is that you do something 'awesome' and it has very little immediate impact at the table. Some monster takes a bunch of damage, but nothing DIES. The results often seem quite indecisive. To a player knowing that their great move just chipped off 1/3 of the pile-o-hitpoints on some monster just isn't all THAT thrilling. Granting your allies a bonus to-hit is nice but again it isn't that viscerally pleasing compared to "it fell down dead" or "the paladin is surely going to finish THAT guy off now!"

IMHO 5e, as I said a couple posts back, really needs to move to a much faster pace. I love the way 4e makes PCs resilient enough to take chances and gives them a really solid system for doing stunts and the tools to pull off lots of cool stuff. It does fast-paced dynamic combat really well, except for the fact that monsters are bricks and you spend a lot of time coming up with combo after combo without really decisive results. I can't help feeling all the time like from a pacing standpoint there's a mismatch there and that the game is kind of letting me down in that respect. 4e came CLOSE to delivering the perfect "action game" but there are just still a few little things standing in the way, and this is the main one.

So, I'm going to say that having one short duration that allows for decisive exploitation of a smaller number of more significant effects is not a problem at all for 5e. Designed properly around that concept I think it will be a stronger game and tactics will be more fun and revolve a LOT less around 'fiddly' power use.

 

[KarinsDad]

Yet the 4e condition list is really an example IMHO of a very tight and well-thought-out list.

Except that Helpless creatures can still flank, even with the errata.