Status effects/conditions

[Morrus]

Prompted by my having spent three weeks in a row under "you shall watch other people playing D&D, and man, that is *not* a good spectator sport" status effects in my weekly Pathfinder game, I was wondering what others felt about conditions and the like?

I remember the use of a Maze spell on a PC during Age of Worms; fairly high level. The player in question basically didn't get to play that night.

So, thoughts? Game effects which effectively prevent the player from playing? Or should players prepare better so that conditions never affect them?

 

[Benji]

years ago, I spent most of a weekend long session unable to attack anyone. As a frontline fighter, this meant I did very little. I was basically a piece of scenery that could be positioned to prevent flanking and cause distractions. It wasn't much fun.

 

[MarkB]

There was a 4e feat that provided characters an extra saving throw against Dazed and Stunned effects at the start of their turn (Superior Fortitude, I think?)

I particularly remember it because by upper Paragon tier pretty much every character in the party had that feat, and some had specifically pumped up ability scores purely to meet its prerequisites, just because being Dazed (let alone Stunned) sucked so much, and so many monsters could inflict it.

We also had a couple of characters who specialised in inflicting the conditions upon others.

If a condition is so disliked that an entire party build themselves to avoid it, and to inflict it upon others, it's probably causing some issues.

 

[steenan]

In general, I strongly prefer various "status effects" to damage. In most games, damage means nothing until the character is removed from play; in some cases, it introduces blanket numeric penalties that also do nothing interesting.

On the other hand, status effects restrict some activities while leaving others intact. This requires adapting, changing tactics. Status effects make interesting things happen both on story level (for example, someone being blinded and trying to fight despite that is much more interesting than someone being hit in a way that doesn't change their behavior) and on tactical level.

As a person who loves both interesting stories created through play (as opposed to pre-planned ones) and tactical conflicts, I see availability of status effects as a big advantage of a game.



Of course, status effects can easily be done poorly. In D&D 3.x some were too debilitating, some too long-term and hard to remove and some too trivial to really affect anything.

4e did it much better, with effect durations of at most a few rounds and many ways of removing them (the whole leader role, honestly). I really like the tactical play that results from that.

The best approach, for me, are freeform status effects, like situational aspects and consequences in Fate, or complications in Cortex+.

 

[GMMichael]

Preventing the player from playing is a bad thing. But modifying the player's play (see steenan's post) is a great thing! So there's my answer in general.

You can't get very specific about status effects without naming a game system and campaign theme, i.e. is it a role playing game or a roll playing game? To use Benji as an example: a roleplayer might find being a fighter who can't attack terribly interesting, while a rollplayer as a fighter who can't attack would be bored to death.

PS - Give the player a monster/enemy to play instead...

 

[The Crimson Binome]

In general, people are playing the game because they enjoy playing the game. Any status effect which is "stop playing the game" is not one which is well-designed.

To borrow d20-language, Stunned and Dazed are bad because the player doesn't get to play for the next 5-50 minutes. Nauseated is better, but can be pretty much equivalent to Dazed unless your move action is useful in the situation. Staggered is much better, since you can still do something, although for many spell-casters it was no hindrance whatsoever.

Status effects which change your decisions are good. If you silence a spellcaster, it can still make physical attacks. If you disarm the raging barbarian, then it probably has a backup weapon which is less effective. If the game is designed such that the spellcaster's physical attack or the barbarian's backup weapon are effectively worthless, as was the case with late-game d20, then those conditions fall into the Bad category.

 

[Jhaelen]

Age of Worms, yeah, 3e at it's best and worst at the same time...

So, thoughts? Game effects which effectively prevent the player from playing? Or should players prepare better so that conditions never affect them?

4e did a pretty good job limiting such conditions, especially when using monsters from later supplements. IIRC, 'Stun' is the only condition that completely takes away a player's actions, and typically it only affects characters for 1 round (rarely: save ends). It's also a condition that almost exclusively shows up in Paragon and Epic tier, so pc parties can (and probably should) have ways to mitigate it.

How does 5e fare in that regard?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

How does 5e fare in that regard?

It's not quite as bad as 3E. You don't have the crazy save-or-paralyzed-forever effects that you had in AD&D, but there are still some spells (mostly in the hands of the spellcasters, which means they're mostly in the hands of the PCs rather than their opponents) that can take someone out for the whole fight. Insta-kills usually require two failed saves, and paralysis spells like Hold give both a save every round and can be broken by disrupting the caster's concentration.

The only really crazy "un-fun" monster is the Mind Flayer, which has a large cone of Stun that requires an Intelligence save to end. But at least then, everyone is in the same boat, and the rounds will go by quickly.

 

[Morrus]

Yeah, 3.x is definitely the worst recent save-or-suck criminal, especially at higher levels.

 

[Jhaelen]

there are still some spells (mostly in the hands of the spellcasters, which means they're mostly in the hands of the PCs rather than their opponents) that can take someone out for the whole fight.

Sounds pretty good.
Are you creating spellcasting NPCs/opponents like PCs, or are they created like monsters in 5e? (in 4e the default was the latter, making it easier for the designers to balance class powers).