Status effects/conditions

[The Crimson Binome]

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).

Spellcasting classes are all more complicated than just spells. NPC spellcasters cast the same spells that PCs cast, but they generally lack the other class powers that help them use those spells as effectively.

 

[delericho]

I was wondering what others felt about conditions and the like?

Conditions, overall, are a good thing. But they're not an unalloyed good. Especially...

So, thoughts? Game effects which effectively prevent the player from playing?

To a certain extent they're unavoidable, if only because "dead" is a de facto condition that does this. However, they do indeed suck and should be used very carefully. Ideally, such conditions should be rare, should be hard to apply, and should be either short-duration or save-ends (with saves that are reasonably frequent and not unreasonably difficult).

Indeed, it would be good if the conditions that took you out of the game were placed on an escalating track, as with the exhaustion levels in 5e - so that each incremental level reduces what you can do, but it's only the end effect that takes you out of play (and with very few, or even no, powers being able to skip levels and just take you out in a one-shot).

Or should players prepare better so that conditions never affect them?

To an extent, it's not unreasonable to expect PCs to prepare for their adventures. And if the characters could reasonably expect to meet Carrion Crawlers, if they then choose not to prepare some anti-paralysis magics then that's on them.

But it's not really practical to expect them to prepare enough to be effectively immune to everything, nor indeed would that be a desirable outcome. For the most part, I'd prefer to see "save or suck" dealt with through system design, so that the threat can still exist but so that it's appropriately rare.

 

[Janx]

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?

As we've gotten decent generalities of what/why/when status effects that take a player out are bad, what's the specific that has you watching for 3 weeks? Seems kind of extreme.

 

[Morrus]

As we've gotten decent generalities of what/why/when status effects that take a player out are bad, what's the specific that has you watching for 3 weeks? Seems kind of extreme.

It wasn't just one. It was a different one each week, where the encounter essentially began with a saving throw against something. One had me panicked and just running away, another had me stunned, etc.

 

[Scorpio616]

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.

Players should try to get ways of mitigate such things, but those are the breaks. If a strong foe can be removed from play, so can a player.

Personally I'd rule an effect like Maze would leave a magical tether on the material plane that could be affected with Mord's / Mage's Disjunction.


One thing I do like is Take out effects dealing damage save for half, with the cool effect happening if the target hits zero HP (or some other HP threshold). Like having Sleep actually DEAL like say 2d8 psychic damage in an area, wisdom save for half and those reduced to 0 HP fall asleep, stable, for an hour rather than die.

Polymorph to Toad dealing 8D6 Force damage to a target, con save for half and those who go to 1 HP permanently turn into a 1HP frog.

 

[Morrus]

Players should try to get ways of mitigate such things, but those are the breaks. If a strong foe can be removed from play, so can a player.

You're mixing fictional characters and real people there! A strong foe isn't a person who is sitting at the table. Removing the foe doesn't mean the GM has to stop playing.

Perhaps the answer is to give the unfortunate player something else fun to do. Run a monster or something for the evening, rather than being relegated to watching.

 

[Janx]

You're mixing fictional characters and real people there! A strong foe isn't a person who is sitting at the table. Removing the foe doesn't mean the GM has to stop playing.

Perhaps the answer is to give the unfortunate player something else fun to do. Run a monster or something for the evening, rather than being relegated to watching.

that is the conundrum. At its roots, D&D is about some practical things like taking an enemy out such that they are neutralized. You could have been turned to stone, and it's nonsensical to remove that from the game, just because it's not fun for the player.

So, assuming some fun-stopping situations can come up, despite some reasonable game design changes to reduce the save-or-BeBored outcomes, maybe some alternatives need to be on hand.

Like you say, running a monster, or an NPC, or an alternate character. Consider if we ran a Game of Thrones style campaign, you really don't know when you're going to die, and the show is going to change gears as it pays attention to your squire's ninja girlfriend instead. The implication being, there's other PCs you can switch to who can join the action with a reasonable interval for integration.

 

[SuperZero]

That's why I avoid villains who can inflict the Stunned condition in Mutants & Masterminds 3E. If Stunned makes sense, I can probably justify Disabled just as easily for the power.
Of course, since Impaired -> Disabled and Dazed -> Stunned are such natural progressions, I tend to overuse the former pair and don't use Dazed much either. That's not really a big deal to me.

Players can make characters who can Stun. I wouldn't discourage that at all. My reason for avoiding that capability among NPCs is totally metagame (this is boring for players), and only applies to PCs.



So status conditions are fine in general, but I don't like PCs suffering "can't act" conditions.

 

[Wik]

It's something I really try to limit as the GM... and ask my players to mostly avoid. I have, however, hit PCs with spells like sleep or other such spells... even though sleep doesn't even have a save anymore! The reason is, my group works hard to get people back into the fight, and turns revolve through fairly quickly.

Honestly, though, I think a player should always have an input option at the start of his or her turn - even if stunned. As in, "You can make an additional save this turn, but you'll take 2d6 damage" or something to that effect. Just rolling a die isn't cutting it.

 

[Zhaleskra]

First, I don't consider the Maze spell to be a status condition.

Because we are talking specifically about D&D here, I don't like that several status conditions (at least in 3x and Pathfinder) are basically variations on the same problems: afraid, immobile, hearing impaired, sick, slow reaction time, and visually impaired. Not a fan of too many things that are basically the same simply because it's too much bookkeeping, and I both majored in accounting and tend to prefer skill based games with a lot of skills, so me saying parts of a game has too much bookkeeping is saying a lot.