When status effects annoy the players

[Nifft]

With 4e conditions, you GOT to stay focused on the table....

This could be viewed as a good thing, if the added involvement outweighed the added frustration. In other words, keeping all the players engaged in the game seems like a fine result for the group -- as long as it's not bought too dearly.

Perhaps some one-off unique statuses (randomly teleporting on the battlefield - save ends; OK, that's maybe a bit silly but you get the idea). "Stuck in the Air" - a status effect which is caused as a side-effect of some magical effect and which means the PC is 10 feet off the ground (save ends). Or.. ummm... I dunno. Everything I think of sounds a bit silly! "Confused" - like the 3.5 spell, roll randomly for your action (save ends).

"Confused" is a bad idea. If there's anything worse than "YOU GET NO ACTION", it can only be "I TELL YOU YOUR ACTION".

Extra damage is also a bad idea, because it results in the "dead" condition.

Basically, you want the enemy's attacks to hurt. You want the PCs to dislike being hit. But you also generally want the PCs to not die, and to win after some kind of struggle. Status conditions give them a "little death*" -- which induces stress, and reduces choices, and is none the less much better than actually being dead.

It also occurred to me that maybe this is a result of turning the old saving throw into a static defense -- with a static defense, the players don't feel like they have any "control" over whether the status effect lands, whereas with the saving throws of old, players at least have a chance to roll a die.

4e's saving throw to remove a condition is already in the player's hands.

Also, Interrupt powers can put a lot of this power in the hands of the players. You don't get to use them all the time, and you may want to pick different powers, but they are there, and if you want to say "no" to the DM's attacks, you can have that option.

Maybe you could allow characters to expend a healing surge to gain a saving throw at the beginning of their turn instead of having to wait till the end.

No, allowing a resource to be rapidly consumed for a combat benefit = "going nova". If you move in this direction, expect the 15-minute workday that 4e was basically designed to not have.

Cheers, -- N

*) ... but hopefully not in any way that requires a change of pants.

 

[Marius Delphus]

4e's saving throw to remove a condition is already in the player's hands.

I think I see what you mean; I'm not sure I was clear enough. In earlier editions the PC generally got a chance (a player's die roll) to prevent the condition landing in the first place. Now while I realize this roll is directly replaced in 4E by the DM's attack roll versus the PC's static defense, I can see where a player with a certain mindset might find it less "satisfying" in that the DM has rolled the only die that "matters." Some of my past players, for example, feel this way: "Let me roll my own fate," or, in an alternate formulation, "If I'm going to be hosed, let it be by my own dice."

Also, Interrupt powers can put a lot of this power in the hands of the players. You don't get to use them all the time, and you may want to pick different powers, but they are there, and if you want to say "no" to the DM's attacks, you can have that option.

I'll certainly take your word for it (my 4E knowledge is still a puny fraction of the earlier-edition knowledge I used to have), but all I was doing was drawing a connection between how earlier editions handled the saving throw (as a preventative, not a curative) and how some players might view that one die roll being in the DM's hands. If Interrupt powers work as advertised, then it sounds like they certainly could alleviate some amount of player frustration with PC fate riding on the DM's dice.

No, allowing a resource to be rapidly consumed for a combat benefit = "going nova". If you move in this direction, expect the 15-minute workday that 4e was basically designed to not have.

I take your point, but I like the idea too much to let it go entirely. The OP as I understand it is mainly about player frustration after all. So surely there is a middle ground somewhere... *something* (something important and limited, I certainly would agree) a character can "spend" when the player is feeling hindered, hampered, or taken out of the fight. Maybe it's only usable once per short rest. Maybe it should be an Action Point, as I think someone said.

Anyway, the whole thing is just a minor braindrizzle to begin with. If it's unworkable, it's unworkable; no harm, no foul.

 

[billd91]

I take your point, but I like the idea too much to let it go entirely. The OP as I understand it is mainly about player frustration after all. So surely there is a middle ground somewhere... *something* (something important and limited, I certainly would agree) a character can "spend" when the player is feeling hindered, hampered, or taken out of the fight. Maybe it's only usable once per short rest. Maybe it should be an Action Point, as I think someone said.

I think that it might work if you can spend something to prevent the condition from applying in the first place. Otherwise, a better middle ground might be to limit all ongoing effects that don't simply do damage (after all, we should have some fun with that, shouldn't we?) to 1 round duration, no save necessary to remove. You get the benefit of still being able to apply status effects, but the player always knows exactly how long they will last. Setting that expectation may be enough to stave off too much frustration.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Another approach which occurs to me is to attempt to devise 10 or so new statuses - statuses which are interesting, have a detrimental effect of some kind, are colourful and fun, and don't stop players taking actions.

Thing is... I can't think what they might be!

Perhaps some one-off unique statuses (randomly teleporting on the battlefield - save ends; OK, that's maybe a bit silly but you get the idea). "Stuck in the Air" - a status effect which is caused as a side-effect of some magical effect and which means the PC is 10 feet off the ground (save ends). Or.. ummm... I dunno. Everything I think of sounds a bit silly! "Confused" - like the 3.5 spell, roll randomly for your action (save ends).

Hmm, yeah - maybe the way to think about this is to use the 3.5 spellbooks as a resource for wacky stuff that you can do to a PC which doesn't mean missing your turn.

Perhaps also more ways for monsters to remove marks and the like.

I home brew all the monsters I use, and I think the secret to using status effects well is to use them sparingly. (A philosophy which I think is somewhat lost on professional monster designers, who feel they must make each monster a totally unique and dynamic new rules creation.)

If the monster isn't a controller or a soldier, it doesn't need to inflict status effects to do its job. My favorite monsters are brutes and artillery because all they need to do is deal damage, which has two benefits: it makes the players feel cool and it speeds up combat.

Anyway, one of my favorite status conditions is the humble '-2 penalty to attacks or defenses.' The target's turn is still relevant, but the effect does create a tactical dynamic.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I take your point, but I like the idea too much to let it go entirely. The OP as I understand it is mainly about player frustration after all. So surely there is a middle ground somewhere... *something* (something important and limited, I certainly would agree) a character can "spend" when the player is feeling hindered, hampered, or taken out of the fight. Maybe it's only usable once per short rest. Maybe it should be an Action Point, as I think someone said.

Perhaps instead of spending an actual healing surge, the player may instead (as a free action) expend hp equal to his surge value to remove one condition from himself. That would make it a considerable risk (about 25% of your total hp); certainly not something you'd use more than once or twice in an encounter.

Nonetheless, it could be a very useful option under the right circumstances. (A rogue stabbing himself to break free of a dominate that would otherwise force him to kill a fellow party member strikes me as a cool.)

 

[Nifft]

Perhaps instead of spending an actual healing surge, the player may instead (as a free action) expend hp equal to his surge value to remove one condition from himself. That would make it a considerable risk (about 25% of your total hp); certainly not something you'd use more than once or twice in an encounter.

Nonetheless, it could be a very useful option under the right circumstances. (A rogue stabbing himself to break free of a dominate that would otherwise force him to kill a fellow party member strikes me as a cool.)

There's a Paragon Path called the Dreadnought who can spend 10 HP to remove a condition on himself. It's considered to be a very strong ability.

If you're going to allow any PC to use a similar mechanic, IMHO spending 20 HP might be fair (at Heroic & low Paragon). At higher level, you might have to increase the HP amount.

Hmm, healing surge value does scale up with level. That might turn out to work the best after all.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Kzach]

The difference with Monopoly is that you usually get to try to get out of jail in another minute give-or-take. One of the issues in DND is that it can take a while for your turn to come around again, which can compound the frustration.

There seems to be an assumption here that if a character is stunned that this takes them out of the game entirely for a few turns.

I say again that the players need to look at their ability, power and feat choices. There are literally hundreds of powers that enable characters to make a saving throw and many of those are reactionary, or allow another character to grant a saving throw.

On top of all of that, the base system allows for a DC 15 Heal check to grant an ally a save.

The only time I've ever experienced a problem with conditions is when the party has been comprised of characters without any condition ending abilities. And even then, we were savvy enough to use the Heal check.

To the OP, post the character sheets of the players in your group. I bet we could alter these characters with just one or two changes per character, and this problem would end.

 

[Lanefan]

There's a Paragon Path called the Dreadnought who can spend 10 HP to remove a condition on himself. It's considered to be a very strong ability.

If you're going to allow any PC to use a similar mechanic, IMHO spending 20 HP might be fair (at Heroic & low Paragon). At higher level, you might have to increase the HP amount.

Or just make it a flat h.p. amount per level?

In any case, I have little if any sympathy for those who might find their characters knocked out of the fight for a while now and then...though I do agree that if I'm going to be taken out of the fight, make it that I'm *really* taken out so I can ignore things for a while. Nothing is worse than having to pay attention for no reason.

And it speeds the combat up in its later stages when both party and enemy have had their number of functioning members reduced, even if (in the party's case) only temporarily.

Lanefan

 

[The Shaman]

Mechanics that force you to miss your turn (instead of limiting what you can effectively do with your turn) are somewhat different, in my perception. It takes away a turn instead of having that turn be freely offered. Players can certainly choose to do nothing, and may gain quite a bit from it, but mechanics that push them into the spectator role, whether that's what they want to do or not, remove the choice to participate.

That's one way to look at it.

Another is that the players made the choice when they decided to play a game which includes mechanics which result in a lost turn.

I'm sorry, but I don't find the argument that ten minutes of social interaction by another player is acceptable but ten minutes of an in-game effect isn't convincing. Now I'm not saying that this attitude may not be out there, but I think that might be a rationaliztion for something else, specifically what bill91 posted a little further down the thread

The reason I think this actually needs to be given serious consideration is because one set of changes never seems to satisfy. One element I've seen in the development of AD&D over the editions is a progressive weakening of certain aspects of the game's challenge environment. Save or die/suck effects have typically gotten weaker over the editions, in each case because they were supposedly "unfun" for the characters suffering them. Yet, each weakening seems to not be enough and defines the new level of "unfun". Will reducing the presence of status effects or modifying them in some other manner be enough for your players?

This strikes me as exactly what Melan calls the "tyranny of fun," which he goes on to examine with respect to 4e specifically in another post.

 

[Leatherhead]

The plethora of outright daze and stun, and other conditions are why I loved the condition track from Star Wars Saga.