When status effects annoy the players

[Windjammer]

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.

That's part of why this is a problem, though. We have a game which doesn't quite effectively communicate its design to its customers at this point. Contrast the card-dominated boardgame Dominion, which lets you know from the get go that the players compete against each other in terms of 3 resources - gold, victory points, and actions. A lot of cards give you an extra action on your turn, you know, just like an action point in 4E. It's clear from the get go that to win this game (Dominion) you ought not blindly focus on obtaining cards which will increase your gold - so as to buy victory points - but also on cards which let you have more actions on your turn. The more actions you have, the better chances of winning. The more you can deprive your opponents of having (as many) actions (as possible) the better.

Basically, 4E is a game which runs on exactly the same "economy of actions" (except that players compete against the DM's monsters, not each other), but utterly fails to communicate that in its rule book.

Sure, 4E system masters understand how making a power an interrupt or making its action cost a minor action (as opposed to a "stanard action") is a huge factor. But outside that, it's a hazy area of the game played by people who feel entitled to have their stock actions each round - move, standard, minor - and then feel tricked when the game denies them this stock.

The fact that they (the players) compete against monsters not just in terms of hp attrition but also in terms of "can I ensure I have my stock actions this turn? can I ensure the monster doesn't get his?" is lost to them. But in 4E PCs and monsters ALSO compete against each other in terms of how many attacks you can even launch. Look at the game that way, and accept conditions which steal actions as part of that game.

The fact that I need to write this reminded me of another root problem of 4E. Softening up a lot of the classical condition spells ("save or ...") pushed the game hard to a grind of PCs vs. monsters locked in a contest of pure hp attrition and nothing else. So, naturally people will look at 4E as nothing BUT hp attrition, and then the economy of actions and the contest at that level will pass them by. I have literally no other way to understand the OP. Yes, it's not nice to say that some players haven't understood a root element of the game's design, but as I go out of my way of saying, I think that's as much (if not more) the game's fault as it is the players'.

In closing, Andy Collins is on record for saying that 4E's design was heavily inspired by Eurogames. So I strongly recommend you to play one of those if you've never done so - Dominion may easily provide such a benchmark experience - and then return to 4E with a greater comprehension of its intended design.

 

[FireLance]

Basically, 4E is a game which runs on exactly the same "economy of actions" (except that players compete against the DM's monsters, not each other), but utterly fails to communicate that in its rule book.

Well, arguably, the list of conditions is right there in the PH, so players should be aware that they can potentially be dazed or stunned at some point.

Okay, I'm not being entirely serious. A game as complex as D&D does have a pretty steep learning curve. Even fairly experienced players may find that their characters are unprepared to deal with certain conditions and situations because they have not experienced or anticipated them.

Frankly (and IMO), this is where the way in which the DM manages his game is critical. I personally would take a leaf from video games in which the various aspects of gameplay are introduced gradually to the player. Allow the players to meet monsters that have an encounter ability that dazes for a single round first. After they have developed tactics to deal with daze, let them encounter monsters that inflict daze (save ends). After they have figured out ways to deal with save ends conditions, introduce monsters who can recharge their daze (save ends) attacks. After that, move on to monsters that inflict stun for a round, and so on.

If you manage the transition smoothly, I believe your players will regard conditions as challenges to overcome instead of fun-draining annoyances.

 

[pemerton]

Windjammer, you're certainly right about interrupts. One of the PCs in my group plays an interrupt-heavy sorcerer, and the amount of attacks (and therefore damage) he can get out in one round is impressive (especially as sorcerers get to add their striker bonus to every attack and not just once per round).

That said, even with players who understand the action-economy dimension of the game, they still hate getting dazed etc. But they are taking steps to remedy it - for example, one of the PCs recently took the paladin multi-class feat that give's access to the Divine Power condition-removal ability.

 

[Morrus]

Some of the answers here are a little OT; just to clarify (in case I wasn't clear) - yes, I and the players understand the game. We're merely considering ways in which we might change the game in order to incease our enjoyment of it.

 

[roguerouge]

I dunno. It just really strikes me as a player issue. They have options to deal with this: strategize while they are skipped, depend on their fellow players to help them out, and/or get magic items or feats to help shore up weaknesses.

I kind of want to see evidence that the players have done these things and they haven't worked before I agree that basic mechanics of the game should be changed. In general, the DM should be the institution of last resort, not the one turned to first.

Empower the players by making them solve this problem, not you.

Morrus: What have the players done to deal with this issue?

Beware of unintended consequences. If you decrease the importance of status effects, you're nerfing any player that plays a class that deals them out or that deals with removing them. You should definitely be sure to run it by them first for a veto. (It has the same effect, to a lesser degree, on characters with a good save that will be targeted less. In 3e, if your DM never used charms and illusions, for example, then your high will save was worth less.) That's one of the reasons why the DM should be the last resort for changing the game for the better.

 

[vagabundo]

If I was having this issue I'd redo the conditions with penalties rather than action loss, penalties do not stack, but you get the worst of them:

Stunned: -5 to all attacks and skill checks. Grant CA
Slowed: -5 to all move related skill checks. No charging. Grant CA.
Restrained: Grant CA. -5 to attacks.
Prone: Grant CA. -5 to attacks, minor to get up, free to drop.
Petrified: Grant CA. -1 per failed save. Requires an extended rest or heal (DC 10+1/2 monster level) check to recover.
Marked: Leave as is.
Immobilized: Give an escape check
Blinded: Leave as is.
Dazed: -2 to attacks.
Deafened: leave as is.
Dominated: I would let the PC retrain control of the PC, but with the understanding that he now works for a new master.
Helpless: Leave as is, usually it is because they are unconcious
Weakened: (I personally like this condition), but alternatively -5 to attacks and damage.
Unconscious: This is usually because you're low on HP - leave as is...

That list is just off the top of my head - out of my a^H^H...

And I'd only allow one or two monsters per encounter who can do conditions. You mighty also put in terrain features that enhance saves or provide immunity to certain conditions - like the font of clear mind (allows you to shrug off stunned and dazed conditions for 24 hours if it's waters are drunk).

 

[Prism]

Sure, 4E system masters understand how making a power an interrupt or making its action cost a minor action (as opposed to a "stanard action") is a huge factor. But outside that, it's a hazy area of the game played by people who feel entitled to have their stock actions each round - move, standard, minor - and then feel tricked when the game denies them this stock.

Our group went through an odd change when we moved to 4e from 3e. In 3e we would waste actions all the time through a variety of spells (hold person, stinking cloud etc), being grappled, double moving, simply doing nothing. I never noticed it as an issue - it just didn't seem important to be that economical. In 4e however everyone is obsessed about using all their actions. Maybe its because the only way to kill the monster is via hit point damage and so every round you fail to do this the fight will last longer. Or maybe the powers are more fun to use so it matters more.

I find the status effects in our 4e game now far less restricting than most of our 3e games but somehow still a little more annoying. I wouldn't want a combat without them though since this would be a total hit point bashing slog. When I DM I try to reduce the amount of nasty effects by picking the monsters carefully or altering them. When playing modules the authors don't seem to worry to much about that and in fact often create encounters with a truely wicked combo of terrain and status effects - particularily WotC. As a player I found plenty of the combats in the first two modules a bit annoying, but have yet to find a DM created encounter anything but fun - mainly due to their selection of the monsters

 

[Fanaelialae]

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

To explain my thinking (or madness, if you prefer ), I don't much like the idea of making it a flat amount for the simple reason that it then becomes a better option for some classes than others. A (high hp) 18 Con Warden has 35 hp, therefore 20 hp is slightly more than half his hp. Conversely, a (low hp) 10 Con Wizard has a mere 20 hp; 20 hp would knock him straight to dying. I don't want the mechanic to favor high hp (primal) classes over low hp (assassin/wizard) classes, and utilizing a percentage based mechanic like surge value bypasses this concern.

My level 11 cleric has a surge value of 19. Even a 9 Con Wizard has 49 hp at 11th (resulting in a surge value of 12). Therefore (I expect) the Dreadnought ability would still be quite valuable, falling below even the lowest surge values at the level it becomes available and more than likely halving the cost (not to mention preventing it from scaling). Of course, the Dreadnought version also costs a minor action, so Dreadnoughts would have a choice between their cheap version that costs a minor action, or the expensive version that can be done as a free action.

If you feel that surge value is too forgiving, one might use hp equal to bloodied value instead. Needing to expend approx. 50% of one's hp would almost certainly make this a maneuver to be used only under rare and extreme circumstances. I think surge value is sufficient though. It's akin to giving the player a choice between fighting a condition inflicting creature or one that deals high damage (because you're essentially adding your surge value to the damage the creature already inflicted).

Put another way, it allows the player to avoid losing an action/turn now, in return for an increased risk of losing his turn later (as well as the other drawbacks of the dying condition). Perhaps it's just me but that seems like an interesting choice.

 

[Obryn]

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.

Nope. The players decided to play a tabletop RPG. One of the defining features of a tabletop RPG is that it's mutable, and can be tweaked to individual play-styles. This has been true from the earliest days until now.

Look - I'm a strong proponent of playing games to their strengths. I also think that gamers should try to experience a lot of different games for the different play experiences they provide. And, I think it's usually best to play a game that's already suited for the kind of game you want to run than try and force another game to pull double-duty.

But this isn't any of these. This is a group looking to tweak and fine-tune a game they're enjoying to make it even more enjoyable for themselves. "You're playing the wrong game" isn't even a little helpful.

-O

 

[Dausuul]

Nope. The players decided to play a tabletop RPG. One of the defining features of a tabletop RPG is that it's mutable, and can be tweaked to individual play-styles. This has been true from the earliest days until now.

Look - I'm a strong proponent of playing games to their strengths. I also think that gamers should try to experience a lot of different games for the different play experiences they provide. And, I think it's usually best to play a game that's already suited for the kind of game you want to run than try and force another game to pull double-duty.

But this isn't any of these. This is a group looking to tweak and fine-tune a game they're enjoying to make it even more enjoyable for themselves. "You're playing the wrong game" isn't even a little helpful.

-O

This.

If the complaint was, "We don't like playing in this faux-medieval era, we want something more futuristic, and what's with all the dragons?" then I would agree they probably ought to change games. Or if the complaint was, "None of us likes combat, we want to do purely social roleplaying." There, again, D&D is not the ideal choice--if you don't like combat, 90% of the D&D rules are dead weight.

But if the problem is just one specific issue with an otherwise enjoyable game? Stick with the game and fix that one thing! I really don't understand this idea that if you want to change one little thing, you're playing the wrong game. I'm a little heavier than I want to be, but my solution to that is to eat less and lose weight, not shoot myself in the head and hope to be reincarnated as a movie star.
[SIZE=-2][/SIZE]