Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 5157139" data-attributes="member: 58197">Awesomeocalypse nailed it for me: Conditions that impose tough tactical choices = good, conditions that deprive players of any choice at all = bad. I had one custom monster I was quite proud of, a demon with a venom that drove victims into a demonic frenzy. Each round, you took a hefty swack of poison damage and then got a choice: Spend a round trying to fight down the madness (take a standard action to get a saving throw), or embrace the Dark Side and keep fighting with a bonus to attack and damage for that round (but don't get a save, so you're guaranteed to take the damage again next round).Now, if you look at how this works in play, it's not too far from "stunned (save ends)." Sooner or later the victim is going to be staring down the barrel of that ongoing poison damage and have to choose the "make a saving throw" option, or die. And the number of rounds you spend giving up your standard action is going to equal the number of rounds you'd spend fighting off the "stunned (save ends)" effect.But, because players get to choose when to spend that standard action, it's less onerous. Moreover, they can still use their move and minor actions, so they aren't totally shut out. And they even get a nice little ride on the rage train if they want... at a punishing cost, of course.I could see applying similar mechanics elsewhere. In fact, you could have a whole class of "[type] action ends" and "[type] action saves" effects, wherein you have to spend an action to end the effect or to get a saving throw. In this system, the above would be something like, "Ongoing 15 poison damage and +2 to attack and damage (standard action saves)." Likewise, if you get entangled by a net and it costs a standard action to disentangle yourself, that would be "immobilized (standard action ends)."</blockquote>

Verification