I'm sure this has been discussed in here somewhere, but I'm not sure where. I was thinking about some of the mechanics of 4E because I really like some of them. The attack vs. AC/Fort/Reflex/Will is very nice and elegant in my opinion. But one thing I hated since I heard about it is the Saves. I mean, a static roll that you win when you roll a 10 or higher? That sounds ... ridiculous.
But after thinking about it a bit I realized that I don't dislike it as much if I change the terminology. In previous editions a Save was made to determine whether an effect happened in the first place. That's taken care of now with the mechanic I like: Attack vs. AC/Fort/Reflex/Will.
So a Save in 4E isn't really a Savings throw as I'm used to thinking of them. What it really determines is duration. Instead of Durations being listed as 1d6 rounds or 1d4 rounds, you get a "Save" at the end of each round to see if an effect continues. This eliminates the book keeping of tracking multiple conditions with different durations each. Instead, you track conditions but not durations.
I still don't like that the power level of the effect doesn't effect the duration (such as 1d4 rounds + 1 round/2 levels), but I don't hate it as much if I just think of it as determining Duration instead of as a static Save. Has anyone else thought about this?
I wonder how unbalancing it would be to allow a Feat that adds to an effect's duration.
I'm sure this has been discussed in here somewhere, but I'm not sure where. I was thinking about some of the mechanics of 4E because I really like some of them. The attack vs. AC/Fort/Reflex/Will is very nice and elegant in my opinion. But one thing I hated since I heard about it is the Saves. I mean, a static roll that you win when you roll a 10 or higher? That sounds ... ridiculous.
But after thinking about it a bit I realized that I don't dislike it as much if I change the terminology. In previous editions a Save was made to determine whether an effect happened in the first place. That's taken care of now with the mechanic I like: Attack vs. AC/Fort/Reflex/Will.
So a Save in 4E isn't really a Savings throw as I'm used to thinking of them. What it really determines is duration. Instead of Durations being listed as 1d6 rounds or 1d4 rounds, you get a "Save" at the end of each round to see if an effect continues. This eliminates the book keeping of tracking multiple conditions with different durations each. Instead, you track conditions but not durations.
I still don't like that the power level of the effect doesn't effect the duration (such as 1d4 rounds + 1 round/2 levels), but I don't hate it as much if I just think of it as determining Duration instead of as a static Save. Has anyone else thought about this?
I wonder how unbalancing it would be to allow a Feat that adds to an effect's duration.
I know for sure that I've seen someone else on these boards come to the same conclusion, and it does translate the mechanics back into 3E speak pretty well. We've already seen two abilities that affect the save mechanic, so I suspect they may be semi prevalent. Its kind of interesting, because 3E never really had a lot of "durations of spells of type X are shorter/longer in circumstance Y".
Should be interested seeing how everything works out.
(As an addendum, as far as we know, there may already be a feat doing exactly as you speculate. Very few feats have been revealed.)
Cheers! :)
I still don't like that the power level of the effect doesn't effect the duration (such as 1d4 rounds + 1 round/2 levels), but I don't hate it as much if I just think of it as determining Duration instead of as a static Save. Has anyone else thought about this?
I wonder how unbalancing it would be to allow a Feat that adds to an effect's duration.
We don't know that both of these don't already exist. Maybe at higher levels the wizard gets a 1/day ability that requires a target to make two saves to throw off an effect.
At any rate, I'm sure the developers have considered it, so it's 1) already in the game, 2) been tried and found to be too unbalancing, or 3) still being experimented with, and it'll show up in a later supplement.
There are similar things already in. As I mentioned on a different thread, if you get hit by the poison from a carrion crawler you have to make two saves at the end of your turn, once for poison and once for paralysis. If you haven't managed to throw off the poison, you're at -4 on the save for paralysis.
|
Attack vs. AC/Fort/Reflex/Will.
So a Save in 4E isn't really a Savings throw as I'm used to thinking of them. What it really determines is duration. Instead of Durations being listed as 1d6 rounds or 1d4 rounds, you get a "Save" at the end of each round to see if an effect continues. This eliminates the book keeping of tracking multiple conditions with different durations each. Instead, you track conditions but not durations.
I still don't like that the power level of the effect doesn't effect the duration (such as 1d4 rounds + 1 round/2 levels), but I don't hate it as much if I just think of it as determining Duration instead of as a static Save. Has anyone else thought about this?
I wonder how unbalancing it would be to allow a Feat that adds to an effect's duration.
First, I'd like to say that you and I disagree on the elegance of the attack vs. AC/Fort/Reflex/Will situation, but that's not what this is about. I'm glad someone likes it, as then the brand will continue etc..
Anyway, the idea of more saving throws versus initial saving throw is interesting. From my own past, I've found that the people I play with would rather roll a die and see if they failed then find out I rolled a die and told them they failed. While the new system does allow for more ability for the DM to flub the dice (which some DM's like, I don't (yet again, personal preference, not a fault of any one system)), I feel that it does gives the player less interaction with their own defense and perhaps may bother some people who like to roll dice when they are defending and what not. Granted, one could bring up 3.5 has AC as well and thus is not perfect. Honestly, I think I need to play the game to really know how I feel about it.
As for durations, I somewhat wish the spell went through without the initial save and then allowed for a lowered duration. By increasing the amount of saves anyone gets, there's less chance the ability will last to it's fullest extent.
Also a feat the adds to an effects duration but still allows the throw would not be broken, but given luck, action points and perhaps even luck based powers (like that in the Complete Scoundrel), it would still be useful. Now one that just bars a throw for an extra round would be broken, just because that's 50% more damage from that ability (or all abilities, since Feats are suppose to be passive).
In at least one case, it is still a save. Link. When a warlock's daily ability was used to slide a monster into a lava pit, the monster had to roll the 10+ to save or die.
I can't help thinking the Saves would be better done as "Opposed Rolls" than an Attack Roll against a Resistance followed by a 10+ save but that's just me, I guess...
You mean like how I've been running 3.5 for a while? :-)
Its simple to redefine the new 4E defenses back to a 3E "save" or vice-versa (I believe Unearted Arcana had info on how to do so).
The math isn't changing, just the active participant. You can easily do "attacker always rolls", "defender always rolls", "player always rolls", "DM always rolls", or anything in between.
If it really bothers you that the attacker always rolls in 4E, just change it back.
Cheers! :)
Hmm... so if you are hit by multiple effects, you need to roll for each every round until you manage to shake them off? This could result in quite a lot of dice rolling. Sure, it takes away the bookkeeping, but adds a lot of rolling dice, especially if every character is affected and if it are several effects. I don´t think that is an inprovement.
Stefan
Hmm... so if you are hit by multiple effects, you need to roll for each every round until you manage to shake them off? This could result in quite a lot of dice rolling. Sure, it takes away the bookkeeping, but adds a lot of rolling dice, especially if every character is affected and if it are several effects. I don´t think that is an inprovement.
Stefan
Possibly not, although that is what it looks like now. I'd probably recommend you roll for every affect at the same time, or at least in batches, rather than rolling a single d20 at a time. That is, take a handful of different colored d20s (say four or five), assign an order (orange 1st, green 2nd, blue 3rd, light green 4th) and roll them at the same time. I do this in 3E whenever I have roll a bunch of d20s (like iterative attacks) and it helps out. And since every roll is (mostly) static, it'll be pretty fast to just glance through the list and see what affects you've escaped and which are still on you. :)
|
|
Possibly not, although that is what it looks like now. I'd probably recommend you roll for every affect at the same time, or at least in batches, rather than rolling a single d20 at a time. That is, take a handful of different colored d20s (say four or five), assign an order (orange 1st, green 2nd, blue 3rd, light green 4th) and roll them at the same time. I do this in 3E whenever I have roll a bunch of d20s (like iterative attacks) and it helps out. And since every roll is (mostly) static, it'll be pretty fast to just glance through the list and see what affects you've escaped and which are still on you. :)Hmm... so if you are hit by multiple effects, you need to roll for each every round until you manage to shake them off? This could result in quite a lot of dice rolling. Sure, it takes away the bookkeeping, but adds a lot of rolling dice, especially if every character is affected and if it are several effects. I don´t think that is an inprovement.
Stefan
Ah, but that ends up being problematic when you add human beings into the mix. While yes, rolling multiple dice at once is great, when the green one ends up 20 and the blue one 1, and the green effect isn't as good as the blue one, cheating is very easy.
Possibly not, although that is what it looks like now. I'd probably recommend you roll for every affect at the same time, or at least in batches, rather than rolling a single d20 at a time. That is, take a handful of different colored d20s (say four or five), assign an order (orange 1st, green 2nd, blue 3rd, light green 4th) and roll them at the same time. I do this in 3E whenever I have roll a bunch of d20s (like iterative attacks) and it helps out. And since every roll is (mostly) static, it'll be pretty fast to just glance through the list and see what affects you've escaped and which are still on you. :)Hmm... so if you are hit by multiple effects, you need to roll for each every round until you manage to shake them off? This could result in quite a lot of dice rolling. Sure, it takes away the bookkeeping, but adds a lot of rolling dice, especially if every character is affected and if it are several effects. I don´t think that is an inprovement.
Stefan
Well, right. I´m in the mood to pick on this some more: So you still need to keep track just what conditions affect you at the moment? If so, I really don´t see this as easier at all. If you note down perhaps a few conditions you are suffering from, you might as well note the duration and pick off the rounds. And if it is really just a static roll (read: pure luck), that would not appeal to me.
Stefan
Ah, but that ends up being problematic when you add human beings into the mix. While yes, rolling multiple dice at once is great, when the green one ends up 20 and the blue one 1, and the green effect isn't as good as the blue one, cheating is very easy.Possibly not, although that is what it looks like now. I'd probably recommend you roll for every affect at the same time, or at least in batches, rather than rolling a single d20 at a time. That is, take a handful of different colored d20s (say four or five), assign an order (orange 1st, green 2nd, blue 3rd, light green 4th) and roll them at the same time. I do this in 3E whenever I have roll a bunch of d20s (like iterative attacks) and it helps out. And since every roll is (mostly) static, it'll be pretty fast to just glance through the list and see what affects you've escaped and which are still on you. :)Hmm... so if you are hit by multiple effects, you need to roll for each every round until you manage to shake them off? This could result in quite a lot of dice rolling. Sure, it takes away the bookkeeping, but adds a lot of rolling dice, especially if every character is affected and if it are several effects. I don´t think that is an inprovement.
Stefan
I suppose that's true, but I mostly game with people I trust, so I guess not an issue for me. For myself, I generally declare the order before I toss the dice, to help alleviate any fears ("orange, green, blue, light green!" is actually what I use for iterative attacks commonly).
Possibly not, although that is what it looks like now. I'd probably recommend you roll for every affect at the same time, or at least in batches, rather than rolling a single d20 at a time. That is, take a handful of different colored d20s (say four or five), assign an order (orange 1st, green 2nd, blue 3rd, light green 4th) and roll them at the same time. I do this in 3E whenever I have roll a bunch of d20s (like iterative attacks) and it helps out. And since every roll is (mostly) static, it'll be pretty fast to just glance through the list and see what affects you've escaped and which are still on you. :)Hmm... so if you are hit by multiple effects, you need to roll for each every round until you manage to shake them off? This could result in quite a lot of dice rolling. Sure, it takes away the bookkeeping, but adds a lot of rolling dice, especially if every character is affected and if it are several effects. I don´t think that is an inprovement.
Stefan
Well, right. I´m in the mood to pick on this some more: So you still need to keep track just what conditions affect you at the moment? If so, I really don´t see this as easier at all. If you note down perhaps a few conditions you are suffering from, you might as well note the duration and pick off the rounds. And if it is really just a static roll (read: pure luck), that would not appeal to me.
Stefan
No one here really knows what this system will look at in the full light of review. One save = affect gone is what we've seen so far, but the death and dying mechanic is similar where 3 failures = death and success gets you very little (unless its a nat. 20!). I think I read somewhere save or dies will be similar, but require you to fail a few of these saves before kicking the bucket. We've seen sleep, which requires two of these before you knock out.
I can't speak for the designers but I'd think these rolls are there to take charge of a few areas. They track duration, true, but they also give you a chance to throw off an ongoing affect every round, much like Hold Person in 3.5. Tracking durations in combat can get tricky if you have lots of affects up that all expire at different times. You have to remember what is on you, what is done, and when each expires. This way you have to remember what is on you, and what it does.
I won't say its 100% awesome, but it seems workable. I'm excited about seeing how it works in play myself.
Cheers! :)
If you note down perhaps a few conditions you are suffering from, you might as well note the duration and pick off the rounds.
But if the party gets hit with Glitterdust, you don't want to make the GM track the duration (they're awfully busy as it is) and you don't want the players to know how long it's going to last (2 rounds? We'll wait it out). Making the players roll means they won't forget to roll to get rid of it (how often do you see a player make a mistake against their own interest?) and they don't know how long it's going to last.
So a Save in 4E isn't really a Savings throw as I'm used to thinking of them. What it really determines is duration. Instead of Durations being listed as 1d6 rounds or 1d4 rounds, you get a "Save" at the end of each round to see if an effect continues. This eliminates the book keeping of tracking multiple conditions with different durations each. Instead, you track conditions but not durations.
Interesting.
I like static defense, it will making rolling dice in front of players more fun. Less meta game thinking than asking a player the make a Save v. such and this. A lot more surprise when a Dm describes what is going on.
I also speculate, that the four static defenses, will eliminate Ac v. touch spells. A common statistic on stat blocks in 3.5 gaming products as of late.
The defenses as targets numbers sounds a lot like SAGA, where I think it works great. I don't know that we need both AC and Reflex though.
But the basic mechanics worry me a lot less than the focus on balance and combat.
The defenses as targets numbers sounds a lot like SAGA, where I think it works great. I don't know that we need both AC and Reflex though.
yes I wonder why They are having them separate. It could be because armor is more "useful" in D&D than it is in Star Wars. It may also have to do with more effects like magic and someones always chucking poison or acid or lava or other stuff around. Could be an "atmosphere" requirement.
|
The problem with saves ending effects is that is can easily cause excessive damage from an otherwise minor effect.
It is rolling 1d(infinite) for duration.
That is minor if you are just throwing off being blind or slowed, but when it is ending ongoing damage, it means a simple flask of alchemist's fire (or whatever) could end up doing 500 points of damage before you finally make a save.
I am definitely missing the balance in that.
Also, while tracking effects rather than duration would appear to be easy, what happens when five critters and five PCs are inflicting one effect each per round over a five to ten round combat? A player will not forget to roll for something that will benefit his character, but will he forget the negative effect entirely in the first place?
Then there is the save or die element. Never mind three dying saves, what if you are down and ongoing damage will finish you off? If crashing a campaign on a roll of 1 is bad, how much worse will it be crashing out on a roll of 1-9?
|
Hmm... so if you are hit by multiple effects, you need to roll for each every round until you manage to shake them off? This could result in quite a lot of dice rolling. Sure, it takes away the bookkeeping, but adds a lot of rolling dice, especially if every character is affected and if it are several effects. I don´t think that is an improvement.
We'll have to see it in play. It sounds like they are going to encourage a mix of roles in each encounter, so it's unlikely that more than one monster in a group will have effects of that sort, that require saves every round to avoid / resist some condition (generally a 'Controller' sort).
Now if the GM throws a dozen kobolds hurling flasks of Alchemist's Fire every round, every single party member could be making a half-dozen saves after the third round or so, and be taking 6d6 damage / round, losing 3d6 / round, but having new flasks lobbed at him, etc.
It could easily be a rout, if the Kobolds fling and shift back under cover, waiting until the PCs have burned to death or mostly recovered and then leap out and fling again, shifting away after, forcing them to begin rolling all over again to try and end the various 'OMG! Ahm on FIRE!' conditions.
[An Ankheg surging up, spewing acid, and then withdrawing below the ground could use a similar tactic. Letting the mechanics of the game slowly kill the party while it waits underground for it's mostly digested meals to hit the ground.]
The problem with saves ending effects is that is can easily cause excessive damage from an otherwise minor effect ... It is rolling 1d(infinite) for duration ... I am definitely missing the balance in that.
In principle that could happen, but the chance is vanishingly small. On a flat "10 or up" you've got a 80% chance of throwing it off by the 2nd round, and a 95% chance of throwing it off by the 4th round. Add in the fact that there are other ways of triggering saves (heal checks, cleric abilities) and it really doesn't have any effect on game balance.
Also, while tracking effects rather than duration would appear to be easy, what happens when five critters and five PCs are inflicting one effect each per round over a five to ten round combat? A player will not forget to roll for something that will benefit his character, but will he forget the negative effect entirely in the first place?
Maybe, but that's not something 3.5 handles elegantly in the first place. 4e sure makes it easier, though.
Then there is the save or die element. Never mind three dying saves, what if you are down and ongoing damage will finish you off? If crashing a campaign on a roll of 1 is bad, how much worse will it be crashing out on a roll of 1-9?
You must not have gotten the memo. This week we're complaining about how hard it is to die in 4e.
Now if the GM throws a dozen kobolds hurling flasks of Alchemist's Fire every round, every single party member could be making a half-dozen saves after the third round or so, and be taking 6d6 damage / round, losing 3d6 / round, but having new flasks lobbed at him, etc.
It could easily be a rout, if the Kobolds fling and shift back under cover, waiting until the PCs have burned to death or mostly recovered and then leap out and fling again, shifting away after, forcing them to begin rolling all over again to try and end the various 'OMG! Ahm on FIRE!' conditions.
Multiple damage from the same source doesn't stack. If you're taking 5 fire damage every round, you don't start taking 10 if you get hit again.
In a broader sense, if the GM wants to kill you, they will kill you. There's not a ruleset in the world that will protect you from that. 4e makes it easier to run monsters intelligently without causing a TPK (because the characters have a way in-game to counter the enemy tactics) but if you hooked up with the GM's SO after the last game, it's not the system's fault you ran into a squad of vampire monks.
You must not have gotten the memo. This week we're complaining about how hard it is to die in 4e.
My bad. I fogot to send it out to him. I'll get next weeks complaint schedule out on Sunday.
Once again, sorry. Internal server error.
:P