At this point, I'm not sure I should curse the Devs for ever creating the "dazed" or "stunned" conditions or for creating these conditions and deciding that they should ever apply to PCs. (I'm only slightly kidding here) However, I am considering boycotting any more writers that put more than a single creature that dazes into a fight. With Paragon coming, I'm sure that stunning creatures will be arriving in droves too.
This frustration is not borne merely of my own frustration when my PC cannot act in a round, but the frustration I see around a table when many or all PCs simply cannot do anything because either they are dazed and cannot reach a target or stunned and cannot do anything. Playing D&D is not about being stopped by the monsters, it is about being challenged by them and nothing is less epic than being dazed into uselessness. Imagine using none of your encounter powers in a fight because you've been dazed or too far away from the monsters then entire fight. Ok, now go and write a different encounter.
I much prefer hazardous terrain, difficult terrain, etc. but I'm also starting to see terrain that auto-stops or auto-prevents movement. I'll give an example of a power that I'm sure bothers writers but it is a player option, ... elves can shift with their normal movement in difficult terrain (ie movement is one square of move for one square of movement). However, if the terrain isn't listed as difficult, merely that it has a difficultY associated with moving in it, this is by RAW not applicable. Put in obstacles, put in blocking terrain, put in difficult terrain, put in cover, put in holes and pits and stairs ... but making the ramp slippery (seen), making the holes have quicksand (not seen yet, don't let me either), making the walls collapse if you get near them (seen) ...
Yeah.
Those terrain features are loopholes, they're frankly crappy, and the more loopholes that writers insist on putting into the games like this the less players are going to trust the writers and the mods. If writers (and the admins) really like this style of challenge, then allow me to disabuse them of the notion that I, at least, do.
I know that there are many threads with this sort of thing. Add yet another. Can we please focus on making the combats challenging and not be shut-down-fests where PCs don't get to be useful/cool/epic? If writers can only make a fight challenging by shutting down a PCs powers then I suggest they go back to the drawing board. Make the PCs use every tool in their arsenal but let them USE those tools. Learn it, live it, love it.
Thanks, that is all.
If you are dazed, and you can do nothing useful at levels 4+, then you have a bad character. Yes, you may be able to do less, but if you are more or less useless, then it's time to fix your character. Take a range power, or transfer an enchantment to a ranged item. If you are a controller or a leader, clearly you have no problem, and defenders should usually be pretty effective on a charge, so the issue is really strikers. Get a ranged effect, or an attack that allows a shift.
Dealing with terrain is also a feature. If you don't have a way of teleporting, consider getting one. If you have no skills that you can use to jump 20' or balance or whatever, you need to get them.
Finally, saving against effects is good. If you picked a non-human to get that secondary stat bonus, then you also decided not to get the human defenses that mean that 10% of the time you fail a save, you would have succeeded.
Take the amulets of mental/phsyical defenses; take the feats that bump defenses.
Overall, if a feature continually annoys you, do something about it! There are plenty of options. I personally hate my defender being slow or immobile, so I took the feat and the amulet for a +7 to my saves. I have a lightning hand-axe, and my saves are all good. The game has many, many options. If you do huge amounts of damage, but spend half the combat unable to use it, you need to rebuild and take away the damage feats and make them defense or mobility feats. Likewise with powers.
- Graham
You're going to hate paragon. Let's just say you should get used to being stunned.
This is a bit of rant, I wasn't really going to but once I started writing, I had to finish.
I'm going to approach this from a different angle.
I kind of like those elements in a combat encounter - at least as part of an encounter (if I were in a mod where EVERY encounter was a daze-fest I'd probably feel differently) - because they provide a challenge or obstacle to be overcome. Admittedly, I might not always like it in the moment - but in remembering a combat, it adds flavor.
I fear that avoiding interesting (and even "automatic") terrain, or even stun/daze effects will, over time lead to less interesting and less memorable combats.
While it's great to be a hero and do extraordinary things, I was, personally, tired of the 3.x "meat grinder" combats. Variety, to me, is the spice of life.
You thought daze was bad... that's what Snap Out of Its are for.
You're going to hate paragon. Let's just say you should get used to being stunned.
(EDIT: Meant FWIW not FYI ... ), Snap Out of It only works once (if you have one of them in your deck), and with monsters that can Daze each round, that doesn't help.
And yes, I'm sure I'm going to hate Paragon for a lot of reasons ... Stun is likely to be the big one.
If you are dazed, and you can do nothing useful at levels 4+, then you have a bad character. Yes, you may be able to do less, but if you are more or less useless, then it's time to fix your character. Take a range power, or transfer an enchantment to a ranged item.
I love people who think this way. I really do.
But let's just assume you do have -your- prototypical good character with a ranged weapon. You have been Dazed and are a melee PC. You can drop a weapon as a free action and draw a Bow/Crossbow/etc as your one action for the round. Done. Action Point if you have one left and act ... If not, oops, still done.
Not all classes have ranged powers beyond those given by ranged weapons. And even those that do, the stats are often on the "opposite" stat for that Class. Paladins have ranged powers ... but not really useful if you're a Straladin. Rangers ... if you're a melee Ranger, chances are your Dex isn't as high as your Str. Etc. etc. etc.
Dealing with terrain is also a feature. If you don't have a way of teleporting, consider getting one.
I'm not going to go out and do this but I suggest you do. Count up the classes that grant teleport powers as either a percentage of total released classes or an absolute number, I don't care. Now, does this number come close to 100%? Thank you for playing, please come again. And no, not everyone will be playing an Eladrin either.
Finally, saving against effects is good. If you picked a non-human to get that secondary stat bonus, then you also decided not to get the human defenses that mean that 10% of the time you fail a save, you would have succeeded.
...
Overall, if a feature continually annoys you, do something about it! There are plenty of options. I personally hate my defender being slow or immobile, so I took the feat and the amulet for a +7 to my saves.
And then you meet the "Daze until end of your next turn" monsters and you're done again. Oh yes, "Stunned until end of you next turn" is coming to a neighborhood near you soon.
Daze turns out to be one of those "features" that has very little that a player can "do something about" except have "Snap Out of It"x2, x3, etc in your stack.
I think it is going to be difficult if not impossible to avoid multiple monsters inflicting the dazed condition as you go up in levels. To test this I leveraged the Compendium. I did a search by level band to determine the number of unique listed creatures in a band as well as how many of them have either "dazed" or "stunned" somewhere in their stat block (presumably this means they can inflict it on PCs somehow). This is by no means a scientific analysis but just a quick cut to see how common the conditions are.
The results are below. Particularly the case of Dazed the higher in level the monster the more likely it can daze opponents. By mid-paragon level it looks like 1 in 3 monsters can either daze or stun (or both).
Authors are limited to monsters that are in the Compendium or otherwise officially published, except under very rare circumstances. Completely avoiding dazed or stunned conditions are very hard the higher the level of the adventure.
482 creatures between level 1-4
54 creatures can inflict the dazed condition (11.2%)
15 creatures can inflict the stunned condition (3.1%)
54 creatures can inflict the slowed condition
36 creatures can inflict the immobilized condition
22 creatures can inflict the blinded condition
19 creatures can inflict the weakened condition
3 creatures can inflict the dominated condition
529 creatures between level 5-7
82 creatures can inflict the dazed condition (15.6%)
33 creatures can inflict the stunned condition (6.2%)
67 creatures can inflict the slowed condition
72 creatures can inflict the immobilized condition
46 creatures can inflict the blinded condition
19 creatures can inflict the weakened condition
5 creatures can inflict the dominated condition
501 creatures between level 8-10
89 creatures can inflict the dazed condition (17.8%)
37 creatures can inflict the stunned condition (7.4%)
75 creatures can inflict the slowed condition
56 creatures can inflict the immobilized condition
32 creatures can inflict the blinded condition
32 creatures can inflict the weakened condition
12 creatures can inflict the dominated condition
510 creatures between level 11-14
108 creatures can inflict the dazed condition (21.2%)
53 creatures can inflict the stunned condition (10.4%)
78 creatures can inflict the slowed condition
94 creatures can inflict the immobilized condition
34 creatures can inflict the blinded condition
46 creatures can inflict the weakened condition
24 creatures can inflict the dominated condition
232 creatures between level 15-17
65 creatures can inflict the dazed condition (28.0%)
34 creatures can inflict the stunned condition (14.7%)
50 creatures can inflict the slowed condition
42 creatures can inflict the immobilized condition
13 creatures can inflict the blinded condition
30 creatures can inflict the weakened condition
16 creatures can inflict the dominated condition
It'd be good to compile/watch the LFR adventures and encounters that use these conditions and compare them against these percentages.
This frustration is not borne merely of my own frustration when my PC cannot act in a round, but the frustration I see around a table when many or all PCs simply cannot do anything because either they are dazed and cannot reach a target or stunned and cannot do anything.
I haven't really seen the frustration when it is a single PC, but rather when half the party or more is stunned. The problem is that the PCs always seem to start in a 2x3 starting area and one of the NPCs always has an area 1 daze attack. After getting hit like that once or twice you'd think the whole party would spread out a little bit more, but for some reason they keep squeezing into a tiny 2x3 area, adventurer's are just stupid I guess.
Personally I beleive the GM giving the players a larger portion of the map to work with will resolve 90% of the daze problems. The ones not solvable by this are the several mods that have monsters with stun auras or that have the PCs teleported in or similar not allowingthem the option to be spread out.
Positive note:
-No more insta-kills
-effects like petrification generally require multiple saves
-no more ability drain, level drain, etc.
-4e durations aren't that bad!
So while you might be like, "Oh, god! Mind flayers! These bastards stun" realize, save ends or end of next is WAY LESS annoying than for 3d4 rounds.
Also realize: getting hit by monsters' attacks should be bad. Try looking at the # of times monsters have to hit you before you go down at paragon tier, EXCLUDING healing. (And then guess how hard it is for pcs to actually fall over when they get heals, or how hard it is for pcs to actually die if they do fall over....)
Also: PCs get similar attack. Paragon tier PCs can stun the bad guys. (Just off the top of my head, rogues and fighters have level 13 encounter powers to stun until end of next.) Actually with DP, now lvl 1 invokers can AE stun once a day
I'm more worried on how solos can work as real challenges when PCs can stun-lock them for 2+ rounds.
And regarding daze: I'm afraid to see PCs at lvl 11+ to come to the table with 5 snap out of its. I'm sure I'll see it. My experience as a heroic tier LFR GM is that 75% or more of the time I would've dazed a PC, they snap out of it. (Also there are steadfast amulets which have a daily to get out of daze/stun.)
That being said, I'm sure we'll see fights where the monsters are cycling multiple status conditions on PCs and just nobody will have fun. ("Oh, I'm blind, immobilized, and dazed?") Hopefully authors will limit this kind of stuff, but who knows. I'm more concerned about how easy it is at higher level for monsters to hit PC's Fort/Ref/Will than what they do when they do it. Monster attack bonuses scale up far faster for hitting those than PCs can adapt to, and offering/adding feats like Epic Reflexes is not a fix.
I haven't really seen the frustration when it is a single PC, but rather when half the party or more is stunned. The problem is that the PCs always seem to start in a 2x3 starting area and one of the NPCs always has an area 1 daze attack. After getting hit like that once or twice you'd think the whole party would spread out a little bit more, but for some reason they keep squeezing into a tiny 2x3 area, adventurer's are just stupid I guess.
As has been pointed out by the LFR staff in a couple of threads on these boards, those "start areas" are generally *not* meant to be hard-and-fast, though there generally isn't anything in the adventure text to indicate that. (And, there are probably some combat set-ups in which being bunched up isn't optional.)
If you keep getting nailed at the beginning of adventures by being in "fireball formation", spread out a bit.
Nobody likes getting hit by status conditions. But they tend to be the monster's arsenal of stuff that limits your effectiveness...and generally it makes sense conceptually.
Positive note:
-No more insta-kills
-effects like petrification generally require multiple saves
-no more ability drain, level drain, etc.
-4e durations aren't that bad!
So while you might be like, "Oh, god! Mind flayers! These bastards stun" realize, save ends or end of next is WAY LESS annoying than for 3d4 rounds.
Oh yes, I'm much happier with 4E in that regard. But I wish they'd just gotten rid of the daze/stun altogether.
As for 4E durations not being that bad ... as you pointed out, if the to-hit on a daze is high enough, it doesn't matter if it is only till ENT, if you keep ... getting ... hit!
'enough said.
If you keep getting nailed at the beginning of adventures by being in "fireball formation", spread out a bit.
I would, but I have a hard time justifying it as anything but a tactical thing.
I can't really justify having a marching order through the wilderness with everyone spread way out to avoid Area attacks. The PCs are not mindless combat/assault robots. I'd think that at some point during a day of trekking through the forest, you'd want to talk to your companions without having to shout.
(And even from a tactical level, I play a few leaders and tend to get nervous when anyone is more than 5 squares away from me).
As for 4E durations not being that bad ... as you pointed out, if the to-hit on a daze is high enough, it doesn't matter if it is only till ENT, if you keep ... getting ... hit!
I was involved in a TPK as a player in a high-level non-LFR game. One of the PCs got locked down by a baddie who could stun him until the end of his next turn. He never got missed, and therefore he never had a chance to act. Without him, the bigger threat in the encounter finished us all off. Of course, for me, that is the fun of the game. As a game, we players failed to realize the urgency of freeing up that PC. We could have moved over to him and used powers to separate him from the baddie locking him down (sliding him or the baddie, teleporting, etc.). Tactically, the encounter was doable, but we failed at the tactics game and got our just reward.
But that just shows different people are looking for different things in the game. Rather than complain about the stun affect, we recognized that it is a part of the game that you can live by and die by. Without the various effects, at least in my estimation, the game would be less than what it is. Certainly adventure writers need to be carefully about making encounters too similar (something I learned by experience), but as LFR is supposed to use the tools that the game provides, I don't expect writers to refuse to use things that are disliked by a portion of the players. Again, overusing them is not encouraged, but making use of them as expected by the designers and developers of the game should be accepted.
I would, but I have a hard time justifying it as anything but a tactical thing.
I can't really justify having a marching order through the wilderness with everyone spread way out to avoid Area attacks. The PCs are not mindless combat/assault robots. I'd think that at some point during a day of trekking through the forest, you'd want to talk to your companions without having to shout.
(And even from a tactical level, I play a few leaders and tend to get nervous when anyone is more than 5 squares away from me).
Go for a hike with a few friends through the woods. Do you all constantly stay 5' away from each other? (If so, there might be other issues. ;) )
But, seriously, I don't see an issue with maintaining 5' or 10' distance. I don't see where you'd need to be shouting to communicate. If you were all trying to stay 10 squares apart, *then* I might think that you're metagaming a bit.
As has been pointed out by the LFR staff in a couple of threads on these boards, those "start areas" are generally *not* meant to be hard-and-fast, though there generally isn't anything in the adventure text to indicate that. (And, there are probably some combat set-ups in which being bunched up isn't optional.)
If you keep getting nailed at the beginning of adventures by being in "fireball formation", spread out a bit.
The problem is that there isn't anything in the adventure text to tell the DM to let the PCs start in a bigger area.
Maybe if the party sends a scout, the DM should allow PCs more options, but honestly, if it isn't in the mod (with all the other boilerplate), many DMs really think that "PCs start here" means PCs start "here".
The problem is that there isn't anything in the adventure text to tell the DM to let the PCs start in a bigger area.
Agreed.
The problem is that there isn't anything in the adventure text to tell the DM to let the PCs start in a bigger area.
Maybe if the party sends a scout, the DM should allow PCs more options, but honestly, if it isn't in the mod (with all the other boilerplate), many DMs really think that "PCs start here" means PCs start "here".
So, the whole Important DM Information section on page two of every LFR adventure doesn't count?
I was about to quote from it before I realised about four different sentences in the section can relate to being flexible with how PCs interact with the environment/world.
It is issues of this nature that were at the heart of DME being implemented in the first place, no?
It works both ways. At the very least, I know that fighters, rogues and barbarians have the option of a 1-round stun encounter power at level 13. And at level 15 the warlock can take over a target completely, as long as he keeps hitting.
Much as PC damage doesn't really scale with monster HP, monster damage doesn't really scale with PC HP. As such, more and deadlier effects are needed as the PCs level up for the monsters to be a credible threat. 4e has done away with save-or-die, but I think high level combats are going to be more prone to both sides unleashing barrages of deadly status effects in the early rounds.
I would urge writers to take care, and remember that no-one likes to be out of a fight for too long, and also bear in mind that stunning/dazing PCs will make combats longer, so watch out in the run-time.
But I would also suggest PCs ensure they have ways of escaping. Feats that improve NADs or saves I expect to get a lot more valuable in paragon tier. Leaders need to ensure they have ways of granting saves - some (inspiring warlords and WIS clerics) can do it easily, others have to work a bit harder.
Finally, PCs also need to ensure they have a balanced enough party that the absence of one member for a few rounds is not catastrophic to their chances of success. This can be pretty tricky, given the random nature of some LFR tables, but hey, if your PC is the uber-damage dealing ranger, guess who the DM's going to target with his stun effects...
The problem is just one of proper balance. As we are finding out, 4E is much more complex a recipe than previous editions. Party composition, player experience, DM tactics, and so much more can impact the game beyond the obvious XP and difficulty level the author aimed for.
It is clear from other threads that the message is heard loudly and clearly by the admins to work to avoid annoying/frustrating encounters. So long as playtesting finds them, I think we should be in better shape as time progresses. But, from time to time we should expect to have our 'nerfed' moments where our PC/party sits idle for a round or struggles to get to the proper place to mount a comeback.
4E has a lot more parts than just hp and AC.
Keith
Conditions are a major part of 4E and the players have to consider that in building their PCs. Still a save is 55% successful without any bonuses, so odds are, conditions usually do not last long. There are powers where other PCs could add another save, often with a bonus, and other bonuses are possible. To be sure, writing an encounter where every creatures could stun would be excessive IMO.
4E has a lot more parts than just hp and AC.
Keith
*Cough*
Show
IMPI1-3
As has been pointed out by the LFR staff in a couple of threads on these boards, those "start areas" are generally *not* meant to be hard-and-fast, though there generally isn't anything in the adventure text to indicate that.
If you keep getting nailed at the beginning of adventures by being in "fireball formation", spread out a bit.
Oh, I'm well aware of what the staff, at least S Merwin, has said regarding the starting areas. That somehow doesn't stop it from happening over and over and over again every time I play.
(And, there are probably some combat set-ups in which being bunched up isn't optional.)
I'd put that number at around 40% of all fights.
So, the whole Important DM Information section on page two of every LFR adventure doesn't count?
I was about to quote from it before I realised about four different sentences in the section can relate to being flexible with how PCs interact with the environment/world.
Yes, but nothing in there explicitly says that the "PCs Start Here" area on the maps is not a hard-and-fast rule. You know and I know that there are literal people out there, and if they don't read it in black and white, they won't do it that way.
While all roles will still be required, of course, just as they are now for the most effective, dynamic, colorful, and, yeah, fun combat encounters.
The message of this thread, it seems to me (and this has already been stated more or less), is that careful players will be thinking from the beginning about how they're going to deal with these kinds of threats. Not just taking feats and powers that answer "How can I hit ever higher ACs for ever more HPs?" but "How can I move more? How can I increase my Reflex? How can I gain bonuses to Saving Throws?"
And this, of course, on top of the fact that with de rigeur Skill Challenges that are getting more and more integral to the modules and better and better written, characters have to think about being balanced and capable off the battlefield as well.
Which means that it turns out that 4E in general in LFR in particular work best with balanced, multi-faceted, and diverse characters. I love that.
*Cough* (spoiler removed) *Cough*
Not to get off-topic, but that's the kind of spoiler that won't help anyone. Spoiler tags only work if you know roughly what to avoid. For example:
Spoiler for a recent TYMA mod that has heavy conditions:
This at least allows players that have not played recent TYMA mods to avoid the spoiler.
This at least allows players that have not played recent TYMA mods to avoid the spoiler.
Yes, but nothing in there explicitly says that the "PCs Start Here" area on the maps is not a hard-and-fast rule. You know and I know that there are literal people out there, and if they don't read it in black and white, they won't do it that way.
And, admins saying things here on Gleemax doesn't help 90% or so of the community that doesn't come here, let alone read the particular threads that discuss this. I am sure there are lots of players, judges, and authors that have no idea about this rule.
It needs to be in the standard text for each adventure. And, it needs to be in the writing guidelines. Because, otherwise, as a judge you never know if the author meant for the encounter to hinge on the PCs being grouped up. Sometimes, that makes sense.
And, admins saying things here on Gleemax doesn't help 90% or so of the community that doesn't come here, let alone read the particular threads that discuss this. I am sure there are lots of players, judges, and authors that have no idea about this rule.
I contend that just reading the Important DM Information section of every adventure achieves this goal. Unless you are opining that DMs don't read adventures properly, in which case adding explicit text isn't going to help anyway.
It needs to be in the standard text for each adventure. And, it needs to be in the writing guidelines. Because, otherwise, as a judge you never know if the author meant for the encounter to hinge on the PCs being grouped up. Sometimes, that makes sense.
I think that is bordering on arrogant (in the nicest possible way) to assume that unless there are reams of explicit statements about how to run a game, DMs (they're not called judges for a very good reason) won't have the skill to interpret an author's intent.
I use the term reams because if we are going to expect something like PC Start Areas to have their own explicit text, then plenty of other issues deserve it as well. Where does it stop, at a 10 page boilerplate?
\I think that is bordering on arrogant (in the nicest possible way) to assume that unless there are reams of explicit statements about how to run a game, DMs (they're not called judges for a very good reason) won't have the skill to interpret an author's intent.
Many will get it (particularly more experienced DMs). Some won't. Some are going to read the map literally -- as others who've posted in this thread have already noted.
Many will get it (particularly more experienced DMs). Some won't. Some are going to read the map literally -- as others who've posted in this thread have already noted.
About 1/3 of DMs in my area are religious about the PC start area. Even after explanation from those "in the know".
Frankly, I suspect that many of them would still be so even if the module itself said that the area was a suggestion rather than a requirement, as long as a clear area is marked off on the map.
I haven't put a PC start area in either of my two adventures - I wonder whether their heads would explode if they ran one of them?
Try as I might, I just cannot get my head around that kind of stubborness.
I haven't put a PC start area in either of my two adventures - I wonder whether their heads would explode if they ran one of them?
Probably. Then again, I had an issue last game day with one of the local DMs. For some reason, he didn't know, and didn't WANT to know, that forced movement ignores difficult terrain. Nerfed my Cleric's daily heal-with-slide (Bardic MC, Majestic Word).
Many will get it (particularly more experienced DMs). Some won't. Some are going to read the map literally -- as others who've posted in this thread have already noted.
I have played with more than one GM who's said 'It says on the map players start here, so you all start here.' and refused to listen to any arguments to the contrary.
It tends to be less-experienced GMs who feel the need to assert their authority over the players, but not invariably.
Sometimes it makes sense that the PCs start fairly grouped up (narrow corridor - open the door, there's a fight, roll initiative). But by 10th level, you'd think the PCs have enough experience that if they're expecting a fight, they know to spread out a bit!
You can drop a weapon as a free action and draw a Bow/Crossbow/etc as your one action for the round. Done. Action Point if you have one left and act ... If not, oops, still done.
Not all classes have ranged powers beyond those given by ranged weapons.
Count up the classes that grant teleport powers as either a percentage of total released classes or an absolute number, I don't care. Now, does this number come close to 100%?
And no, not everyone will be playing an Eladrin either.
Have "Snap Out of It"x2, x3, etc in your stack.
For the first one, you are happy if you have quick draw, so you have mentioned SIX different ways people can cope. I could also add:
* Guileful switch
* Multiclass to solve ANY of those issues
* Get daily items that can be used in one action (throw shield, whatever)
Actually, though, you make my point quite well -- you are correct that for any INDIVIDUAL approach, nowhere close to 100% of characters will be able to do it, but of the NINE ways we have mentioned, it will be a rare character who could not take one of them.
This is my point -- to cope with status effects effectively, different characters will have different techniques. This makes the game interesting and fun. The OP suggests that few characters will have ANY way to cope and I dispute that. I would argue that 90%+ of characters can, if annoyed by being dazed all the time, do something that will seriously mitigate the pain.
For the first one, you are happy if you have quick draw, so you have mentioned SIX different ways people can cope. I could also add:
I knew you were going to pull out Quick Draw. Not all PCs have it.
But you compleeeeeeeeeetely missed my point.
None. None of the (six?) ways (you) mentioned help at all. They take your entire action while dazed and leave you with you no action against your enemies. (assuming that you're out of range for a charge ... which was one of my original problems).
My dropweapon/draw ranged example. No further action. Teleport. No further action. Guileful switch. No further action. And if your buddy is dazed ... well, that's going to go real quickly back to "No further action."
Multiclass to solve ANY of those issues
Um ... examples? Perhaps for just the specific issue of not having an action when dazed.
Look, I get that there are ways for some characters to solve being Dazed, but not every class has them and not all characters are going have access, even with MC'ing, since MC'ing is expensive. (opinion time: MCing will be completely vanished once Hybrids are published/allowed ... because MCing is far too expensive).
Yes, every player can put "Snap Out of It" into their stack. That's the only surefire way all PCs have right now to deal with this.
For my own part, I'm taking the Virtue's Touch class feature for my paladin, and that's great, but not every class gets it, and I can't possibly remove every status for every party member even if my Paladin's Wisdom was a 22 ... which it isn't ... because it is usable once per round. Thus it may allow my PC to remain undazed, but it won't work for multiple PCs. Bless the writer that gave a MC option that allows taking Virtue's Touch.
Anyways, I'm clearly in the minority in hating on Dazed and that's ok. I'll just make every effort that I can make to be impervious to it. But that doesn't help the other 3-5 players at the table.
Try as I might, I just cannot get my head around that kind of stubborness.
Have you ever heard of the phrase "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM."? Apparently, no LFR DM's get fired for starting PCs in the PCs Start Here box.
I haven't put a PC start area in either of my two adventures - I wonder whether their heads would explode if they ran one of them?
An excellent solution to adding more boilerplate text that many DMs won't read because they already read it once before. If mod writers only used PCs Start Here boxes when the writers mean it, and otherwise just describe [the] various approaches to the encounter at the proper point in the encounter description, it should encourage party formation being determined by roleplaying the party's approach to the encounter.
I knew you were going to pull out Quick Draw. Not all PCs have it.
The ones that do, however, love it.
--
Pauper
Anyways, I'm clearly in the minority in hating on Dazed and that's ok. I'll just make every effort that I can make to be impervious to it. But that doesn't help the other 3-5 players at the table.
I don't think you're in the minority there, we just played a mod, it shall remain nameless, and the final fight was just... well yeah... I think I had more than 1 action in a turn a grand total of 2 times in what was approximately a 12 round fight. And everyone else in the party had the same problem. It was beyond rough and there was virtually nothing we could do about it because it was not dazed save ends.
The ones that do, however, love it.
Null phrase. If you take it, it is because you must love it. No one else would take it, with so many other, more generally useful, feats out there.
Some of the classes fior whom the "Quick Draw" feat would be a fairly useless feat for the most part:
Fighter
Paladin
Wizard
Warlock
Not that I remember seeing it in an adventure, but eh.
Though Battle Harness is a pretty good pick for both the wizard and warlock, at least
Not that I remember seeing it in an adventure, but eh.
There is one that I know of.
Show
DALE1-3
The Battle Harness might have gotten knocked aside in the general rush to grab the Bloodclaw weapon in the same mod.
The Battle Harness might have gotten knocked aside in the general rush to grab the Bloodclaw weapon in the same mod.
Adventure Reward Spoiler
DALE 1-3 drops +2 battle harness....great item.
DALE 1-3 drops +2 battle harness....great item.
Null phrase. If you take it, it is because you must love it. No one else would take it, with so many other, more generally useful, feats out there.
Some of the classes fior whom the "Quick Draw" feat would be a fairly useless feat for the most part:
Fighter
Paladin
Wizard
Warlock
In case of the fighter and paladin it depends a bit on their build*, and as people have pointed out, it allows a dazed melee fighter or paladin to do something if they are out of charge range.
* Due to RP purposes for example, my fighter in a home campaign multi-classed as a rogue. Quick Draw would allow him to actually use that Sneak of Shadow on occassion with a thrown dagger ;)
So, the whole Important DM Information section on page two of every LFR adventure doesn't count?
Its not enough. It needs to be in giant bold text at the beginning of EVERY relevant encounter.
This is my point -- to cope with status effects effectively, different characters will have different techniques. This makes the game interesting and fun. The OP suggests that few characters will have ANY way to cope and I dispute that. I would argue that 90%+ of characters can, if annoyed by being dazed all the time, do something that will seriously mitigate the pain.
The problem here is that not all characters will be optimised that way, and not all players will be capable of thinking ahead like this.
Perhaps there needs to be *three* difficutly levels for LFR mods? An additional "easier" mode with reduced rewards and xp that can be used for players who are either a) new to the game b) incapable of character and play optimisation or c) when you have a less than ideal table (six defenders for example).
The problem here is that not all characters will be optimised that way, and not all players will be capable of thinking ahead like this.
(EDIT: Just to be clear, the following is not meant to apply to the OP or the quoted poster particularyl -- just general impressions rather than directed remarks!)
I totally agree. Way too many people optimize their characters for damage, the boards focus on it, and 80% of the comments focus on it. If half the effort was put into other ways of building characters, you wouldn't get near as many "My +16 to hit mordenkrad BRV dwarf CON monster gets dazed a lot and it makes the game stupid" comments. It seems that for some people, the only measure of fun-ness in fights is trading hit points. If you can hit a creature every round and do 50 points, and it can hit you every round and do 40 points, then the fight is fun. But if instead it hits you half the time and stuns you the other half, it is not fun. Or if it hides in fog, or flies in the air, that makes the module poor.
That is not the game I want to play. I find trading hit points highly tedious. I would *much* prefer a game where tactics are important, where a character must be built to do different things in different situations, and where terrain effects actually have an effect. In fact another set of posts commonly see complains about mods which are slog-fests, so I don't think I am alone.
The game works for everybody, but only if acknowledge that no-one has a right to a "perfect" character. I play characters not optimized for damage. I accept that in every combat someone will be more useful than me. That is what I pay for multiclassing wizard with my fighter, for playing humans, for not having a 20 in my main stat, and for picking feats like Martial Alacrity and so on. If you decide to play a character optimized away from defense, I really find it hard to have much sympathy when people find that it isn't much good at defense. The game has hundreds of options, build, power choices and feats that can help. That's the POINT of the game. Your character is different from mine. When we game together, two times out of three the striker/fighter will be of more use than the fighter/mage. However, once ever mod or so, you'll be glad I can put up a wall of fog so the bad guy's zone cannot be maintained.
If you have a whole set of players none of whom have put any thought into how to cope with ANY particular situation, you can be pretty sure that trouble when ensue if you find yourself in that situation. It's happened to me before and no doubt will again. Sometimes I go "ho-hum -- guess my warden is pretty hosed in zones like that. Hope i get help next time". Sometime I get more ticked off and pick up a feat/item/retrain to help. But no one character can be perfect. In pretty much every RPG system I have ever played there has a been a trade-off between jack-of-all-trades and focused characters; between offense and defense; between versatility and power. Make your choice *consciously* and enjoy playing it!
- Graham
But no one character can be perfect. In pretty much every RPG system I have ever played there has a been a trade-off between jack-of-all-trades and focused characters; between offense and defense; between versatility and power. Make your choice *consciously* and enjoy playing it!
Though Battle Harness is a pretty good pick for both the wizard and warlock, at least
Not that I remember seeing it in an adventure, but eh.
See also the Disembodied Hand familiar from the Dragon "Get Familiar" article.
I contend that just reading the Important DM Information section of every adventure achieves this goal. Unless you are opining that DMs don't read adventures properly, in which case adding explicit text isn't going to help anyway.
You mean the part that says the GM can modify the adventure? So that means you expect every GM to modify every adventure with a listed "PCs Start Here" box on every map? So pretty much you are saying that almost every LFR mod is so poorly designed that it need GM intervention?
I think that is bordering on arrogant (in the nicest possible way) to assume that unless there are reams of explicit statements about how to run a game, DMs (they're not called judges for a very good reason) won't have the skill to interpret an author's intent.
Thats odd, I think it is rather arrogant for a GM to assume that the "PCs Start Here" wasnt ment to be the starting area that the writer intended for the PCs to start in...
If it wasnt the intent of the writer to have the PCs start in that limited area, why did he take the time to box off a small part of the map and lable it?
If a writer doesnt intend for something to work a specific way, they shouldnt write it that way.
You mean the part that says the GM can modify the adventure? So that means you expect every GM to modify every adventure with a listed "PCs Start Here" box on every map? So pretty much you are saying that almost every LFR mod is so poorly designed that it need GM intervention?
No, I expect DMs to be flexible enough that if a PC states they are doing something unexpected or creative that may put them outside of a strict "PCs Start Here" box, then the DM should have the wherewithal to do that.
Pretty basic stuff really, although the attempt to put words in my mouth as if I said "almost every LFR mod is so poorly designed that it need GM intervention" was poor.
If it wasnt the intent of the writer to have the PCs start in that limited area, why did he take the time to box off a small part of the map and lable it?
If a writer doesnt intend for something to work a specific way, they shouldnt write it that way.
Uh, because it is a guideline? I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that you've not written an adventure before, which is not a problem, but it is important to understand that strict word and space limitations dictate a writer's hand.
That space is (almost always) devoted to much more important things than outlining the myriad of ways an adventuring party may be set out on any given map. Things like enemy tactics, adjusting for 4/6 PCs, etc. etc.
100-page adventures are both a thing of the past and a relic of an campaign that enforced uniform play experiences and limited the creativity of DMs (I know, I co-wrote one of those 100 page jobs). ;)
Just a friendly reminder to keep the discussion civil, and not put words in one another's mouths. Please.
[/VCL HAT]
If you have a whole set of players none of whom have put any thought into how to cope with ANY particular situation, you can be pretty sure that trouble when ensue if you find yourself in that situation. It's happened to me before and no doubt will again. Sometimes I go "ho-hum -- guess my warden is pretty hosed in zones like that. Hope i get help next time". Sometime I get more ticked off and pick up a feat/item/retrain to help. But no one character can be perfect. In pretty much every RPG system I have ever played there has a been a trade-off between jack-of-all-trades and focused characters; between offense and defense; between versatility and power. Make your choice *consciously* and enjoy playing it!
- Graham
I agree whole-heartedly. Some characters have more problems with some creatures than others. For instance, my swordmage has more problems with the daze condition than say, a fighter, but then doesn't really care when he's immobilized (teleports galore.) The fighter's better at tanking archers and casters, the swordmage better at tanking melees. Certain classes & builds are better for some situations than others, and I think it's good that way. I think with strikers, you find that the melees can do a bit more than the ranged but in return get in the thick of things (and thus beat up and crowd controlled more.)
Its a great game with lots and lots of neat stuff, but LFR has become so tedious. How about some encounters without +30 init burst stun/daze/immobilize bad guys?
Of the numerous new mods with one of these High Init Burst End of Next Turn (HI-BENT) bad guys only 2 of the encounters improved the mod; there are a considerable amount of hi-bent encounters out there lately...
I think they set up a factory producing these baddies right across the street from that factory in Impultur that produces RRoT everything.
Being able to hit on a 3 stun till end of next turn at will or recharge 4 5 6 stun till end of next turn where 3 guys have it in the same fight, that gets old fast.
Daze is annoying, stun has a very fine line between threatening and call me back over from the XBOX when he eventually rolls a 1 and misses me and I can actually get a round in.
Just fought a dragon on thursday, frightful presence as an encounter power, we got stunned, dragon gets his fun round in and we move on. That is a good use of stun in monster design.
Being able to hit on a 3 stun till end of next turn at will or recharge 4 5 6 stun till end of next turn where 3 guys have it in the same fight, that gets old fast.
Daze is annoying, stun has a very fine line between threatening and call me back over from the XBOX when he eventually rolls a 1 and misses me and I can actually get a round in.
Tried the special yet?
Immobilised, Weakened AND Insubstiantial does not make for a fun experience.
Tried the special yet?
Immobilised, Weakened AND Insubstiantial does not make for a fun experience.
Actually, I had loads of fun running it seven times! :evillaugh
Tried the special yet?
Immobilised, Weakened AND Insubstiantial does not make for a fun experience.
That lesson was learned by the Administrators of the campaign. To be fair, that particular circumstance only occurs once out of 10 or so combats, although the conditions do feature in other encounters seperately.
SPEC1-2 was written at a time when these boards were awash with "LFR is too easy" comments and successfully contributed to the vast reduction in that kind of talk. Yes, it went too far in one (or two) of the combats, but it is important to remember:
1) The campaign and edition are still fairly new and it takes time to find the "sweet spot" of challenging and fun.
2) LFR adventures are about six months behind the curve of "game savvy" compared to the player base, due to lead times and deadlines.
3) The new adventures are by-and-large, more challenging and more fun than the earlier ones. Much of that is due to feedback on these boards.
It is one thing to make monsters more deadly, another to make them designed to cause the fight to take 3 times as long.
But on the whole, I think the mods are getting a lot better.
Give it some time on that front, but I do second and third the opinion that excessive use of stun is the 4e equivalent to 3.5's save or die or con poison in LG - not designed for fun, and doesn't increase 'challenge' it just creates irritating situations.
We all decal the god awful 'weekend in the realms' - lets remember that was considered a 'showing off the realms' module so if you compare that to what we have in SPEC1-2 its gotten a LOT better.
The excessive 'push off the cliff' power usage has gotten less bothersome now with the save PCs get as well.
I think that is bordering on arrogant (in the nicest possible way) to assume that unless there are reams of explicit statements about how to run a game, DMs (they're not called judges for a very good reason) won't have the skill to interpret an author's intent.
I use the term reams because if we are going to expect something like PC Start Areas to have their own explicit text, then plenty of other issues deserve it as well. Where does it stop, at a 10 page boilerplate?
I don't mean to sound arrogant, and I apologize if it came/comes out that way! My general thought is the opposite. The authors put thought into where the PCs should start when they mentioned a starting area, particularly one written on the map. To then have, on forums, the comment come out that this is just a suggested area... that's a conflict. I can make several conflicting assumptions:
- Authors stated a starting area, but the admins are overriding this... perhaps weakening the challenge beyond what the author intended, was playtested, and may be fun.
- Authors stated a starting area, but were cognizant that the PCs may end up in a slightly different area. The admins are just clarifying this.
As an author, I can say I was never told (and it is not in the guidelines or template) that the starting area is 'suggested' by default (vs. declarative).
Sure, any DM can adjust starting areas based on player suggestions, but unlike 3.5, where a PC might be hiding up front or a weak PC might trail behind, PCs in 4E are almost always withing 5 of one another, grouped together, and have little reason (from the adventure) to be in a particular place.
So, you end up having to decide what to do, as a judge. Yet, this whole conversation is because starting position matters. So, if it matters, the authoring templates and guidelines should address starting position more clearly.
I contend that the best fix is for the author to state if the starting area matters, or does not. One should be the default, and the other should be stated. If the default is flexibility, then adventures should state when that flexibility does not exist. If the default is fixed, then the reverse.
The current situation leaves me little comfort with what should really be taking place and leaves me little comfort with how someone will run the encounters I wrote. For the record, in CORE1-14, the text is intended to be followed as written: when it says "center bottom" that is intended (providing a little flexibility). When it says start in this 4x4 area, that is intended (providing little flexibility, in line with the story and encounter design). Any other start will likely lessen the challenge and is not intended.
Again, if the admins want a different default, then that should be part of the writing guidelines so authors can appropriately write something in the Setup part of the encounter.
As an author, I can say I was never told (and it is not in the guidelines or template) that the starting area is 'suggested' by default (vs. declarative).
An author should not have the illusion to be able to predict what all players are going to do (let alone put it on paper), nor should a DM assume an author has taken all eventuallities into account either. At the same time, playtesters and authors should consider the likelyhood of the PCs starting in that position and the impact this has on the flow of the battle. So, yes, the starting area is a suggestion by default, and I find it odd that an author would consider it otherwise (considering them to be the more experienced gamers). At the same time, sometimes that location is strongly dictated by circumstances in the adventure in which case this is usally very clear and its impact should be taken into account when designing the fight.
My assumption from reading mods was always that this start area should be used unless there was a darn good reason, such as a party member stating that they want to be scouting up front (now very unusual in 4E) or the group setting up a very spread-out (unusual because of limits on healing ranges) or that the encounter allows PCs to approach from their choice of locations (I would expect this to be noted in Setup).
Often there is no real reason why a party would be in any particular place. But, the adventure places the PCs there. This is presumably because where they came led to this spot. What should players and DMs do? Should there be the freedom to be anywhere by default?
SPEC1-2 Discussion with spoilers:
In the encounter with winged stuff, the map reads "PCs Here" and the combat starts once PCs step onto the map. Clearly, bunching up is bad for the PCs, but there is nothing that would suggest to me that PCs should not start in that area. Unless the party would say to me that they want to use an unusual marching order, why would they start anywhere else?
But, if the idea is that this is just a suggestion, and by default authors, DMs, and players should know this, then that needs to be stated. It affects play. If, conversely, the idea is that it is declarative (unless the party is specifically giving a good reason otherwise), then that should also be known.
In the encounter with winged stuff, the map reads "PCs Here" and the combat starts once PCs step onto the map. Clearly, bunching up is bad for the PCs, but there is nothing that would suggest to me that PCs should not start in that area. Unless the party would say to me that they want to use an unusual marching order, why would they start anywhere else?
But, if the idea is that this is just a suggestion, and by default authors, DMs, and players should know this, then that needs to be stated. It affects play. If, conversely, the idea is that it is declarative (unless the party is specifically giving a good reason otherwise), then that should also be known.
My assumption from reading mods was always that this start area should be used unless there was a darn good reason, such as a party member stating that they want to be scouting up front (now very unusual in 4E) or the group setting up a very spread-out (unusual because of limits on healing ranges) or that the encounter allows PCs to approach from their choice of locations (I would expect this to be noted in Setup).
What you call a "darn" good reason, I actually call a quite normal, common and acceptable reason. It is hardly an exception, and it is exactly the kind of common sense I have been trying to get accross to DMs, players and authors. An adventure should NEVER dictate what a PC does (barring magical control), and this extends to starting areas just as much as any other aspect of the adventure. No DM or author should simply assume the PCs walk around in a two-by-six square formation.
--Writers and designers should be clear in the text of the adventure if there is a specific restriction on where the PCs are when an encounter begins. For example, if the PCs teleport into an encounter area and there is a special rune or portal or circle they use, then that should be clear. If there are certain squares on the map that act as the encounter trigger, that should be spelled out in the text and on the map.
--If there are no specific instructions in the text for starting positions, DMs should use any starting position references on the map as a guideline. When I use "PCs Here" on a map without any reference to starting position in the text, I mean that is the most likely position the PCs will approach the encounter area from. PCs are certainly able to approach from other directions if the setup of the encounter area allows it.
General statements on starting positions.
The issue in the end here is this:
DMs should use their discretion, common sense, and an application of the general DME text in the adventure boilerplate, combined with the suggestion "PCs start here", to determine PCs starting position.
Many/some (exact quantity depending on local customs I suppose) DMs will blindly stick the PCs in the "PCs start here" box with no exceptions allowed, unless there is explicit text in the encounter (not just in the boilerplate text, but in the actual encounter) allowing otherwise.
For my preference, every single encounter that has a map with a "PCs start here" box should have a brief description of the PC start area; a description that explicitly says whether the "PCs start here" box is mandatory or just a suggestion.
As a DM, I'd prefer clear labelling on where people are coming from than the current box.