Conditions: how many is too many?

[stoutstien]

Title mostly says it's all. Just fielding the question of the number of different conditions different folks are comfortable dealing with.

[Unoriginal]

Title mostly says it's all. Just fielding the question of the number of different conditions different folks are comfortable dealing with.

I mean so long as the list is easy to read, there is a reason for each condition's existence, and the distinctions between each is meaningful, why would there be a specific limit to the number of conditions?

[Yakk]

I think it depends. If true, one thing, if false, another. /s

[stoutstien]

I mean so long as the list is easy to read, there is a reason for each condition's existence, and the distinctions between each is meaningful, why would there be a specific limit to the number of conditions?

Speed/ease of play mostly. Like 5e has ~15(off the top of my head I could probably name and get close enough to the rules for game play to flow) and PF2 has over 30 and without them in front of me I'd have no chance to even use the correct one let alone get them correct.

[Amnestic]

Having to refer to a cheat sheet to know exactly what a condition does is fine. Ultimately a keyword condition is there to unify mechanics, themes ("this subclass focuses on Freezing creatures"), and save on rewriting the same thing over and over again across spells/abilities.

There'll always be some conditions (eg. grappled, prone) that crop up more than others (eg. petrified), so you'll naturally expect to 'learn' the common ones while having to double check the less common ones.

[stoutstien]

Having to refer to a cheat sheet to know exactly what a condition does is fine. Ultimately a keyword condition is there to unify mechanics, themes ("this subclass focuses on Freezing creatures"), and save on rewriting the same thing over and over again across spells/abilities.

There'll always be some conditions (eg. grappled, prone) that crop up more than others (eg. petrified), so you'll naturally expect to 'learn' the common ones while having to double check the less common ones.

That's my general goal. Instead of having 25 different forms of similar effects they all just reference back to one condition or condition chain. I was just worried that it could get to the point it wouldn't actually speed play up.

For example ray of frost would just need to say ...on hit it takes X damage and is slowed(10) until start of your next turn.

[NichG]

If you have a lot, you need to have some way to abstract them or group them so mechanics can reference them without explicitly listing them.

My general design aesthetic is that the core set of conditions should come about in numerous different ways, have similarly many ways to resolve them, and be impactful but narrow in their impact - each condition highlighting some aspect or mechanical conceit of the system. You don't need more than one or two conditions that make a character unplayable for the duration of the condition. But if you can have a hundred conditions that each make someone need to play that character differently, and differently from each-other, then that's more justified, as well as conditions whose application to someone else changes the way that others would want to play.

General list: things that prevent all or some actions (use sparingly, few of these), things that loosely constrain chosen actions (also use sparingly but you can have more of them - 'must obey an order', 'must move towards this creature', etc things), things that change the costs or side-effects of certain actions (you could have a lot of these), things that change defenses or ability to ignore or mitigate things (you could have a lot of these, bonus points if they can be produced from environmental opportunities rather than being locked to specific spells/class features), things that alter the way underlying mechanics work like changing how reach behaves or which stats contribute to which things (you can have a lot but these should be individually pretty uncommon, used to indicate really weird things), etc.

But I'd still group these into, e.g., 'afflictions of body, mind, soul, or depletion effects' and maybe 'rank 1, 2, or 3 severity' and then have effects do things like 'cure any body affliction of rank 2 or lower' or 'increase the rank of soul afflictions on the target by 1', as well as meta-rules like 'there are no effects in the system that directly remove depletion effects - all depletion effects can only be recovered from by providing the missing or necessary thing'.

[OvisCaedo]

5e can be kind of weird with conditions, too, because there actually are a lot of non-standard, unique conditions without names that just get tied to named ones. "Charmed" is a big one for this; tons of spells and abilities that "charm" someone also have "and this unique effect also happens while they are charmed in this way", often making the actual charmed condition's effects largely irrelevant. I guess it's like how older editions might have spells tagged as "mind-effecting"?

[stoutstien]

5e can be kind of weird with conditions, too, because there actually are a lot of non-standard, unique conditions without names that just get tied to named ones. "Charmed" is a big one for this; tons of spells and abilities that "charm" someone also have "and this unique effect also happens while they are charmed in this way", often making the actual charmed condition's effects largely irrelevant. I guess it's like how older editions might have spells tagged as "mind-effecting"?

I've moved charm to the back burner for now. I get it's an iconic feature in a lot of franchises but it's also almost impossible to work in without violating agency beyond where I'm comfortable with.

[Particle_Man]

I am leaning towards 2 conditions: Advantaged, and Disadvantaged.


:smallcool:

[Guy Lombard-O]

5e probably has at least one condition it could do without and is ridiculously stupid by RAW, while also being difficult to use correctly (Invisible).

It has another condition which leaves out one of the fairly important consequences off of the cheat sheet of effects (Incapacitated/ending concentration).

There also seem to be a couple of things which possibly should be conditions, but aren't (hidden, suffocating).

I don't really have any issue with the exact number of 5e's conditions. It's more that they did a somewhat haphazard execution of them.

[stoutstien]

5e probably has at least condition it could do without and is ridiculously stupid by RAW, while also being difficult to use correctly (Invisible).

It has another condition which leaves out one of the fairly important consequences off of the cheat sheet of effects (Incapacitated/ending concentration).

There also seem to be a couple of things which possibly should be conditions, but aren't (hidden, suffocating).

I don't really have any issue with the exact number of 5e's conditions. It's more that they did a somewhat haphazard execution of them.

I'm on the fence with hidden. Issues arise when you are hidden from Target A but not from Target B. I do have smothered in the works that covers drowning, suffocating, choking, and so on.

I'm edging towards making two categories. One for conditions that exist on a single creature or item and environmental effects that apply to everyone.

[da newt]

I'd venture more than 20 is overly complicated.

After playing for a while, and using good simple definitions that match the condition's name in a logical fashion, most folks should be able to know what most of them do pretty much and only need to rely on the DM and DM screen every once in a while to remind everyone of the particulars/specifics and rarer cases.

Personally I'm in favor of well defined definitions of terms in general. Nothing worse than folks arguing about what they interpret a word/term to mean when the source book could simply define it. I'd love to have a comprehensive DnD glossary chapter as a reference.

[Mastikator]

However many you can cram on a single A4 page. I'd accept two A4s if the quality and scope of the game can justify it.

[Samayu]

I'm curious... how many are enough to cause you to ask this question?

If someone is having conditions piled on in combat, why are the characters even bothering to add more to the list. I mean, it's kinda diminishing returns.

"I'm poisoned, restrained and incapacitated. And now you're going to frighten me? Oh no, I'm really getting worried now!"

[Goobahfish]

For reference, I think I have 26?

My view is that each condition should represent something unique and common enough that unifying the effect makes the game easier, not harder. That is a fine rope to walk.

But, there are a whole bunch which really need to be covered by any game:
Blind, Deaf, Alight/On Fire, Panicked/Frightened/Fearful, Fatigued/Exhausted/Very Tire, Prone, Unconscious

Something to cover characters who are physically restrained, mentally out of it, what happens when they aren't paying attention etc.

Then you have a bunch which I think are 'choices'. Poisoned being a good example? Why poisoned? Is it just a naming thing, or is that any condition that makes you feel sick and not great at doing stuff.

How many levels of each exist? Is it easy to work with.

On-Fire D6 vs On-Fire D8 is pretty easy to remember.

What happens when you are in the states? How many of them are specific effects? How many are further references (i.e. Advantage/Disadvantage).

For example, I have "Hobbled" which is 'half movement'. That is it. You can be hobbled by being hamstrung, having a broken leg and even 'frozen a bit'. It is just a way of unifying 'half movement' penalties and clarifying what happens when multiple of them occur.

----

The next big question, which is the one the new Exhaustion rule completely violates is how easy is it to manage. Having to add and subtract before every roll is terrible. Perhaps, in 5.1 they will get away with it, because it is 'the only one' but seriously. Every extra step in crunch (dynamic crunch is bad, static crunch is fine) is a bad thing. The problem is that Advantage/Disadvantage are waaay too blunt an instrument. 5.1 exhaustion is a toe dipping back into the crunch pool.

----

So, the TL:DR
I think that the total number of conditions should not exceed "one or two per existing rule mechanism". Moving is a rule. So a half-movement/no-movement condition is fine. Seeing is a rule, so 'blind/half-blinded' would be fine. Attacking is a basic rule. As such, you shouldn't have 12 ways to impeded attacking. You should have 12 ways which reference one or two ways of impeding attacking (i.e. disadvantage).

I think once you get ~30 you have probably made a mistake in any TTRPG. I also think that PF2 conditions are pretty awful.

[stoutstien]

I'm curious... how many are enough to cause you to ask this question?

If someone is having conditions piled on in combat, why are the characters even bothering to add more to the list. I mean, it's kinda diminishing returns.

"I'm poisoned, restrained and incapacitated. And now you're going to frighten me? Oh no, I'm really getting worried now!"

Ease of play. So rather than have shocking grasp and open hand monks having nearly identical riders denying reactions you can just have a single condition. As long as the total number and complexity of each option is reasonable it should make the game smoother.

Most conditions shouldn't completely deny everything. They should mostly be small hurdlers to slightly interfere goals.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Ease of play. So rather than have shocking grasp and open hand monks having nearly identical riders denying reactions you can just have a single condition.

My issue with this is that it adds another layer of indirection, increasing cognitive load. Instead of having the rule text right there in front of you, you have to reference or remember another term. And that term may or may not be suited in its non-technical meanings for all the things that can cause the game condition. If you said "shocked" as the condition name, that doesn't fit the open hand effect much. "Off Balance" invokes a lot of other connotations that don't fit. Etc. Naming things is hard, and it's the entire battle here.

And for something as simple as "no reactions until end of next turn", the layer of indirection isn't worth it (in my mind). Conditions are useful for
a) generic
b) multi-bullet-point (ie compound, multi-effect)
c) afflictions

They need to be generic because having a layer of indirection has a cost, so they have to get reused a lot to regain value. Also, they can't depend on the thing that caused them at all, so they have to be written at the very highest level possible. (b) is important so they give net value as a summary of the compound affliction. (c) is to keep the valence the same. Mixing positive and negative effects makes the word "condition" somewhat...odd :smallwink:

I can definitely see the value of something like (or "dazed") (the effect of the slow spell). Because that's an effect I would love to reuse in other situations. Even if you stripped off the effect on spells. And I think that incapacitated should also explicitly mention that it breaks concentration.

Too much codification means that you end up with incongruous effects like proning an ooze in 4e. Because "prone" just meant "you get X bonus" and was disassociated from the fiction entirely.

I could also see meta-effects like "bloodied", which by itself is just a tag but other abilities key off of it (for better or worse), but that's a separate matter.

[stoutstien]

My issue with this is that it adds another layer of indirection, increasing cognitive load. Instead of having the rule text right there in front of you, you have to reference or remember another term. And that term may or may not be suited in its non-technical meanings for all the things that can cause the game condition. If you said "shocked" as the condition name, that doesn't fit the open hand effect much. "Off Balance" invokes a lot of other connotations that don't fit. Etc. Naming things is hard, and it's the entire battle here.

And for something as simple as "no reactions until end of next turn", the layer of indirection isn't worth it (in my mind). Conditions are useful for
a) generic
b) multi-bullet-point (ie compound, multi-effect)
c) afflictions

They need to be generic because having a layer of indirection has a cost, so they have to get reused a lot to regain value. Also, they can't depend on the thing that caused them at all, so they have to be written at the very highest level possible. (b) is important so they give net value as a summary of the compound affliction. (c) is to keep the valence the same. Mixing positive and negative effects makes the word "condition" somewhat...odd :smallwink:

I can definitely see the value of something like (or "dazed") (the effect of the slow spell). Because that's an effect I would love to reuse in other situations. Even if you stripped off the effect on spells. And I think that incapacitated should also explicitly mention that it breaks concentration.

Too much codification means that you end up with incongruous effects like proning an ooze in 4e. Because "prone" just meant "you get X bonus" and was disassociated from the fiction entirely.

I could also see meta-effects like "bloodied", which by itself is just a tag but other abilities key off of it (for better or worse), but that's a separate matter.

Internet cut out while I was typing up my response and I don't feel like doing it all again. The short version is I'm not going to remove description from each individual mechanic as much as putting in a bolded keyword somewhere in that description to allow for a quicker recognition of said mechanic.

[Kane0]

I'm most comfortable with 12-20.


Blinded
Charmed
Confused
Dazed/Slowed
Deafened
Exhausted
Frightened
Grappled/Restrained
Hidden
Incapacitated/Unconscious
Invisible
Poisoned/Sickened
Prone
Stunned/Paralyzed
Weakened


A handful of positive conditions would be handy too, like 'Inspired', 'Blessed', 'Fortified', etc. Maybe bring back Bloodied or one or two other demi-conditions for other things to trigger off and play with.