Dear Unregistered! We notice you don't currently have a silver subscription here on EN World. We'd love to encourage you to give it a try, so we've made this coupon for $5 off your first 4-month Silver Subscription. Simply go to the subscription page and enter coupon code SILVER. With that subscription you get access to TWO adventure paths, which between them cover D&D 3.5, Pathfinder, and D&D 4th Edition - War of the Burning Sky (which has been completed) and ZEITGEIST: The Gears of Revolution (which is currently ongoing). You also get a whole bunch of site perks and features here on EN World, including access to the Search function, images and links in your forum signature, a larger PM box, give out more XP at a time, and more. Please give a try; we're proud of our adventure paths, and we're sure you'll love them both!
D&D 4th Edition DiscussionDiscuss D&D 4E rules and house rules in here.
All the latest EN World
official reviews, columns, and subscriber articles here.
Don't have your subscription yet? It's only $3 a month and you can grab
it right
here!
One of the things I'm not keen on is the Stun effect in 4E. Anything that knocks a monster or PC out of the picture for a round or more is, to me, boring. I propose submitting this alternate effect for the Stun condition - feel free to rip it apart at your leisure - I ain't married to it!
Stun
You grant combat advantage.
You can take either a standard, move or minor action on your turn. You may take free actions but not immediate actions or opportunity attacks.
You can't flank an enemy.
You take a -2 penalty on all defenses until the end of your next turn.
You are Slowed
So it keeps Stun as a powerful, imo, condition to lay on someone but doesn't eliminate their turn entirely. I flip-flop on the penalty to defenses or a penalty to attack/skill rolls. I also toyed with the idea of not allowing free actions (i.e. you are too disoriented to speak coherently/think to drop the flaming torch etc) but then I realized that this would also prevent the use of action points as well.
Thoughts? Opinions? General Laughter?
__________________ "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." - Samuel Johnson 18th century English author.
"Everything must be at once for six month old puppies, 6 year old children and gamers of any age"
The way I do it is simple: PCs are stunned as normal, but can attempt an appropriate (in the context of the game) skill check (at a high DC) to shake it off. If they shake it off, all is kosher... if they fail, the stun lasts an additional turn (ie, they automatically fail their save).
__________________ Wik: Solving internet arguments since 1983.
I'd probably change the defense penalty to an attack penalty. -4 to all defenses is pretty harsh, and while move actions are penalized under your change (slow), attack/standard actions aren't. Stun should mean something more than daze even to those hacking away in melee.
EDIT: An idea I toyed with (but never actually tried) was to change stun to a combination of dazed and prone.
Last edited by Fanaelialae; 13th June 2010 at 07:01 PM..
The way I do it is simple: PCs are stunned as normal, but can attempt an appropriate (in the context of the game) skill check (at a high DC) to shake it off. If they shake it off, all is kosher... if they fail, the stun lasts an additional turn (ie, they automatically fail their save).
Ouch. I think that would make Stun even more deadly than it is already. I haven't found a power yet that doesn't allow stun to end on either the attacker or defender's next turn. One that makes the stun last longer if you blow a skill check wouldn't be the way I would go.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fanaelialae
I'd probably change the defense penalty to an attack penalty. -4 to all defenses is pretty harsh, and while move actions are penalized under your change (slow), attack/standard actions aren't. Stun should mean something more than daze even to those hacking away in melee.
Yeah - like I said I hemmed and hawed about it for a bit and it certainly is an option. Does make Stun affect everything you can do in a turn (attack, move, defend etc) if you make it a -2 to attack rolls.
__________________ "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." - Samuel Johnson 18th century English author.
"Everything must be at once for six month old puppies, 6 year old children and gamers of any age"
Ouch. I think that would make Stun even more deadly than it is already. I haven't found a power yet that doesn't allow stun to end on either the attacker or defender's next turn. One that makes the stun last longer if you blow a skill check wouldn't be the way I would go.
It generally works - our players simply pick their best skill and roll, and get about a 70% chance of knocking off that effect. I often grant bonuses on the check if they describe the action as being particularly noteworthy, or are willing to saddle themselves with a rider effect (more or less trading a different condition of their choice for stunned).
As an example, I described a stunned condition once as an arrow going through the character's leg, pinning him to a cart. The character made his skill check (endurance, I believe) to slough off the pain, and pull the arrow out. He willingly took damage that he didn't need to take, but got rid of the stunned condition when he passed his check with a +2 bonus.
I find it helps keep players a bit more aware of what's "going on" in the setting. But characters only break out the skill check to get rid of stunned when it's important - in a smaller fight, they might just let it go.
__________________ Wik: Solving internet arguments since 1983.
I like Wik's idea; it gives each character a variation of the Warden's ability to roll saves at the start of a turn (and there's a feat floating around somewhere in there that lets you do the same). The Warden doesn't lose out, because he gets to save with no added penalty to himself.
I think the real problem with stun is when it is used on a solo or, to a lesser extent, on an elite. After all, stunning one standard monster out of five still leaves the other four able to act. Hence, I'm considering taking the following approach for stun, which gives the stunned creature the option to do nothing (which is the same as current), or to pay a price in order to do something:
A stunned creature is dazed. In addition, if it takes any action, it takes damage equal to 10 + twice its level.
Since solos and elites have more hit points, it is proportionately less painful for them to act while stunned. However, if they choose to do so, the PCs still get an advantage (more damage) for having stunned the monster.
I would so totally love to give the tarrasque his one attack to trample the party at a cost of 70 hp. The Barbarian will probably be hitting him for more on average. Also, with that rule, is the damage taken regardless of resistances? I guess it would be safe to assume so, but figured I'd ask.
Also, with that rule, is the damage taken regardless of resistances? I guess it would be safe to assume so, but figured I'd ask.
Yes, definitely. It's more like "spend hp to take an action" rather than "take damage". I probably should add the following, along the lines of some player powers: "This damage cannot be avoided or reduced in any way."
I have a house rule called the Brutal Shakeoff. Any character or creature can shake off a status effect and take their level in damage. It speeds up combat and gives some hard choices to players.
You know, Stalker0 brought up an interesting idea in another thread about ongoing damage. Just make all the saves in the round the damage was taken and apply it immediately.
What if we applied this idea to monsters?
Shake off
Free Basic Epic Action
Personal
At-will
You take X damage in order to roll a saving throw vs an effect that contains one of the following conditions: Stun, Daze, or Immobilized, even if the effect does not normally allow a save. This damage cannot be reduced in any way. You can only use this power during your turn before you have taken any standard, movement, or attack actions. You can use this power Y times per round. This action does not count toward your limit of free actions per round.
This way, (save ends) effects are more deadly than "until end of PC's next round" effects. And it's not a "pay X to get out of jail" fee...otherwise you might as well replace dazed/stunned/immobilized conditions in powers with extra flat damage instead.
Last edited by knightofround; 11th July 2010 at 08:20 AM..
I'm starting to like the idea of turning Stunned into something like:
Stunned: You are Dazed.
You have a -4 to all defenses.
Possibly also You are Slowed.
Possibly also You are critically hit on a 18-20.
Possilby also You have a -2 to attack rolls.
This has the advantage of
1. It's not annoying. The PC and monster still get to do SOMETHING on their turn.
2. It helps speed up combat. Monsters that are stunned will get damaged more easily and the PCs can use tactics to set up a Stunned-Daily combo. PCs that are stunned could still get an attack.
3. It scares the PCs. When they're stunned, they're in imminent danger of getting KILLED as opposed to just losing their offensive abilities.
I think the real problem with stun is when it is used on a solo or, to a lesser extent, on an elite. After all, stunning one standard monster out of five still leaves the other four able to act. Hence, I'm considering taking the following approach for stun, which gives the stunned creature the option to do nothing (which is the same as current), or to pay a price in order to do something:
A stunned creature is dazed. In addition, if it takes any action, it takes damage equal to 10 + twice its level.
Since solos and elites have more hit points, it is proportionately less painful for them to act while stunned. However, if they choose to do so, the PCs still get an advantage (more damage) for having stunned the monster.
This is a reasonable idea. However, you should take into account the fact that comparable monsters (elite's) have about three as many hitpoints as (N)PC's do. To be reasonable, an (N)PC should not need to take such a large hit nor elites such a small hit; to be conservative and be easy to compute, how 'bout following the suggestion in another thread and using a surges worth of hitpoints instead? That's bad enough so people won't be taking actions lightly - but will if it's critical. You may want a special exceptional rule for some solos (namely those that don't already have a stun-defense).
As an aside, I really wish PC's and monsters wouldn't have such pointlessly different mechanics; it screws up things like this, but also falling, dominate, NPC's in general, and ally-unfriendly area effects (which thus have been replaces with the generally more boring enemy-only effects).
__________________
4e balanced random loot system / 3.5e death&dying variant
- Dislike the impact of a few bad item picks by the DM on the party or think item wishlists are devilspawn?
- Or find it ludicrous that PC's constantly just "happen" to find magic items tailored to their needs?
Try: A simpler treasure system for (mostly) random loot (4e).
- Tired of players that won't cure their mortally wounded allies 'cause "he's only at -2"?
- Tired of a dying mechanic which never kicks into action for high level characters, which tend to go from alive and kicking to instant death before anyone can intervene? Try: Death & Dying - a better (and simple!) system (3.5e).
Last edited by eamon; 13th July 2010 at 12:25 PM..
Recent News
Linear Mode
