Nerfing stun

[Neubert]

Being stunned is no fun, no matter which side of the table you are on.

I was thinking of changing stun to the following:
- If the stun condition is applied to a dazed creature, they are stunned per the normal stun rules, otherwise the creature is dazed.


What are the implications of such a house rule?
- It would require more teamwork/powers to completely negate a creature's turn (which would be good for solos and player characters).
- Players might choose more powers that inflict the dazed condition in order to set up stuns (could be argued whether this is good or bad).
- Monsters that can stun at-will would become a little more viable.

Thoughts? Other implications?

 

[andy3k]

Changing the power level of stun changes all the PC powers and monster powers that use stun. It is much better to retain the power level of stun so that those many, many powers that use it don't have to be altered. Additionally, I see no reason why stun has to be linked to daze. Many monsters can do only one without the other and it would be a pain to try to find sets of creatures that do both together AND can coordinate to implement it on the party. Players have a way of messing up the best laid plans (and I'm not just talking about controllers).

Here are some options. Stun equals ...

Dazed + -5 to hit and skill checks
Dazed + weakened
Slowed + weakened + -5 to hit and skill checks + no minor actions

etc.

 

[ravenheart]

How a bout this:

Stunned: While a creature is stunned, it can’t take standard actions, and it can't attack. It also grants combat advantage and can’t flank. The creature falls if it is flying, unless it can hover.

Emphasis mine.

 

[OnlineDM]

[MENTION=72088]ravenheart[/MENTION]: I'm leaning toward something similar for Stunned myself:

Stunned: A creature that is Stunned is Dazed, cannot take standard actions other than Second Wind or Total Defense, and cannot attack.

I do think Stunned should still limit a creature to no more than one action (your definition would allow a double move or even three minor actions, which I don't think should be on the table). I originally didn't have the "cannot attack" rider in there, but I like that part of your definition (disallowing attacks that are minor or move actions).

I originally was planning to disallow the use of action points, but if someone really wants to spend an action point while Stunned in order to move a second time or take another minor action, I'm okay with that.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

If you are dazed, you can´t use an action point to take a second action. You can however use it and benefit from action point benefits that may or may be worth the expentiture of a precious resource.

I vote for stun = dazed + immobilized -5 to attack.

 

[keterys]

Changing the power level of stun changes all the PC powers and monster powers that use stun.

Isn't that the idea? Like... yay!

Running epic lately, and the fact that the group can throw out three stuns an encounter doesn't add any amount of fun to the game at all (as a player or DM, seriously). I really don't mind too much when it's on a standard, though I think it's still actively sucking fun out of the game, but when it's used on an elite it's way too swingy on the combat.

I think I like variants where being stunned makes you more likely to be harmed - like maybe it's dazed and a penalty to defenses, or dazed and vulnerability to damage.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The most simple answer would be:

elites treat stun as dazed and can do standard + minor if dazed...