Taking Unfun out of Dazed and Stunned Conditions

[ZephyrTR]

@Brainstorm:
People have attempted that before -- not noticing that granting Combat Advantage already really addresses this in a much more efficient manner.


I think Mesh made a REALLY great argument just now about stun and daze, where really we should be looking at it as "STUN" and "STUN LITE". Stun's gotta be treated as a big deal, as well as Dominate, but Daze can be a bit freer. Also, Mesh, I like your free once per turn saving throw for boss monsters.

 

[brainstorm]

@Brainstorm:
People have attempted that before -- not noticing that granting Combat Advantage already really addresses this in a much more efficient manner.


I think Mesh made a REALLY great argument just now about stun and daze, where really we should be looking at it as "STUN" and "STUN LITE". Stun's gotta be treated as a big deal, as well as Dominate, but Daze can be a bit freer. Also, Mesh, I like your free once per turn saving throw for boss monsters.

I don't disagree that Stun should be a big deal. However, my goal is to keep the player active and engaged in the game. Removing actions means the player is waiting for the next opportunity for them to do something, which could be one or more rounds. They are likely to get bored and check out of the game. Happened to one of my players the other night when they kept failing their save to remove the Stun condition (damn giant frogs!). Allowing them to keep actions, but penalize the actions seems to be more the way to go.

 

[Mesh Hong]

I don't disagree that Stun should be a big deal. However, my goal is to keep the player active and engaged in the game. Removing actions means the player is waiting for the next opportunity for them to do something, which could be one or more rounds. They are likely to get bored and check out of the game. Happened to one of my players the other night when they kept failing their save to remove the Stun condition (damn giant frogs!). Allowing them to keep actions, but penalize the actions seems to be more the way to go.

Well I think I have pretty much made my case and the decision is now yours.

I think the only additional things I can suggest are the following ideas:

1: Keep stun and dazed as written, but replace all stun effects with daze effects (for monster powers) and replace some daze effects with other lesser effects such as slow, immobilised or grants combat advantage.

2: Keep stun and dazed as written but with stun powers add the following balance, on first failed save target is dazed instead of stunned. This would mean that the worst case scenario would take the player out for one turn only and on the second turn they could do something.

3: Follow your original plan and completely rewrite daze and stun. In your last rewrite I noticed you included a -2/-5 penalty to saving throws as part of the condition. I would strongly advise against this as it has a strong possibility of leading to spiral of accumulating effects and might unbalance other effects the target is subject to.

 

[brainstorm]

Mesh, I appreciate the suggestions and feedback. I guess I'm looking for something more aggressive that benefits the players AND the DM.

I think the only additional things I can suggest are the following ideas:

1: Keep stun and dazed as written, but replace all stun effects with daze effects (for monster powers) and replace some daze effects with other lesser effects such as slow, immobilised or grants combat advantage.

This only helps the players. Solos and Elites are still subject to the player's powers since the core Dazed/Stun condition hasn't been changed. I would have to give Elite/Solos power to counteract the Dazed/Stun conditions (which was one of the suggestions made by the WotC guys on the podcast), which nerfs the players power choice - something that would piss me off as a player.

2: Keep stun and dazed as written but with stun powers add the following balance, on first failed save target is dazed instead of stunned. This would mean that the worst case scenario would take the player out for one turn only and on the second turn they could do something.

This is a little better, as it would benefit both players and Elite/Solos, but there is still a round of unfun until they can make a save attempt. My goal is to eliminate any turns where the player and Elite/Solos are inactive.

3: Follow your original plan and completely rewrite daze and stun. In your last rewrite I noticed you included a -2/-5 penalty to saving throws as part of the condition. I would strongly advise against this as it has a strong possibility of leading to spiral of accumulating effects and might unbalance other effects the target is subject to.

Although I am open to more suggestions/tweeks/feedback, this solution is more of what I am looking for, as it impacts both players and Elite/Solos equally. I understand the potential for the spiral of accumulating effects, but even if a player/Elite/Solo has mulitple effects that reduce their attack effectiveness by -X, where X is a big number, they are still able to act, albeit in a severely handicapped manner. Whereas with existing Dazed/Stun mechanics they completely lose actions. As both player and DM, I'd rather have a chance at doing something, even at a severe negative modifier, than not be able to do anything at all.

 

[ZephyrTR]

With that 3rd option in mind -- how will you deal with moves that magically sleep, or polymorph? What about moves that hypnotize or dominate? Stun isn't the only thing that can neutralize a character for a round or more.

I just don't see how this makes sense -- they take actions but with big minuses? If I use a fascination illusion on you, your character shouldn't want to do anything else but continue to stare at my lightshow.
Maybe your problem isn't stun or daze, but how many mobs you're putting in each encounter, and how fast everyone's turn is going? Losing a turn only becomes awful when a single turn takes fifteen minutes. I revoke people's turns if they take too long. It's harsh, but their indecision negatively affects everyone at the table. I also usually only have 5 enemies on the board. Any dudes over that are minions.

I also think if your players only care about taking their own actions, that sucks, man. That sounds real boring to me.

 

[brainstorm]

With that 3rd option in mind -- how will you deal with moves that magically sleep, or polymorph? What about moves that hypnotize or dominate? Stun isn't the only thing that can neutralize a character for a round or more.

Well, I'd have to take each of those on a case by case basis. The Sleep spell (Wizard level 1), for example, starts off as a Slowed condition followed up by Unconsciousness on the first failed save. This is, in my opinion, a bit overpowered as it allows coup de gras to occur after the opponent (which could potentially be mulitple opponents!) goes Unconscious. If I were an evil DM (I am), I could use this to wipe out most of a party. I might house rule this to be Dazed on the 1st failed save, Stunned on the 2nd failed save and then Unconscious on the 3rd failed save, if someone is that unlucky. Dominate is not as much of a concern, because the player is still active, carrying out the action that I dictate, which is usually to attack one of their companions (and is usually funny for all involved).

I just don't see how this makes sense -- they take actions but with big minuses? If I use a fascination illusion on you, your character shouldn't want to do anything else but continue to stare at my lightshow.
Maybe your problem isn't stun or daze, but how many mobs you're putting in each encounter, and how fast everyone's turn is going? Losing a turn only becomes awful when a single turn takes fifteen minutes. I revoke people's turns if they take too long. It's harsh, but their indecision negatively affects everyone at the table. I also usually only have 5 enemies on the board. Any dudes over that are minions.

Again, I'd have to look at the powers and see if they violate my "unfun" guidelines (player inaction = unfun, BBEG ineffectiveneses = unfun). Not sure what fascination illusion you are referencing, but I would imagine that it could have a variety of effects besides stunning that would becaused by pretty lights dazzling the characters. Blindness, Slowed, Dazed, Immobile, are just some that come to mind. The big minuses represents the character being distracted, unfocused, and not as effective as when they are not under the influence of the condition.

Speed of turns can be an issue sometimes, but even if a turn just takes 15 minutes to cycle through, it could potentially be 30 minutes or more before a player saves a Stunned condition. Out of a 4-5 hour monthly game, that's valuable play time they are left out of.

I also think if your players only care about taking their own actions, that sucks, man. That sounds real boring to me.

They don't "only" care about their own actions, but they are certainly looking out for their character's best interests, and I don't fault them for that. They don't want to nerf themselves any more than I want to nerf them. In addition, I want to ensure that the opponents that I carefully select to challenge them don't become a joke when they Mark, Divine Challenge, Stun, Weaken, and Immobilize and then proceed to beat them down to 0 hp without receiving a scratch in return. That certainly doesn't convey the awe or fear a BBEG should invoke. I believe that there's an Orcus thread around here that illustrates this point nicely. That's why I want to implement a change the rules that affect everyone, not just the players or opponents.

Also, keep in mind, this isn't something that I'm noticing on my own. The issue was brought up at Gen Con to the WotC panel and the panelists agreed that Daze and Stun can be problematic. They stated that they were consciously trying to limit the monsters they are developing with powers that inflict these conditions and they briefly talked about their own ways of dealing with this. One of them said he gave his monsters an ability to make a save against the condition. Another guy said he downgrades Stuns to Dazes. So it's not that I'm making this up, others are noticing the unfun these two conditions can cause. I'm just trying to find a way to deal with it without screwing my players or myself.

If anyone has better ideas, I'd love to see them.

 

[jamesmanhattan]

Petrify and Sleep are obviously worse than Stun, but they are nowhere near as common. The main problem is that stun is so common. There are level 1 player powers that stun(save ends)!

As a stunned player sitting out and able to do nothing sucks. As a DM, it's just as unfun to watch your BBEG solo become a pinata.

If you lessen the effects you are essentially giving the players something to do. Question is what and how much?

I feel that stun should be like being kicked in the solar plexus.

I think stunned should be:
Stunned:
- Lose Standard Action
- can't use attack powers or summon powers
- -5 to skill checks
- can't sustain powers
- grant combat advantage.

What are players left with?
Probably the most preferable strategy would be to grant yourself a saving throw, followed by "escaping" whatever stunned you.
Players can move, try to teleport, try to climb a wall, use an action point to do a skill albeit with a -5.

You've got to limit certain builds that can attack with a minor action.
Also limit warlords that can make someone else attack.
I feel that being able to heal an ally with majestic word is still viable.
Stumbling away in pain is still viable. (you still provoke opp attks)

Are there monsters that solely rely on a player being stunned before it can setup an attack? Maybe a Mind Flayer, but I think that's it.

I also think allowing players or solos an extra saving throw, or the ability to take damage to remove a stun, is a step in the wrong direction. It's too binary. Half the time they will be stunned, half the time they will be completely unaffected.

 

[jamesmanhattan]

In a game like D&D where you do sit around for long periods of time watching other people take their turns (The main complaint of my fiance is that the game is so slow and you don't get to do much) Stunned is a pretty bad thing.

I guess it's directly in proportion to how the rest of the table plays. Do the other players speed through their turns or not?

If the average player takes 2 minutes per turn and there's 6 people and a DM who takes 3 min, you sit for 13 minutes between turns. If players take 3 minutes per turn and the DM takes 5 min, you sit through 20 minutes between turns.

If you are stunned for one round, you could sit 30-40 minutes just watching. If you are stunned(save ends) that time can go up to 80 minutes of watching.

 

[jamesmanhattan]

Sorry for the multi-post, but I am immensely interested in this subject.

If you look at the designers' edit to Legion's Hold, they changed stun into Dazed and Immobilized.

Maybe using this logic, but still making stun brutal
Stunned:
- No Standard Action
- Dazed
- Immobilized


No matter what, if you allow minor actions, there are tons of powers that grant saving throws on a minor. This might weaken stun too much. On the other hand, I think the whole purpose of weakening stun is to keep the game and the action flowing.

 

[eamon]

I agree with Mesh Hong - stunned & dazed are a good thing. If anything, I'd make em more nasty rather than less nasty. The current gameplay has decided to sacrifice too many things at the altar of balance for my tastes. Sometimes, when you're screwed, you're just that: screwed.

If you push someone over a ledge, he's out too - frankly, I think the problem isn't that an effect can be decisive, it's that such effects are a little too common and when they occur, it takes too long. Battles, in general, simply take too long. When combat is a finely balanced activity that involves a delicate push and pull by both sides for a prolonged duration even after the combat's essentially decided, that means that attacks simply aren't lethal enough. A Tug of War is more fun: lots of tensions, but once one side has the upper hand, the end is usually quick.

Fortunately, the problem is getting less bad by itself: really problematic powers are often errata'd, and monsters now deal more damage meaning that combats are quicker.

I guess the direction I'd prefer looking in would be one where one takes MM3-style monsters, halves their hit points, doubles their damage. Then, all dazing+stunning attacks should deal less damage than they do now - that makes it a real trade-off. Monsters&PC's that can can stun at-will should not exist; those that can daze at will deserve a critical look; similarly encounter/dailies that can mass-stun or stun for a long time are tricky.

And there should certainly exist better countermeasures than there do now - think freedom of movement from 3.5 and similar. A standard action to remove an allies stun would be reasonable, for instance. That could be a skill power, for instance, or a leader power.

The real problem isn't nasty conditions - conditions aren't nasty enough, for me - the real problem is that the game pretty much ceases when under the effects of such conditions. There are no countermeasures (or only very limited countermeasures); there is no really opportunity cost for using such attacks, nor are such attacks less likely to hit. Combined with the poor scaling of NADs and the fact that many of these attacks target NAD's a solution in terms of attack bonus isn't easy either.

Now, there do exist items that protect against such conditions in a limited fashion - but simply negating an effect is a bad design choice since it's just as frustrating to the attacker and in any case the defensive effect is so strong that for balance reasons such items are often considered overpowered and/or can only be used rarely (daily powers and with specific limitations).

Stun & daze don't fit the 4e spirit. You can fix that by making them less and less relevant - but if you subtract from the game like that, it turns even more grindy and less fun - DPR shouldn't be the only thing that matters. Alternatively, you can make em fit by adding to the game - introduce countermeasures and balance powers so that there's a real tradeoff. In a meta-game sense, you can address the frustration by raising the speed (damage) of combat: that way, it's not perceived as yet another cut in an inevitable death by a thousand cuts that the player is frustratingly helpless to prevent but rather the equally powerful but more fearsome penultimate strike - if you can't escape the stun the combat will end quickly for you.