D&D 4E Should the action denying Stunned condition remain in 4e?

[Nebulous]

I wonder if future updates to the game will start to include Stun Immunity for certain monsters? I hadn't realized this could be a problem, but my group hasn't fought a solo yet. Nor do they have the ability to sufficiently stun anything.

 

[Sphyre]

I find it ironic that at higher levels effects that last until the end of your next turn seem stronger than save ends effects, simply because there are a lot of ways to get immediate saves and high levels.

They are, in many ways, stronger. Not simply because of immediate saves, but also the fact that when you look at the way rounds last, assuming they make their saving throw, "until the end of your next turn" is longer than "save ends" which translates to "Until the end of your target's next turn."

Putting that in initiative order:

You
Badguy
Ally 1
Ally 2

You only can benefit from the effect for the remaining amount of your turn. In most cases that means to take advantage of the effect, you need to use an action point.

In this initiative order:

You
Ally 1
Ally 2
Badguy

Your allies get to take advantage of the effect, but you do not without an action point.

But when you have a "until the end of your next turn" effect, you're always letting all of your allies and yourself take advantage of the effect at least once.

(Disclaimer, by "benefiting from the effect, I assume it's granting combat advantage or some other thing that while the target is under the effect of it, attacks against it are stronger. Things such as stun, still can be useful in removing turns, even if no one wants to take advantage of the combat advantage granted by it)

 

[Runestar]

Or for whatever it is worth, an epic lv wizard can look forward to permanently stunning 1 normal foe/encounter...

Scratch that - with AV, he can now even stun-lock a solo forever!

 

[Syrsuro]

Or for whatever it is worth, an epic lv wizard can look forward to permanently stunning 1 normal foe/encounter...

Scratch that - with AV, he can now even stun-lock a solo forever!

But that's only because Orb mastery is broken and ought to provide a static bonus as does Wand mastery.

If they hadn't made the Orb Mastery penalty scaleable all of the controversy about the feat wouldn't exist and it would still be seen as at least as useful as either of the other two.

Hindsight, etc...

Carl

 

[boolean]

But that's only because Orb mastery is broken and ought to provide a static bonus as does Wand mastery.

???

Wand of Accuracy scales as well (it gives a bonus to the attack roll equal to your Dex modifier).

It's less abusable, because Dex and Int apply to the same defense, so bumping both abilities leaves your Fort and Will defense pretty low.

Also, making an effect hit is less powerful than ensuring it stays around. Wand of Accuracy applies to a single attack roll. Orb of Imposition applies to every save. If I were to HR the Orb feature, I'd make it apply to the next save, not every save.

 

[keterys]

I think stunned has a place in the rules. I think that it
1) Should not appear on any power that is not a daily for PCs or encounter for non-solo creatures (and at least recharge or more rare for solo)
2) Should not appear as save ends ever _unless_ it also lasts until the end of your next turn (which is to say, if it lasts a max of 1 turn but a save can get you out of it sooner)
3) Should most commonly be encountered as a penalty for a 2nd or later failed save, and not an initial effect

So, every encounter stun power, every stun (save ends), most monsters with stun... yeah, I don't think they use it right. Dragon Frightful Presence? Sure.

 

[eamon]

I see solo's named in this argument quite frequently - but really, that's not a problem with stun, it's a problem with solo's, and it's one you don't want to fix either. Frankly, if you're alone and something nasty happens - you're screwed. It's not just stun, it's unconscious (1st level sleep spell notably), dominated, petrified, and other things situationally (immobilized or restrained can be nasty for melee critters).

It's possible some stun-using powers are too powerful, but the concept of a power which just takes you out isn't that odd (it's a fantasy staple, if you will). Frankly, I think D&D is already bending over backwards to avoid perfectly plausible situations which could be battle-ending. If at all possible, I think the game should not pretend plausible, battle-changing effects don't exist, but support reasonable mitigation strategies.

 

[keterys]

I see solo's named in this argument quite frequently - but really, that's not a problem with stun, it's a problem with solo's, and it's one you don't want to fix either. Frankly, if you're alone and something nasty happens - you're screwed. It's not just stun, it's unconscious (1st level sleep spell notably), dominated, petrified, and other things situationally (immobilized or restrained can be nasty for melee critters).

No - a solo dragon shouldn't be able to be stunned indefinitely, and I do want to fix that.

And no, it's not just stunned. I also think that unconsciousness, dominate, and petrify should follow the same rules I outlined. I think there's a lot of room to work with the '2nd Failed Save' mechanic to make it work fine, too. For example, I have no problems with Carrion Crawlers who do stun, but not immediately. I have a problem with Ghouls.

I also have problems with a party that has enough encounter stun powers that a solo never gets to act, or a wizard making a stun (save ends) perpetual. While these are due to combinations of problems, that doesn't make one side of the problematic equation fine.

It's possible some stun-using powers are too powerful, but the concept of a power which just takes you out isn't that odd (it's a fantasy staple, if you will).

Being beheaded is also a fantasy staple, yet is not something I need to happen casually.