Stun is Fun

[Amaroq]

All math aside, I think how "fun" this is is going to depend on the build of the party.

For example, a friend of mine just built up a 3rd-level Warlord who dishes out about 4 saving throws per encounter:

She's got the feat which lets her grant a Save along with her Inspiring Word Minor
She took the L2 utility which grants a Save as a Minor
She took the L3 encounter which grants a Save on Hit with a Standard

As a DM, I'd have no problem tossing a "Stun (save ends)" or "Dominate (save ends)" at somebody else in the group, because it would give her something awesome to do with her turn.

On the other hand, if a party doesn't dish much extra saving, and is having to rely on the Standard action "grant an extra save", yeah, I do think that's much less fun, with the party likely to get quite frustrated by it.

I'm certainly not arguing for a "Stun at-will, stun interrupt" monster, that's just awful, and I can't imagine it being fun in any meaningful way.

But a "Stun (save ends) on crit" monster, or "Stun (save ends) as encounter power" monster, maybe even up to a 5-6 recharge power - that can certainly be fun.

 

[keterys]

Very well.

Much appreciated! So you're assuming not only that the stunned PC acts after the person giving out saves (optimal situation) and that the person giving the heal check automatically succeeds (many characters won't), that their enemies have no ability to reapply the stun, and that the combat has at least 6 rounds more before it ends.

Personally, those assumptions don't work for me. There are certainly times in which it will be worthwhile, but in an immense number of them - it won't. At least not in terms of being effective - in terms of maybe you're willing to take one for the team so a particular person feels less screwed. Sure, that's different. As long as you're not just chewing up time before the next stunned (save ends) gets thrown out.

Stun can be fine under certain narrow circumstances. DMs should get a good feel for how often their groups feel okay with it being inflicted on them, and how often their players wish to inflict it on others. Cause I'll say that a solo being stunned for 4 straight turns by encounter powers is pretty awful too. Even ignoring stunned (save ends) from an orbizard.

 

[DracoSuave]

Much appreciated! So you're assuming not only that the stunned PC acts after the person giving out saves (optimal situation) and that the person giving the heal check automatically succeeds (unlikely for many characters), that their enemies have no ability to reapply the stun, and that the combat has at least 6 rounds more before it ends.

If the combat was shorter than 6 rounds, and chainstunning isn't affecting that, then it wasn't really a hard encounter was it?

But hey, if you're against stunners, and you don't delay so that you don't lose turns and the leader can unstun you before hand, that's playerfail.

Stun can be fine under certain narrow circumstances. DMs should get a good feel for how often their groups feel okay with it being inflicted on them, and how often their players wish to inflict it on others. Cause I'll say that a solo being stunned for 4 straight turns by encounter powers is pretty awful too. Even ignoring stunned (save ends) from an orbizard.

But in those situations, it does the job of inconveniencing the players enough that they have to play a game other than 'Hit it, it dies.'

This IS a good thing. If stunning is overused, it's bad. But the same goes for brutes, lurkers, and chasescenes.

 

[Rechan]

I disagree.

Death is fun. It means you get to bring in a new character. It means something just HAPPENED that was important. It also reinforced the risks that combat does.

Stun? "Go sit out for x rounds".

Last night we were in a game and my PC was on the ground for 2 rounds. The difference between dying and being stunned is, I was on the edge of my seat. "Are they going to get to me in time?" "Am I going to roll that third death save?" Everyone was tense because I, being the leader, was down - and everyone was hurtin'. The situation was particularly dire because I was in the area of a swarm at the time (so each round = damage taken).

Were I stunned, it would have removed the tension. It would have removed the "Am I going to eat it and force everyone to retreat?". It just means I didn't get to do anything. I sat on my hands the entire time. Sure, while I was unconscious I ALSO couldn't do anything, but there's more at stake there, and there's more threat.

Stunning is a lot like Save or Die. You can be "Dropped" in the first round, without any qualms, questions, or the buffer of HP, and the only thing that can save your ass is a save.

 

[keterys]

If the combat was shorter than 6 rounds, and chainstunning isn't affecting that, then it wasn't really a hard encounter was it?

Not 'shorter than 6 rounds'. 6 _more_ rounds. As in, if you get hit with a stunned (save ends) in the 5th round of combat, it's only worth doing if you don't expect the combat to end until the 12th or so round. Though, yes, it's actually either 'combat ends' or 'another stun effect is thrown'. So, that also means that the stun effect can't be rechargeable...

But hey, if you're against stunners, and you don't delay so that you don't lose turns and the leader can unstun you before hand, that's playerfail.

Stunned players can't delay. Leaders get stunned. Your comment makes no sense.

This IS a good thing. If stunning is overused, it's bad. But the same goes for brutes, lurkers, and chasescenes.

Ooh, a brute, lurker, chase scene...

 

[Flipguarder]

My new favorite houserule:

The stunned (save ends) condition no longer exists. After the first failed save against the stunned condition, it becomes dazed (save ends)

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

The general rules of stun are:

1. Use sparingly. Not every encounter should have stun. Not one in every three encounters should have stun. Stun should be a rarity, and is simply not the stuff random encounters are made of.

2. Stun should only last for a single turn. "Until the end of next turn" or possibly "save ends" if the group has powers that grant saves.

3. Stun should never, ever, ever be on an at-will or an aura. It is a once-an-encounter thing, even in those rare few encounters where it's appropriate to use. Shame on you, Dracolich. Shame on you.

Agreed.

I don't mind being stunned, and failing 3 saves in a row lets me kvetch about it.

Being chain stunned, for no effort? Hell, no.

Brad

 

[keterys]

The stunned (save ends) condition no longer exists. After the first failed save against the stunned condition, it becomes dazed (save ends)

This houserule also ensures that the whole Heal check thing is actually worthwhile

Combine with another houserule that 'end of next turn' things can be ended early by being given a save and I'd find the current state of stun far more palatable.

 

[Flipguarder]

Keterys that seems unclear to me. Do you like my houserule or not?

 

[Mengu]

Keterys that seems unclear to me. Do you like my houserule or not?

I think he likes it, he's basically suggesting 2 rules.

1. Every instance of "Stunned (save ends)" becomes "Stunned (save ends); First failed save: Instead target is dazed (save ends)"

2. Every instance of "Stunned until eont" becomes "Stunned until eont (save ends)"

It's an interesting pair of house rules. This would make wardens immune to the first version of stun, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. And every granted save is guaranteed to turn the stunned (save ends) into at least dazed (save ends), hence the comment about heal check being more worthwhile. Overall I'd say I could live with these as well.