(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
Daze is a pretty significant control condition. Shouldn't that cut the damage dealt by the attack?
Monster manual 1 and 2 errata
- Thread starter Layander
- Start date
Daze is a pretty significant control condition. Shouldn't that cut the damage dealt by the attack?
Jack99
Adventurer
Thanks for spotting my typo!
Dragonblade
Adventurer
I originally got the idea from the Sly Flourish blog.
I tested it in play and found that it works great. And sure whipping out a calc for +25%, or cross-referencing monster math with the new damage expressions is doable, but +5 per attack per tier is math I can do instantly in my head much faster than any other conversion method I have seen.
Jack99
Adventurer
Fair enough I guess. I obviously think it's easy, so maybe it's just a matter of me converting so many monsters' damage expression.
The +5/tier was originally from a WotC-guy, irrc.
Peraion Graufalke
First Post
There was also a recommendation to double the static damage modifier, e.g. increase damage from 1d8+4 to 1d8+8, IIRC.
Not really.
A ranged PC can still attack with daze.
A melee PC can still attack foes next to him with daze and if nobody is next to him, he can still typically charge someone.
The main issue is if a ranged PC has a foe next to him and would provoke with a ranged attack. Corner cases where my PC is at a slight disadvantage is one reason why all of my PCs always have at least one way to do both ranged and melee attacks, regardless of class.
Dazed does give the opposition combat advantage against the PC, but it's not really that debilitating. The player still often has options. Many PC powers are similar in that they do normal damage and then something disadvantageous for the foe.
Your position might have more merit for Stunned, but even then from a narrative view, it should be the really strong attacks that stun, not the weak ones. Narratively, the same for Dazing attacks. Strong attacks should typically daze, not weak ones.
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
I hope I'm not taking this too far off topic 
This has come up in my game, in the sense that dazing PCs seems to do a lot more "hurt" to them than when they daze monsters. I suppose it's because PCs find minor actions more valuable. Monsters are usually simpler and often don't have any minor abilities.
(In my next encounter, I'm using a crossbowman or two who basically have the ranger's Hunter's Quarry ability, but only until EoNT, and dazing them would thus weaken their damage. One of my PCs has a dazing encounter and I want that to be more useful for him.)
True, but you can only use charge with basic attacks or with specific attacks (like Howling Strike) that work with charge. This works on monsters too; you usually can't use a recharge or encounter ability with a charge (though there's always the exception, like several minotaurs). Of course, if you're dazed but right next to an opponent, it's not so bad. Daze is more situational than immobilize.
I don't know about that. Not counting weapon powers, what is "normal" damage for a single-target PC power? 1d6? 1d8? 1d10? I think 1d10 damage is used for "boring" power that just do damage (Eldritch Blast, pre-errata Magic Missile), 1d8 damage for powers with weak effects (eg Lance of Faith) and 1d6 damage for powers with strong effects (Ray of Frost, though I don't think slowed until EoNT is worth that much a nerf).
WotC doesn't always agree with me though. I've seen several controllers of about 8th to 11th level that inflict immobilize [save ends] on an at-will.
I would agree that would make sense for physical attacks, like Anvil of Doom, but not for magical attacks. If you're using a mind-scrambling attack, power that could be doing damage (popping neurons, not that the spellcaster would know that term) would instead be used for dazing the target's brain instead. That's the way I see it.
This has come up in my game, in the sense that dazing PCs seems to do a lot more "hurt" to them than when they daze monsters. I suppose it's because PCs find minor actions more valuable. Monsters are usually simpler and often don't have any minor abilities.
(In my next encounter, I'm using a crossbowman or two who basically have the ranger's Hunter's Quarry ability, but only until EoNT, and dazing them would thus weaken their damage. One of my PCs has a dazing encounter and I want that to be more useful for him.)
True, but you can only use charge with basic attacks or with specific attacks (like Howling Strike) that work with charge. This works on monsters too; you usually can't use a recharge or encounter ability with a charge (though there's always the exception, like several minotaurs). Of course, if you're dazed but right next to an opponent, it's not so bad. Daze is more situational than immobilize.
I don't know about that. Not counting weapon powers, what is "normal" damage for a single-target PC power? 1d6? 1d8? 1d10? I think 1d10 damage is used for "boring" power that just do damage (Eldritch Blast, pre-errata Magic Missile), 1d8 damage for powers with weak effects (eg Lance of Faith) and 1d6 damage for powers with strong effects (Ray of Frost, though I don't think slowed until EoNT is worth that much a nerf).
WotC doesn't always agree with me though. I've seen several controllers of about 8th to 11th level that inflict immobilize [save ends] on an at-will.
I would agree that would make sense for physical attacks, like Anvil of Doom, but not for magical attacks. If you're using a mind-scrambling attack, power that could be doing damage (popping neurons, not that the spellcaster would know that term) would instead be used for dazing the target's brain instead. That's the way I see it.
