Stunlock: A DM's Worst Nightmare

[D'karr]

I know some DMs have fun coming up with a variety of anti-stun mechanisms, but I like to standardize stuff like this. I write a lot of monsters, and having standardized caste abilities makes writing them easier. It also makes running them easier in combat.

Sure, that's understandable.

BTW, players already have the option of taking the feat Superior Will if they have the WIS prerequisite. So there is already a "precedent" for something to give creatures a save for stun, even when not normally available (EoNT).

 

[Ryujin]

I'm not crazy about the idea of essentially turning stun powers into high-damage powers, but for argument's sake, how much damage would you suggest is a good price for shrugging off stun?

I like the idea of giving a specific power, that fights stun, that is perhaps usable once and, then again, when bloodied. I'd likely reserve it for key Solos and Elites, where reasonable, making it a 20hp/tier trade to eliminate it at the start of the creature's turn.

 

[keterys]

It is perhaps worth note that nerfing one condition may just move the goalpost.

For example, stun isn't horrible against Kronos - basically he loses one of his standard actions. It's not strong, either, so you may be a lot better off just blitzing damage on him to force him to a phase change.

He has no defense against dominate, though. So a group that could dominate him for 6 rounds straight (fairly trivial at that level, especially if you pull out a couple dailies) would cause him a lot of problems.

Protect against dominate, and maybe they'll whip out "cannot attack" or "cannot attack targets other than X".

Balancing status protection at epic is a little crazy. I tend to vary it up quite intentionally what I use - so one monster might be able to remove an "ends of X turn" effect, another might get saves against anything you can save against, one might remove "one harmful effect or condition", etc.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Howdy keterys!

It is perhaps worth note that nerfing one condition may just move the goalpost.

True. But I think its a move in the right direction.

For example, stun isn't horrible against Kronos - basically he loses one of his standard actions. It's not strong, either, so you may be a lot better off just blitzing damage on him to force him to a phase change.

Possibly, but remember that most attacks deal damage + a condition, so the trade off for a stun may be 10 extra points of damage versus Kronos slapping someone for about 80 damage or whatever.

He has no defense against dominate, though. So a group that could dominate him for 6 rounds straight (fairly trivial at that level, especially if you pull out a couple dailies) would cause him a lot of problems.

He'd have 2 saves per round against the dominate. I suppose its plausible he could fail them all for six rounds, but its unlikely.

Protect against dominate, and maybe they'll whip out "cannot attack" or "cannot attack targets other than X".

Again, two saves per round (with the +5 bonus). Personally I think it would be unlikely to see anything affect him for more than a round at worst.

Balancing status protection at epic is a little crazy. I tend to vary it up quite intentionally what I use - so one monster might be able to remove an "ends of X turn" effect, another might get saves against anything you can save against, one might remove "one harmful effect or condition", etc.

I agree, there's no seeming right answer. I still think my approach is the best I have seen. But if I see a better method I'd use it.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

A usual epic party might have a couple single target stuns or dominates.

A control-oriented party might have builds like an invoker who, per encounter, does a close burst 6 stun and a blast 6 dominate, alongside a druid who does 4 single target dominates per encounter.

So, the range is pretty sharp.

So it is. I favor generic powers for play testing -- which normally just means lots of damage. For this play test, it will mean a few generic single-target stun powers at about half the usual damage dice.

Maybe I'll try one play test with only the controller using stuns, and another with everyone throwing them down.

He'd have 2 saves per round against the dominate. I suppose its plausible he could fail them all for six rounds, but its unlikely.

Again, two saves per round (with the +5 bonus). Personally I think it would be unlikely to see anything affect him for more than a round at worst.

I'm curious why you singled out stun, daze and immobilize in your standardized solo ability. I mean dominate is at least as bad as stun, right? And repeatedly failing to save against a stun/daze/immobilize effect is as improbable as repeatedly failing to save against anything else.

 

[keterys]

Howdy keterys!

Heya

True. But I think its a move in the right direction.

Absolutely true.

Possibly, but remember that most attacks deal damage + a condition, so the trade off for a stun may be 10 extra points of damage versus Kronos slapping someone for about 80 damage or whatever.

Yeah, it depends on the optimization level of the group, but generally the powers that are stunned are, like, 2W + stunned, instead of 2 attacks for 2W. So, we're talking about giving up say 50-100 damage to put the stunned on. Which might be enough to trigger a phase change, which is kinda better than stunned, in a way.

He'd have 2 saves per round against the dominate. I suppose its plausible he could fail them all for six rounds, but its unlikely.

Hrmm, maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anything that would give him saves against dominated until end of next turn.

For example, a dominate druid with charm beast x 2, dominate beast, and infiltrating drone (a build I've seen in play) can dominate for 4 rounds, and I didn't even look to see if they got anything better at 27 than what showed up for the L24 playtest I've played in

Invokers at that level are likely to take Compel Action, cause encounter blast 6 dominate 1 turn is awesome too.

And dominates means you'll generate a lot of OAs, which can add up to a heap of damage. Probably 2 OAs per relevant PC, since Kronos acts twice and would be dominated for both of his turns.

 

[MortalPlague]

One last idea, and something I've used with every Solo since I read the article on them, is the three-stage solo idea I read somewhere, which changes most of the monster's stat block at each stage, and has them shrug off effects at that time, too. I found it on these forums, but I can't find it in my history at the moment...

Oh yes, the Angry DM Boss Battle idea. I have a link to it at the top of my dragon thread. I also have an example of an epic level dragon statted up to avoid stunlock.

It'll be my first time using the boss battle mechanics, so I'm excited to try it out.

I should also mention that I dealt with this problem when we decided to do battle against the gods. I had my hands full handling action denial powers. However, gods are gods, so I told my players that I'd be cheating on the gods behalf by giving them a save against everything affecting them at the beginning of their turn, even against ENT effects. It worked pretty well.

I wouldn't recommend doing that for every solo, however. It would get old pretty quick.

 

[Will Doyle]

Over time I've actually found "Dazed" to be a more annoying condition for solos: much more so than I initially thought it would be. It's more common, drastically limits their manoeuvrability, and wipes any meaty immediate actions that they may have.

 

[MortalPlague]

Over time I've actually found "Dazed" to be a more annoying condition for solos: much more so than I initially thought it would be. It's more common, drastically limits their manoeuvrability, and wipes any meaty immediate actions that they may have.

I used to consider dazed a really weak condition. My opinion has been drastically reversed.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey there Tequila Sunrise!

I'm curious why you singled out stun, daze and immobilize in your standardized solo ability. I mean dominate is at least as bad as stun, right? And repeatedly failing to save against a stun/daze/immobilize effect is as improbable as repeatedly failing to save against anything else.

The reason I singled them out was because I generally perceive solo monsters as BIG enemies and thus less likely to be stunned, dazed and immobilized, though not necessarily less likely to be dominated.

Against everything else they have two saves per round at +5.

What I also like to do is the idea of adding subordinates up to, but not beyond the next level solo monster's XP value. So (off the top of my head) if the solo is worth 100,000 XP and the next level solo is worth 120,000 XP, I'd probably add 19,000 XP worth of subordinates to back them up.