Stunlock: A DM's Worst Nightmare

[Upper_Krust]

Heya

Howdy!

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.

It was explained to me when I revised the 4E Fighter Class that multiple attacks are broken in 4E and they should have a cumulative -2 attack penalty for multiple attacks:

2 attacks = -2 to both attacks
3 attacks = -4 to all attacks
4 attacks = -6 to all attacks
etc.

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 could always fail his save against the stun and then he'd lose two standard actions etc.

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

He makes his saves at the end of each turn, not each round. He gets two turns per round.

Apologies if that wasn't clear from the text, maybe I need to reword it?

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.

Kewl.

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.

He'd save at the end of each turn.

 

[keterys]

The dominates aren't save ends dominates. They're just "Dominated until end of the druid's next turn". Which in the case of this guy actually makes them a _lot_ more effective than save ends.

So you might want to add the ability to save against end of turn effects, or even just have him shed them at the end of each of his turns so they affect a maximum of one full turn.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

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.

I agree.

In a Gamma World adventure I played in last Christmas, we faced a solo, and one of us got a "random power" that dominated it for a turn or two. It was a controller and had Double Attack; at least one of the at-will attacks was an AoE save ends. Ouch.

Fortunately, traits like Instinctive Assault work.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Howdy keterys!

The dominates aren't save ends dominates. They're just "Dominated until end of the druid's next turn". Which in the case of this guy actually makes them a _lot_ more effective than save ends.

So you might want to add the ability to save against end of turn effects, or even just have him shed them at the end of each of his turns so they affect a maximum of one full turn.

My intentions were that he could save against end of turn effects when he made his saves. So I need to reword that trait.

 

[RangerWickett]

Last night the party fought two elites who were 3 levels higher than them. Each elite was at one point both dazed and prone, which is pretty much as bad as being stunned.

 

[Zuche]

If a dazed solo had the option to choose between the normal dazed status or being slowed, granting combat advantage, and taking a -5 penalty on all attack rolls, would your party be satisfied with the results either way?

If a solo could treat the stunned condition as the options giving for being dazed above, as well as vulnerable 5 per tier to all damage until the end of the turn after the stunned condition would normally pass, would your group consider that fair compensation?

If you wanted to keep it simpler, maybe you could opt to allow dazed or stunned to be exchanged for vulnerable 5/tier all, with the first successful attack against the formerly stunned creature being treated as a critical hit?

 

[MortalPlague]

If a solo could treat the stunned condition as the options giving for being dazed above, as well as vulnerable 5 per tier to all damage until the end of the turn after the stunned condition would normally pass, would your group consider that fair compensation?

I think the vulnerability is a great idea. It gives the players a benefit they can build off as a result of the stun, but it doesn't lock down the solo.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Some good stuff in this thread. I have a player that has latched on to the idea that end-of-turn control effects are 4e's equivalent to Save-or-Die/Save-or-Suck, and I have to agree. Since this realization, this guy has played only Controllers.

I've had to get creative; here's what I've done...

The most effective thing I've found so far (keeping in mind that I've only run Heroic Tier), is to have the monster react to conditions in interesting ways that threaten the party in different ways than if it were acting normally. The idea first came to me when playing my modified version of Reavers of Harkenwold, when the players fight Lividius the Murderer at the very end. In my version of Reavers, he was a Lesser Death Knight rather than a Tiefling Assassin, but I based it on the same stat block.

Lividius has an ability to respond to condition lock called Heart of Nessus:

Heart of Nessus (fire, polymorph) * At-Will
Trigger: Lividius is dazed or stunned by an attack.
Effect (No Action): Lividius and all of his gear transform into living flame and remain in this form until he is no longer dazed or stunned. While in this form, he takes half damage from all attacks, his aura deals fire damage instead of cold damage, and any enemy that hits him with an attack takes fire damage equal to half the damage dealt.

Genius. He's still stunned, but any damage he takes in this form gets split between him and his attacker. Several of my players nearly killed themselves beating on him after the Invoker had dazed or stunned him.

Another trick I like to use for dealing with Dazed, is to give some minor action attacks so the creature can still attack, even if it's less often. Here is a sample creature I built for this party several levels later. It has a multi-pronged approach to condition mitigation. It is based on the Level 7 Cave Troll from Dungeon 157, which no longer exists (!) and now can only be found at level 14 as the Cave Troll Mangler. Sorry for the giant stat block.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

'Kay, play test report! ...for anyone interested.

Playtest Monster: Solo Skirmisher. I chose the skirmisher role because of its average AC, its relative simplicity, and its ability to avoid encounter-long slugfests with the fighter.
Playtest PCs: Invoker, Fighter, Ranger, Warlord. Stunlock PC powers are generic; encounter powers stun UENT, and dailies do lots o’ damage. (Remember, this simulates a DM’s worst case scenario-nightmare.)

I’ve run six play tests so far: two ‘control’ tests with no stun powers, two UK-style tests with stuns, and two TS-style tests with stuns. I ran them all under the assumption that it was ‘the boss fight’ and that the PCs had saved all their daily resources. As a result, the PCs were never in any real danger.

The UK-style solo did a lot of shifting and took Minor potshots at the PCs, but it was consistently and reliably denied its standard actions. Keeping the solo stunlocked was a two-man job, but the damage the PCs took was manageable and the fights were predictable. The TS-style solo didn’t have Minor attacks, but the stunning was a lot less reliable. So when it made that start-of-turn save, it created a much less predictable situation for the PCs.

I could go into more depth, but I don’t think either anti-effect solution is really satisfying. I think my solution is headed in the right direction, but it needs work. From a design standpoint, solos really deserve start-of-turn saves and that +5 bonus. Because, as frustrating as it is for the player when a solo shrugs off an effect before it does its thing, solos still spend way too much time tied up with those effects. Solos are four-in-one opponents*, so they really should just shrug off ~75% of harmful effects. But that would be even more frustrating for players.

*Well, mine are.

So as much as I began disliking the D’karr solution:

If you have the creature pay a “price” for getting out of the stun then it feels like the stun is actually doing something.

It’s looking more appealing, and I’m going to test a variant of it. A TS-style solo that can take damage -- say 1d6 per sub-tier -- to attempt a save at the start of its turn. The solo could take more damage to attempt more saves, but only one save per effect per turn. (In a real game, I’d let the player roll this damage.) Elites would have this option too, though of course they wouldn’t get the +5 bonus.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Tequila Sunrise!

'Kay, play test report! ...for anyone interested.

Yes, very.

The UK-style solo did a lot of shifting and took Minor potshots at the PCs, but it was consistently and reliably denied its standard actions. Keeping the solo stunlocked was a two-man job, but the damage the PCs took was manageable and the fights were predictable.

Okay, interesting.

Just to clarify, when stunned the monster only lost a standard action from one of its turns right? It seems you did, given you state keeping it stunlocked was a two man job.

What amazes me is how many darn stunlocking powers the PCs have. I mean you would think after maybe a round or two they would be expended.

I'm starting to think (based on the discussion in this thread) that while a basic set of traits to nerf conditions is helpful, that each monster should also have a more specific (and individual) way to deal with them.

The TS-style solo didn’t have Minor attacks, but the stunning was a lot less reliable. So when it made that start-of-turn save, it created a much less predictable situation for the PCs.

Okay.

I could go into more depth, but I don’t think either anti-effect solution is really satisfying. I think my solution is headed in the right direction, but it needs work. From a design standpoint, solos really deserve start-of-turn saves and that +5 bonus. Because, as frustrating as it is for the player when a solo shrugs off an effect before it does its thing, solos still spend way too much time tied up with those effects. Solos are four-in-one opponents*, so they really should just shrug off ~75% of harmful effects. But that would be even more frustrating for players.

I think I need to change saving throws to the start of their turns in Boss Resilience. Thanks for that.