Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5158987" data-attributes="member: 4937">However, while that is true, it is not true that on every round you have or take all of those options.  On many rounds, moving makes no real sense, you have no useful third action to perform, you don't have or don't want to spend an action point, and you aren't granted an action by another player nor does an oppurtunity attack present itself nor does anything really novel and interesting spring to mind to say IC.  That all those things are true would not be unusual.  Many rounds, you have a single attack to make and thats really all you have useful to do.  On those somewhat frequent rounds, the level of participation you have in the game when you make an attack and fail is exactly the same as when you take no action because you failed a saving throw.  In each of those rounds, the key act of participation was rolling a dice, and the net outcome of that participation was nothing.I've been playing for a long time.  I don't have alot of experience with 4e but I feel pretty safe in thinking your hypothetical round where you take 5 or 6 actions on your turn such that failing your attack is a small loss is a lot rarer of an occurance than a round where you straight up slog and where, if you miss your attack, you might as well have not done anything.Certainly I know that that in all earlier editions a 'slog round' is fairly common, and certainly I've got enough 'sense motive' to know that the guy experiencing a run of bad luck in the big fight where he can't hit anything is just as frustrated if not more so, than the guy who can't even move at all because of some status effect or other circumstance.  Both find themselves unable to get that moment of payoff in the action/reward loop.And, in many cases that 'full turn' is a euphemism for 'single die roll and pass to the next person'.  This is true regardless of edition.  Therefore it follows that there is nothing inherently worse about being stunned than having a round where your only productive action is to make an attack and then missing.  Both suck equally.  Both involve the same amount of participation.  Therefore, a game that had to ban the unfun of being stunned on the grounds that it was annoying to ever 'miss a turn', would soon have to ban rounds where your only productive action hinged on a single die roll.  Because failing in that action involves missing a turn.And in fact, that assessment wasn't contriversial to the OP in the other thread.  If I may quote Morrus:  - emphasis addedMorrus is making the natural observation here that any DM whose watched players can make and that anyone who has been that player can relate to.   It is not like I've suddenly invented the observation that having nothing productive to do or being crippled to the point that your actions have virtually no chance of success is functionally identical to losing your turn.  This is a common observation that has been made across the whole spectrum of gaming, from RPGs to CCGs to board games.  It is a fundamental tactic of many strategic games to steal actions in this manner from your opponent by forcing them to lose rounds of development making useless moves.  It freakin' ridiculous that I should even have to argue something this basic and widely observed.</blockquote>

Verification