Homebrewed (Solo) Monsters vs Stun

[AngryMojo]

Here's an idea for a monster that's mad, possessed, or otherwise "of two minds."

Part of the creature is holding back the wave of energy/evil portal/horrible thing that's about to happen. Every round, if the monster has a minor action available, the monster spends a Minor action to keep the portal stabilized/the underwater bubble stable/the planet from exploding. If he can't spend this minor action (stunned, dazed, etc.) the situation gets worse somehow. Maybe more damaging terrain pops up (that the monster is resistant to, naturally), the bubble under the ocean that you're fighting in shrinks a bit, everyone takes damage, etc.

Feel free to stun him. But you'll pay for it.

 

[the Jester]

I build my custom solos to take stunning and action-denial into account.

Someone on ENWorld posted a cool ability for solos that allows them to take damage to shed a condition, which I really like.

 

[Thraug]

They should just remove the Stun condition from the game and convert all instances of it to Daze (save ends).

Worst condition ever!

 

[osmanb]

I've recently added this houserule into my game. Being stunned now has the same effect as being dazed, with an additional penalty to your attack rolls. This keeps it strictly stronger than daze (which is important for existing powers), but removes the absolute worst part of stun - not being able to do anything. This applies to PCs just like monsters - it's not fun for anyone. My PCs did want to re-examine a few power choices they had made, but they were almost universally in favor of making some kind of change to get rid of stunning. It's just stupid.

 

[Xeterog]

Depends on the monster. I've considered giving some a save vs any effect at no bonus (or penalty) as soon as the effect hits, and normal saves during it's turn vs any effect on it (even if a save normally can't end the effect).

Another I think would be good on some creatures..taking damage to remove and/or act despite the stun/daze/immobilized conditions (different amounts of damage to remove different effects..more for stuns, less for immobilize..)

 

[FireLance]

It may be because I'm in a contrary mood today, or it could simply be because blanket declarations like "It's just stupid" or "Worst condition ever" irk me, but I feel the urge to defend the use of the stun condition.

Players don't like their characters to be stunned. This is a feature, not a bug. The prospect of having to spend at least one round of combat doing nothing ought to be an unpleasant one, and a DM can use this to inject an extra sense of tension and fear into an encounter. After the players have rolled their monster knowledge checks, casually mention that the monster has an attack that stuns the target, and watch the fun begin. Revel in the expressions of shock and terror on the players' faces. Exult in the way they scramble to use all their defensive powers. Drink in the nail-biting suspense in the air when you make your attack roll, and the anguish or relief when you hit or miss. In previous editions of the game, you would have to break out a monster with energy drain or a save-or-die ability to get the same effect.

Nonetheless, you should still use the stun condition responsibly. My own personal rule of thumb is that an encounter should feature no more than ONE of the following:

1. A single creature with a non-rechargeable or infrequently recharged multiple-target stun power. If the stun is save ends, it cannot be rechargeable, and if the stun lasts one round it can be recharged at most once, e.g. when bloodied; OR

2. Up to two creatures with a non-rechargeable or infrequently recharged single-target stun power. Similarly, if the stun is save ends, it cannot be rechargeable, and if the stun lasts one round it can be recharged at most once, e.g. when bloodied; OR

3. A single creature with a relatively frequently rechargeable single-target stun power. If the stun is save ends, it cannot be recharged on more than a .​

Follow this advice and hopefully, you will be able to tread the fine line between not using stun at all and using it so much that your players get frustrated and quit your campaign.

This has been a public service announcement.

 

[osmanb]

I think we can agree to disagree. I haven't been using that much in the way of stunning, but it's still the exact opposite of fun. Hell, I hit the party wizard with a single use of save-ends stun and took him out of the fight for 4 rounds. With the speed of 4e combat, that's an eternity. Seriously, fights already drag at high level (remember when the designers claimed that things would be streamlined by getting rid of lots of small stacking bonuses!?) -- punishing people even more by removing the ability to do anything is just cruel.

Luckily, changing stun also fixes one of the big problems with monsters, too ... even one round of stun is just devastating to most encounters, given how few rounds it takes a well optimized party to finish off the monsters. The rogue in my party is optimized for single-target lockdown (rather than damage), so I can automatically assume that one elite or leader will be completely neutralized in every fight. All demons/undead are instantly taken out by the radiant servant (even after the errata, the paragon power is still very good).

Monsters need every round of attacks they can get if they want to pose any real threat. PCs need actions to stay engaged. I realize it's a sweeping generalization, but I firmly believe that the game is significantly better without stun.