House Rule for Stunning

[Holy Bovine]

One of the things I'm not keen on is the Stun effect in 4E. Anything that knocks a monster or PC out of the picture for a round or more is, to me, boring. I propose submitting this alternate effect for the Stun condition - feel free to rip it apart at your leisure - I ain't married to it!

Stun
You grant combat advantage.
You can take either a standard, move or minor action on your turn. You may take free actions but not immediate actions or opportunity attacks.
You can't flank an enemy.
You take a -2 penalty on all defenses until the end of your next turn.
You are Slowed

So it keeps Stun as a powerful, imo, condition to lay on someone but doesn't eliminate their turn entirely. I flip-flop on the penalty to defenses or a penalty to attack/skill rolls. I also toyed with the idea of not allowing free actions (i.e. you are too disoriented to speak coherently/think to drop the flaming torch etc) but then I realized that this would also prevent the use of action points as well.

Thoughts? Opinions? General Laughter?

 

[Wik]

The way I do it is simple: PCs are stunned as normal, but can attempt an appropriate (in the context of the game) skill check (at a high DC) to shake it off. If they shake it off, all is kosher... if they fail, the stun lasts an additional turn (ie, they automatically fail their save).

 

[Fanaelialae]

I'd probably change the defense penalty to an attack penalty. -4 to all defenses is pretty harsh, and while move actions are penalized under your change (slow), attack/standard actions aren't. Stun should mean something more than daze even to those hacking away in melee.

EDIT: An idea I toyed with (but never actually tried) was to change stun to a combination of dazed and prone.

 

[Holy Bovine]

The way I do it is simple: PCs are stunned as normal, but can attempt an appropriate (in the context of the game) skill check (at a high DC) to shake it off. If they shake it off, all is kosher... if they fail, the stun lasts an additional turn (ie, they automatically fail their save).

Ouch. I think that would make Stun even more deadly than it is already. I haven't found a power yet that doesn't allow stun to end on either the attacker or defender's next turn. One that makes the stun last longer if you blow a skill check wouldn't be the way I would go.

I'd probably change the defense penalty to an attack penalty. -4 to all defenses is pretty harsh, and while move actions are penalized under your change (slow), attack/standard actions aren't. Stun should mean something more than daze even to those hacking away in melee.

Yeah - like I said I hemmed and hawed about it for a bit and it certainly is an option. Does make Stun affect everything you can do in a turn (attack, move, defend etc) if you make it a -2 to attack rolls.

 

[Wik]

Ouch. I think that would make Stun even more deadly than it is already. I haven't found a power yet that doesn't allow stun to end on either the attacker or defender's next turn. One that makes the stun last longer if you blow a skill check wouldn't be the way I would go.

It generally works - our players simply pick their best skill and roll, and get about a 70% chance of knocking off that effect. I often grant bonuses on the check if they describe the action as being particularly noteworthy, or are willing to saddle themselves with a rider effect (more or less trading a different condition of their choice for stunned).

As an example, I described a stunned condition once as an arrow going through the character's leg, pinning him to a cart. The character made his skill check (endurance, I believe) to slough off the pain, and pull the arrow out. He willingly took damage that he didn't need to take, but got rid of the stunned condition when he passed his check with a +2 bonus.

I find it helps keep players a bit more aware of what's "going on" in the setting. But characters only break out the skill check to get rid of stunned when it's important - in a smaller fight, they might just let it go.

 

[keterys]

Eh... could make Stun = Daze plus -5 Defenses.

 

[Holy Bovine]

Eh... could make Stun = Daze plus -5 Defenses.

So -7 with CA? I think that might we a little much even for me!

 

[malcolm_n]

I like Wik's idea; it gives each character a variation of the Warden's ability to roll saves at the start of a turn (and there's a feat floating around somewhere in there that lets you do the same). The Warden doesn't lose out, because he gets to save with no added penalty to himself.

 

[FireLance]

I think the real problem with stun is when it is used on a solo or, to a lesser extent, on an elite. After all, stunning one standard monster out of five still leaves the other four able to act. Hence, I'm considering taking the following approach for stun, which gives the stunned creature the option to do nothing (which is the same as current), or to pay a price in order to do something:

A stunned creature is dazed. In addition, if it takes any action, it takes damage equal to 10 + twice its level.​

Since solos and elites have more hit points, it is proportionately less painful for them to act while stunned. However, if they choose to do so, the PCs still get an advantage (more damage) for having stunned the monster.

 

[malcolm_n]

I would so totally love to give the tarrasque his one attack to trample the party at a cost of 70 hp. The Barbarian will probably be hitting him for more on average. Also, with that rule, is the damage taken regardless of resistances? I guess it would be safe to assume so, but figured I'd ask.