Is Losing your Turn The Worst That Can Happen

[Professor Murder]

I think the conversation has gone on long enough to merit bringing up the topic of asymmetric combat.

Players love to make enemies lose their turns. With everything from a 1st level Sleep to a 9th level Imprisonment, with all the Monk's Stunning Fists and so many other abilities in between. Denying opponents their turn is a go-to method of battle control.

In most RPGs, these same options are eventually available to enemies. Mooks and monsters won't have them, but enemy NPCs generally do. The only way to never have a situation where the PCs lose a turn is to either remove all of these options from the PCs wheelhouse, or play a game where NPCs follow a completely different set of rules from the PCs. Now, in 3e, battle was extremely symmetrical, and in 5e, less so. But completely removing turn loss from PCs is a level of asymmetry that I personally am not ready for.



IMNSHO, this is the unfortunate and inevitable result of a shifting to more rules-lite systems. I can think of of ways to address this, but they all move towards crunch.

I think you mention in passing a good point. That enemies using CC who are "bosses" are possibly more permissible, in part because the combats are longer typically and typically can involve larger, more flashy actions overall. I would definitely be more annoyed being stunned for two rounds of a three round fight than two rounds of a six round one.

 

[Joshua Randall]

I really don't like the fact that the fall back is always more HP damage.

"Dead is the best status condition." (and more HP damage is the surest route to "dead")

I want to see conditions that are fun and interesting and horrifying.

Such as?

No, seriously! I'm genuinely curious.

I'll start with Interesting. I got nothing for Horrifying.

I think Slowed in D&D is potentially an interesting status condition, but only when it actually matters to the target (like: the ranger who stays 40 squares away at all times doesn't care) or when something about the map encourages movement (like: if you don't get to the sacrificial victim in 2 turns, he dies; or if you're still on rows 1-4 of the map after 2 turns, the rock crumbles and dumps you into lava).

Any kind of Bamboozled / Bewitched / Can't-Tell-Friends-From-Foes condition is often entertaining. Some players will lean into it and lay a smack-down on their friends; others will do ridiculous stuff in an effort not to lay the smack-down. Either way is fun.

Some kind of Infected where you spread the condition (generally yes, sigh, "just damage") onto everyone near you at end of turn -- that can be pretty interesting. The PCs try to avoid infecting each other, maybe purposefully infect the monsters. Works well in combats where you'd otherwise WANT to be bunched up.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

It depends on the length of the rounds.

I remember when I was playing a ton of 4E. For all the love I have for that game, the round got very long as we got higher in levels. I remember many instances of my players cursing and losing their cool when, after waiting for like 20-25 mins for the round to get to them, and to just outright miss, or get stunned right before it. I empathized with them.

But some really lightweight game can almost have a round in 90 to 120 seconds. Just telling your player "It'll be back to you in two minutes, think about what you'll do" would give them just enough time to ponder on their options before it got back to them.

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Losing one round? No biggie. Losing multiple rounds? More rounds is more worse.

For me, I'm not greatly bothered. I want the game to have more interesting effects than just HP loss. As such I am willing to accept the downsides thereof.

I feel that the sting of action loss can be mitigated.

The player involved can mitigagte by:
cheering the other players on;
carefully planning their revenge for their next action;
taking the time to grab a drink/snack, or if the game move slowly enough, do a pizza run.

Other players can mitigate by:
helping the downed character get back up;
keeping the player involved socially.

GMs can mitigate by:
giving the player something else to do e.g.: "Here, run this NPC."
keeping the game moving so the player has less time to kill.

System can mitigate by:
Rules lite games can go fast, losing an action or two isn't a big deal;

 

[GobHag]

Players love to make enemies lose their turns. With everything from a 1st level Sleep to a 9th level Imprisonment, with all the Monk's Stunning Fists and so many other abilities in between. Denying opponents their turn is a go-to method of battle control.

In most RPGs, these same options are eventually available to enemies. Mooks and monsters won't have them, but enemy NPCs generally do. The only way to never have a situation where the PCs lose a turn is to either remove all of these options from the PCs wheelhouse, or play a game where NPCs follow a completely different set of rules from the PCs. Now, in 3e, battle was extremely symmetrical, and in 5e, less so. But completely removing turn loss from PCs is a level of asymmetry that I personally am not ready for.

I am though, in fact I cannot wait until things are even more asymmetrical and think the current design etho is still too simulationist and disgusting.

 

[aramis erak]

@FitzTheRuke touched on something: save-or-die traps are worse than save-or-frozen traps, but only just. save or die traps really are not fun. Which is why I prefer traps like the Blue Puppet Dragon.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, if you still have options, you're still playing. And maybe the remaining options still allow you to contribute. If e.g., Stunned meant I can't attack and am at disadvantage on other rolls, but can move half speed, I could still move to flank an enemy, or dig out a potion and drink it or save a dying friend. Or activate a magic item. Or pull the lever to lower a portcullis and divide the enemy, etc.

That seems like an extremely generous definition of "stunned", which I've always taken to mean you stand there like a defenseless idiot because your mind has temprarily stopped working.

An interesting variant Skerples has proposed (and I'm using in my current game) is ghouls causing agony. Each round the player can choose to have his character roll on the ground/self-soothe, or act normally but take another d6 of non-lethal damage. 50% chance to end at the end of each of the victim's turns.

Is this cumulative, i.e. d6 per round for each time the ghoul has hit you? If yes, it's OK. If no, it's trivial; a d6 per round is trivial to a character with 50 h.p., never mind the odds of this effect lasting more than a few rounds are quite low.

Also, this too is very generous in another way: a paralyzed character can be coup-de-graced by any passing opponent with half a brain (which is what makes classic ghouls so damn dangerous when they are working with an intelligent master), where even a character rolling on the ground can still defend itself.

 

[Distracted DM]

That seems like an extremely generous definition of "stunned", which I've always taken to mean you stand there like a defenseless idiot because your mind has temprarily stopped working.

Is this cumulative, i.e. d6 per round for each time the ghoul has hit you? If yes, it's OK. If no, it's trivial; a d6 per round is trivial to a character with 50 h.p., never mind the odds of this effect lasting more than a few rounds are quite low.

Also, this too is very generous in another way: a paralyzed character can be coup-de-graced by any passing opponent with half a brain (which is what makes classic ghouls so damn dangerous when they are working with an intelligent master), where even a character rolling on the ground can still defend itself.

Skerples' stuff is built for OSR systems, so hit points are a lot lower than 5e unless you're waaay up there in level- so a d6 is still something, even when you have 25 or 30hp at level 5 or 6.

I'll agree ofc with your paralyzed comment in dnd5e... I forget what sort of bonuses there are for attacking helpless targets in OSE.

 

[Distracted DM]

I'm always on the lookout for ways to give players choices instead of missing their turns. I tried nerfing the Stunned condition but it's been really tough to remember and consistently enforce.

I do like the idea of "acting while stunned leads to a condition" etc... I wonder if taking fatigue or strife (maybe even player's choice because it's nasty to get more than one or two levels) would be a way to do it if you're using A5E? @Micah Sweet I know you're an A5E user. Thoughts?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm always on the lookout for ways to give players choices instead of missing their turns. I tried nerfing the Stunned condition but it's been really tough to remember and consistently enforce.

I do like the idea of "acting while stunned leads to a condition" etc... I wonder if taking fatigue or strife (maybe even player's choice because it's nasty to get more than one or two levels) would be a way to do it if you're using A5E? @Micah Sweet I know you're an A5E user. Thoughts?

I had not considered using fatigue and strife that way, but I like it. I could definitely see gaining a level in either or both to act while stunned, maybe if you fail a save. That's a cool idea!