D&D 4E Should the action denying Stunned condition remain in 4e?

[Stalker0]

My group had a good session tonight, one involved a big giant fight. In it, there was a fair amount of stunning on both sides, and of course some of the players had to sit the turn out while the combat continued.

I've been giving some thought to this of late. An interesting thing comparing 3rd and 4th edition is that while dazing got a general nerf, stunning is about as strong in both editions (although you could argue that in 3e fights had fewer rounds so it was actually more powerful).

We've all heard on the boards about people creating "stun-lock" combos that can neutralize solos, and those players that failed 3 saves on a stun effect and were out the whole combat.

So I ask, do we really need a stunned condition that denies actions in 4e?


Personally, I'm a big fan of a variety of conditions. Keeps a nice selection of tools around for the creation of new powers and monsters. Too few conditions and the powers get too similar. So I wouldn't want to just toss out stunning. Its flavorful and makes sense. But should it deny actions?

It could provide a penalty to saving throws, limit monsters and players from only using basic attacks, etc etc. Basically you can make it as harsh as you like. But as a player, and as a Dm running monsters, would you prefer a harsh condition that does not deny actions compared to the current version of stunned?

 

[Syrsuro]

I don't see anything wrong with players sitting out a turn now and then. To take this to an absurd level - are you going to argue that when players fall negative they shouldn't lose their actions either? Or that a petrified character should still be able to make attacks?

There should be conditions that are still worrisome and stun is definately one of them. Some creatures ought to put fear in the character's hearts and stun is one way of doing that.

That said: What kind of giant was it? The only giant in my Monster Manual that stuns can only stun as an encounter power and it only lasts till the end of its next turn (Earth Titan, Level 16 Elite)- so there shouldn't have been that much stunning going on (although admittedly it is a burst 2 so it can get more than one PC). Or were there other stunning creatures in the fight?

Carl

 

[Stalker0]

That said: What kind of giant was it? The only giant in my Monster Manual that stuns can only stun as an encounter power and it only lasts till the end of its next turn (Earth Titan, Level 16 Elite)- so there shouldn't have been that much stunning going on (although admittedly it is a burst 2 so it can get more than one PC). Or were there other stunning creatures in the fight?

Carl

There were 3 of them, so we got hit 3 times (though I think my DM lowered their level a fair bit). But to be fair we got our licks in too, and did a bit of stunning on our own.

As you say, you want conditions that are worrisome to the players. I completely agree. I just wonder if action denial is the way to do it. I don't mind conditions that scare people, but stunning isn't always scary, its often just boring.

 

[Runestar]

I think the point is more that it is fine so long as it is done in moderation. Unless your PCs include orb-wizards with the ability to perpetually stun-lock solos (don't laugh, it is now possible with AV in epic), or your DM likes to keep throwing stun-foes at you, you should not be encountering stun all that often.

A little variety here and there should help to provide for a more unique and memorable encounter.

 

[FireLance]

As with minions, dragonborn, tieflings and warlords, if you don't like the stunned condition, don't use it.

To me, the harsh condition that does not deny actions is dazed. I suppose you could have an even more harsh condition that does not deny actions if you want. IIRC, the miniatures game had a staggered condition which was dazed plus you can only make basic attacks. However, I'm quite alright with having an action denial condition other than dying. I personally would use it carefully and sparingly, but even if I had no use for it, I wouldn't see the need to remove it from the rules.

 

[James McMurray]

If you remove Stun you should also remove Dominated, since it not only stops the player from taking an action, it gives that action to the enemies. If resource denial is unplayable, resource theft should be even moreso.

 

[jaelis]

You could play that a stunned character can take only a single move or minor action in a turn.

 

[Mengu]

If you remove Stun you should also remove Dominated, since it not only stops the player from taking an action, it gives that action to the enemies. If resource denial is unplayable, resource theft should be even moreso.

I think frequency is the issue there. If stun was only as frequent as dominated, then I don't even think this question would come up.

As DM, I think it's easy enough to control how much stun you use. But if a lot of PC's gravitate toward the stun powers, fights against solos do indeed become just about trivial. A party of 5 or 6 PC's essentially getting two rounds of attacks without retaliation (more if there are multiple stuns), indeed makes for a boring fight.

Perhaps the solution is not to remove or alter stun, but to make solos and elites resilient to it, or allow them to shake it off at the beginning of their turn. This way they still would not be able to use their immediate interrupts or immediate reactions and would grant combat advantage until their turn. But they wouldn't be losing a turn.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If you remove Stun you should also remove Dominated, since it not only stops the player from taking an action, it gives that action to the enemies. If resource denial is unplayable, resource theft should be even moreso.

The "nice" thing about Domination is that you can still act. If you're in the mood, you could seriously screw your party even (well, with at-wills it gets more difficult, but it's nice). I don't mind domination as much as I mind Stun (or 3E Panicked.)

You are right, though, from an action economy point of view. 3e Dominate Person was more powerful then some Save or Die spells - if it wasn't easier to defeat, at least.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

I'm cool with stunned because of saving throws. It gives a player the illusion of control over the effect, and at the very least something to do when their turn comes around.

I'm ok with PCs taken out of the action, so long as players are not.