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

[Larry Hunsaker]

I have a house rule that allows a PC to use an Action Point to suppress any effect that would limit their actions in combat. They must decide to use this option the moment such an effect would apply to them (so it is like a reaction but it is a free action) and if they do, they ignore any restriction on their actions from such effects. So if the effect also made them grant CA they still suffer this, but they get their full action list and reactions as well. It lasts until the end of their next turn when used this way. They get none of the usual bells and whistles an AP gives them when they use this option, so they sacrifice an AP to stay in the fight for an extra round or so. If the condition is still present on them after the end of their next turn, they would then immediately suffer its normal effects.

This even applies if they are reduced to 0 hit points, they can remain in the fight but if they are not healed by the end of their next turn, they fall unconscious. They would still need to make death saves during this time as well, as this use only lets them ignore restrictions on their actions. So they could die but would still be able to act until the end of their next turn, when they would then drop dead.

It lets them be mor heroic in this way, kind of like an unstoppable force for at least 1 round, but at the cost of their AP.

This applies to mobs as well, so this lets me keep elites and solos in the fight when the PCs stun them (I run a level 27 game and it happens quite often).

I happen to also have another house rule that gives the PCs 1 AP per milestone they complete, so if they pass milestone 2 they get 2 APs not just 1 and they can use as many APs in an encounter as the milestone number they are currently at. So if they are in milestone 3 they would get 3 APs and could use up to 3 in a single encounter. This basically means they start the day off (after an extended rest) with 0 APs which is not a nice thought but they like how it works and are willing to suffer through the first encounter with 0 APs knowing if they can clear enough milestones they can face the big boss with lots of APs. It is a strong motivation for them to put off an extended rest as much as they can.

In this system I grant milestones after you complete a number of encounters equal to the milestone you are trying to achieve. So you need only 1 encounter to reach milestone 1, and then 2 more to reach milestone 2 and then 3 more to reach milestone 3, etc. They usually cannot get past milestone 3, before they are totally wasted

Sorry for the house rule post, I just figured it fit this post somewhat.

Larry

 

[MrMyth]

Stun doesn't bother me for players, since there are more combat rounds in general, and action moves quickly enough that losing the occasional turn isn't too big a deal. Though I do like the idea of the alternate Action Point usage mentioned above.

Stun hitting solos, on the other hand, is a bit more dangerous. I'm tempted to let solos downgrade stun to daze, or allow them to burn action points to break free of conditions, or similar.

 

[77IM]

You could allow people to spend an action point to take a single extra action even when stunned. (Effectively, the action point makes you dazed for that round rather than stunned.)

This could be a big help to the stun-locked solos and players alike, without really breaking anything or affecting the economy of actions. (The total number of actions doesn't increase; it's 1 action now + 3 actions next round, vs. be stunned now + 4 actions next round.)

-- 77IM

 

[the Jester]

Stunning's a bitch, no doubt. I ran an encounter pitting my group of pcs against some (homebrewed) xvart slavers that had a stunning attack, and it got pretty ugly.

But then, they were slavers. I wanted the pcs to fear being taken alive- that's also why they carried manacles and threw bolas for their ranged attacks.

Anyway, imho stunning is one of the harsher conditions, but it's a good one to have. I don't see anything wrong with denying the character his actions, as the player at least still gets to make a save every round.

 

[RigaMortus2]

I like stun the way it is. That said, I have two ideas for stun if you want to change it around.

1) When stunned, you lose your Standard Action for your turn (or unil you save). This would still allow one to move out of danger or use some attack powers that utilize Move or Minor Actions.

2) Stunned has the same effect as it does now, but you can remove the condition on your turn by spending your entire turn regaining your composure. In the case of stun effects that have saves, you'd treat it as a successful save. So the potency of stun is still there, but you aren't locked up for more than 1 round.

Just a couple thoughts...

 

[jaelis]

2) Stunned has the same effect as it does now, but you can remove the condition on your turn by spending your entire turn regaining your composure. In the case of stun effects that have saves, you'd treat it as a successful save. So the potency of stun is still there, but you aren't locked up for more than 1 round.

Wouldn't that just mean that stuns only ever last one round? (Since you can't do anything anyway, you wouldn't be giving anything up by spending your turn to regain your composure.)

I like the suggestion of being able to use an action point while stunned.

 

[mlangsdorf]

I do think Stun is too powerful, especially at high levels. A party with a Rogue with Knockout and Stunning Strike and a fighter with (whatever the fighter Stunning Encounter power is) can put a Solo out of commission for 3 rounds, which is very powerful. If the Solo is undead, it's pretty trivial for a Cleric or Paladin to add another round of stun. Add some Blind and Daze effects (Resounding Weapon, Sand in the Eyes, Blinding Barrage) and the Solo is fairly ineffective.

I'd convert Stunned to Dazed and an additional -5 to all attacks. The character could still try to do stuff, but it would be mostly ineffective.

 

[Sphyre]

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).

3e compared to 4e is a huge nerf bat (a much needed one, but one indeed). I have no interest in making combat even less deadly. If anything, I'd probably vote for more lethal combat in the next ediiton of the game, but until then i'm going to enjoy playing 4e with nerf bats and pillow fights.

In fact, I think being able to pull off non-broken combos where you keep a solo stunned for 1-3 rounds is built into the system of where that solo can survive it and still pose a threat. I actually like that they accounted for this sort of thing in their design. No longer, do you have to worry about your BBEG dying to an anti-climactic save or die. But of course, you still do you have to disallow broken combos.

I find it funny that my players fear solo monsters, but regular monsters aren't feared. Maybe they just feel hopeless when they deal only 5% of the monster's hp on a hit.

 

[Plane Sailing]

as the player at least still gets to make a save every round.

In addition, there are a number of ways that other party members can give a person extra saving throws against the stun (powers, heal checks) - a party working together has a better job of avoiding long term status effect problems.

Cheers

 

[Stalker0]

In addition, there are a number of ways that other party members can give a person extra saving throws against the stun (powers, heal checks) - a party working together has a better job of avoiding long term status effect problems.

Cheers

I find it ironic that at higher levels effects that last until the end of your next turn seem stronger than save ends effects, simply because there are a lot of ways to get immediate saves and high levels.