Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Stalker0" data-source="post: 4486620" data-attributes="member: 5889">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 &quot;stun-lock&quot; 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?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Stalker0, post: 4486620, member: 5889"] 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? [/QUOTE]

Verification