Solos, Status Effects, and a House Rule

[Lord Welkerfan]

Rather than changing the rules as a whole, would it be easier to give solos that don't otherwise have a power affecting saves a power similar to this one?

Unphased (Immediate reaction when affected by a power granting a condition) (Recharge 5,6)
The monster may make a saving throw.

This way, not all conditions are affected equally, as the DM can decide when to use this power, choosing to let Dazed or Weakened go while stopping Stunned. If this were implemented, should the +5 bonus to saves be removed?

 

[keterys]

You'll need to make it not an immediate action, since you can't do those while dazed or stunned.

It also doesn't help against something that can happen at later levels, where a solo can spend literally several rounds stunned by 'until end of next turn' type effects.

 

[Elric]

Rather than changing the rules as a whole, would it be easier to give solos that don't otherwise have a power affecting saves a power similar to this one?

Unphased (Immediate reaction when affected by a power granting a condition) (Recharge 5,6)
The monster may make a saving throw.

This way, not all conditions are affected equally, as the DM can decide when to use this power, choosing to let Dazed or Weakened go while stopping Stunned. If this were implemented, should the +5 bonus to saves be removed?

As keterys says, this doesn't help against until end of next turn effects, or stunned/dazed due to being an immediate reaction.

You don't have to think of a "general solo condition fix" as changing a rule. It could also be creating a specific ability, called, say, Tough as Nails, that gives solos additional defenses against conditions, and adding that same ability to every (or nearly every) solo.

Many of these proposals are a major change in the sense that they have broad and sweeping effects on many powers used on solos, though. A less sweeping change could be something like adding the following abilities to solos:

Immutable Opponent When this creature would be stunned or dominated, if it is not dazed it can make a saving throw (without its usual +5 bonus to saves). If that saving throw succeeds, it is dazed instead of being stunned (the effect has its usual duration).

Remarkable Resilience (no action; encounter, trigger: when this creature would be affected by a condition, besides Marked). This creature makes a saving throw against the condition, even if the effect doesn't normally allow a saving throw; a successful save ends that condition.
Special: the first time this creature becomes bloodied in an encounter, this power recharges, and it can use it immediately against one condition affecting it.

I tend to favor "shake-off" abilities that don't rely on recharge rolls, because recharge rolls are another thing to keep track of, they add variability to the combat, and they further encourage players to use status effects one after another. However, two uses per encounter probably isn't enough, so you need another ability like the above one to avoid stun-locks.

You could also have a "shake-off" ability that recharges:

Remarkable Resilience (no action; trigger: when this creature would be affected by a condition, besides Marked; recharge 5,6). This creature makes a saving throw against the condition, even a condition that doesn't normally allow a saving throw; a successful save ends that condition.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey guys!

Wouldn't the best method simply be to ensure Elites always have 2 attacks wrapped into a standard action and a Solo monster have 4. Then when they get dazed or stunned (etc.) they lose one of the attacks but not all?

The stun might still keep the monster from using its most powerful attacks (requiring a 'full' standard action), so it would still have a secondary tactical benefit.

This way we don't have to change the rules at all.

One other facet of this could be to allow PCs to target certain attacks at a -2 penalty to hit (of the monsters), so that if they stun them, the monster loses that particular attack until the stun wears off.

For instance the fighter strikes at the Dragon's claw, stunning the beast its claw temporarily goes numb.

 

[Elric]

Hey guys!

Wouldn't the best method simply be to ensure Elites always have 2 attacks wrapped into a standard action and a Solo monster have 4. Then when they get dazed or stunned (etc.) they lose one of the attacks but not all?

Not really. This constrains monster designs quite a bit.

You might want to create a monster with an immediate reaction attack, a standard action attack, and a minor action attack? Does it all have to get shunted to four attacks as part of a single standard action?

As I said above, you don't have to think of a "general solo condition fix" as changing a rule. It could also be creating a specific ability, called, say, Tough as Nails, that gives solos additional defenses against conditions, and adding that same ability to every (or nearly every) solo.

The stun might still keep the monster from using its most powerful attacks (requiring a 'full' standard action), so it would still have a secondary tactical benefit.

Implementing this would be tough. You'd need to add a hydra-like ability to each monster and then add "it can't use [XYZ] when stunned." Furthermore, it won't help protect a solo against other conditions like weakened or blinded (or attack penalties, which a "conditions in general" ability wouldn't protect against either).

One other facet of this could be to allow PCs to target certain attacks at a -2 penalty to hit (of the monsters), so that if they stun them, the monster loses that particular attack until the stun wears off.

This would probably be much more complicated than a general "solos resist conditions" style ability. A specific "solo in four parts" might work, but I wouldn't want it to be a general construction.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sorry, this thread is too dense for me to read it all, so if this has been proposed earlier, please just direct me to the responses. Thank you.

What about keeping everything per the regular rules except for one thing:

Solos get one bonus save (at +0) at the beginning of each turn. The DM can choose which condition they save against. This bonus save can end any condition, even stuff like "until the end of your next turn" or "until end of encounter" effects.

In this way, stuns will be made less severe (relative to other conditions) but with no detailed rules writeup needed. Each turn the DM chooses to save against the most debilitating condition, which may vary. Easy.

Also, no special rule needed for ongoing damage. Solos should generally have enough hit points not to prioritize getting rid of ongoing damage - but if that is what inconveniences the Solo the most, so be it. Point is: no special rule regarding this save vs beginning of turn needed.

This should approximately halve the impact of the most nasty condition, without completely turning the game into "conditions don't work on solos, let's get to slogging its hp".

And it should still be perceived as less powerful than the deity version of beginning of turn saves.

What do you think? (Again, have this come up before, feel free to simply link me)

 

[CapnZapp]

I should probably add that I consider Orb Wizards to be broken, and that I am not particularly interested to make the rule work especially for them. Much better to nerf those -20's to saves, and nothaving to worry about extreme corner cases like that at all.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Not really. This constrains monster designs quite a bit.

You might want to create a monster with an immediate reaction attack, a standard action attack, and a minor action attack? Does it all have to get shunted to four attacks as part of a single standard action?

As I said above, you don't have to think of a "general solo condition fix" as changing a rule. It could also be creating a specific ability, called, say, Tough as Nails, that gives solos additional defenses against conditions, and adding that same ability to every (or nearly every) solo.

Implementing this would be tough. You'd need to add a hydra-like ability to each monster and then add "it can't use [XYZ] when stunned." Furthermore, it won't help protect a solo against other conditions like weakened or blinded (or attack penalties, which a "conditions in general" ability wouldn't protect against either).

This would probably be much more complicated than a general "solos resist conditions" style ability. A specific "solo in four parts" might work, but I wouldn't want it to be a general construction.

Good points all. For some specific solo monsters I have been thinking that they might have powers that activate when they can't use other powers. Although, this would be something I wouldn't instigate across the board. The most obvious might be some sort of Frightful Presence that activates if the monster is denied its normal actions that round...in that the Heroes have incurred its wrath.

 

[Elric]

What about keeping everything per the regular rules except for one thing:

Solos get one bonus save (at +0) at the beginning of each turn. The DM can choose which condition they save against. This bonus save can end any condition, even stuff like "until the end of your next turn" or "until end of encounter" effects.

In this way, stuns will be made less severe (relative to other conditions) but with no detailed rules writeup needed. Each turn the DM chooses to save against the most debilitating condition, which may vary. Easy.

It seems like you mean "condition" more broadly than "things on page 277 of the PH”, so I’ll run with that. Letting a solo save against an "until end of encounter" powers risks unnecessarily weakening these powers. For example, it doesn’t seem like the fighter Daily 19 Strike of the Watchful Guard should be something that a solo can shrug off on a successful save, but depending on interpretation it might be able to (what qualifies as a “condition” vs. a bonus to the fighter isn’t necessarily clear).

I ended up using essentially Pale Jackal's suggestion from the previous page of this thread, in my suggestions on changing Orcus.

Implacable Foe: Whenever an attack or effect imposes a condition (defined on page 277 of the PH), besides marked, [this creature] can make a saving throw (without its usual +5 saving throw bonus) to be unaffected by that condition, even against an effect that doesn’t normally allow a save.

The reason I ended up going with this was simplicity. It’s hard to describe exactly what you mean if you say “status effect” or “anything with an until end of next turn effect” and this is a criticism that applies to the ideas I started with. Defining things in terms of conditions on page 277 of the PH is easy, though not as comprehensive in terms of what solos should be more resistant to (and it allows certain “terminology arbitrage” when a power that’s effectively a stun power doesn’t actually stun the target; e.g., Confusion, Wizard encounter 27).

Consider the contrast between the above and
Font of Solo: At the start of its turn, [this creature] can make a saving throw (without its usual +5 saving throw bonus) against any condition (defined on page 277 of the PH), besides marked, to be unaffected by that condition, even against an effect that doesn’t normally allow a save.

The latter is a weaker ability in general, though the uncertainty about whether a solo will still be affected by a particular condition on its turn can make a party’s tactics more difficult (someone else just hit it with a stun power; should you hold off with the dazing power? Get up near it risking a counterattack if it does recover? It can be hard to decide).

If the solo is hit by a save-ends condition that it really wants to break out of at all costs, this latter ability is a bit better than the above. If there’s an encounter-long condition inflicted on the solo, this latter ability is clearly much stronger, since the above ability only gives it once chance to avoid the effect. I like the timing on the above ability because it’s very transparent; the solo is either affected or not at the beginning and then from there its ability to recover is no better than that of other creatures (besides its save bonus). This minimizes the tactical disruption.

Note that the deity rules don't involve extra saves at the start of the deity's round. Vecna and Tiamat actually have different versions of the ability. Tiamat’s ability is like Implacable Foe, above, but applies to ongoing damage as well and she retains her +5 bonus to save when using it (whether this was an intentional change, or simply bad continuity in design between Draconomicon and Open Grave, I can’t say).

Also, no special rule needed for ongoing damage. Solos should generally have enough hit points not to prioritize getting rid of ongoing damage - but if that is what inconveniences the Solo the most, so be it. Point is: no special rule regarding this save vs beginning of turn needed.

Marks and ongoing damage are two things you don’t want to let a solo more easily shrug off then they currently do. Letting a solo escape marks weakens defenders, and depending on how you implement it this could affect some defenders (because of the way they mark) more than others. Ongoing damage is already less effective against a solo than normal monsters, because the decrease in duration caused by its save bonus typically isn’t balanced out by the increased number of rounds you can expect a solo to survive for (so that it lives long enough to take the damage that’s coming to it).

I should probably add that I consider Orb Wizards to be broken, and that I am not particularly interested to make the rule work especially for them. Much better to nerf those -20's to saves, and nothaving to worry about extreme corner cases like that at all.

I agree. Dealing with Orb Wizards and the AV save penalty items shouldn't be a primary concern here; they deserve a fix on their own merits. I mentioned one for the Orb of Imposition in my first post in the thread; an easy fix for the AV save penalty items (Phrenic Crown, Cunning Weapons, etc.) is that they only apply to the first save made against the effect.

 

[keterys]

There are a number of new effects... like the 'heal every time you hit this enemy' or 'heal every time this enemy makes an attack roll' ones from the bard that are extremely strong on a solo. The latter in particular can get really silly with solos that make multiple attacks (just about all of them).