Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Colmarr" data-source="post: 5092681" data-attributes="member: 59182">Fun is (to a certain extent) irrelevant.  Immobilised isn't fun on the greataxe-wielding fighter, the barbarian, or the rogue but no one's suggesting that it be removed from the game. There's no reason to treat Stun any differently.  Stun's purpose is to be the king of conditions (perhaps sharing the throne with dominate and maybe helpless). It is there to act as an "omg!" trigger, and in my experience it does. It's a dramatic device as much as a mechanical device. However, like all crippling conditions, it should be used appropriately. Any DM who uses it too often is just as bad a DM as one who packs too many immobilises against a melee party. It's just bad encounter design.  Coming from the player of a battle cleric in a party with a waraxe-wielding dwarf fighter, an infernal warlock and a boom-focused wizard, I can without hesitation state that there have been more than one occasion in which their actions would be 80% more effective than what I could do with mine.  But the main problem with your assertion is that it fails to take into account 4e roles. Is it wasteful for the striker to run over to use the Heal skill on the controller? Almost certainly. But the reason d'etre of the leader is to maximise the effectiveness of other PCs. There's a reason that my level 9 cleric is yet to get above 2[W]. There's also a reason why the leaders get the powers that grant saves.</blockquote>

Verification