Stun/Paralysis effects

[jaer]

Couple of questions about the "nerfage" of the mind flayer's ability...

- Do we know that there still is a stun effect? Anything about it? Perhaps stun is very short in all instances, 1 or 2 rounds.

- Do we know what Daze does? How long it lasts? What removes it? We have an idea from the DDM. Sounds like it could last a while on some characters. Makes it a decent 1 per encounter ability if it sticks around.

- Do we know what level the Mind Flayer is? On a 1-20 scale, the CR 8 mind flayer was pretty potent, fighting characters well into their career, especially if the flayer had some thralls with him, basically making it a ECL 10 (characters who are half way through their career). If the Flayer is level 8 on a 1-30 scale, he's has thralls with him and is fighting characters not even 1/3 through their career. In this case, the mind blast did not get 'nerfed', it got altered so it is appropriate to the challenge of the creature.

Most of the disccusion about whether the flayer is now too weak due to the change in the power seems premature. There just isn't enough info to know if this weakened the creature. Now, the arguement that they lost the horror element, the ability to make the players quake in their boots as they stood stunned and fairly defenseless, that is a fair arguement.

Of course, I'd rather the average flayer not be a creature of absolute horror and TPKing. I think they should feared because they can dominate and enslave creatures easily, and that the average flayer is more than a match for the average human. But I think the total mind-crushing power should be left for the more-than-average speciment, left for when psions make their return and some class levels can be added.

 

[StarFyre]

Jaer - i think alot of people likethem as truly horrific enemies.

However, there really isn't an issue here. The changes they have done are so superficial, they can easily be house ruled.

Right now at work, coworker and I are discussing mind flayers, and we both agree, some house ruling will be done in our own campaigns. we like some of the changes, but not all.

Easily rectified.

Sanjay

 

[apoptosis]

Agreed with all the above.


Agreed, this is where the logic of the argument pushes. W&M makes somes comments on how 4e will handle character death, but does not flesh out the mechanics.

There is some reason to think that Second Wind mechanics, plus APs, will be important ways of mechanically handling the threat of death (at least at the Heroic Tier). I wouldn't be surprised if dazed and stunned in the RPG also interact with these (or similar) mechanics (I assume that DDM doesn't use APs or Second Wind, and thus couldn't incorporate these into its dazed rules).


I agree with you that this is gamism at the expense of simulation. That is the whole point of "adversity for the PC is not adversity for the player": it severs the identity of player and PC which is at the core of simulationist play.

One question though is 'are certain threats still existent.' You can make the argument that death is one of the worst things to happen to a player as they are taken out of the game for long periods of time.

The designers can make all sorts of rules to help mediate death (hero points, action points etc) but if death is possible then the player being taken out of the game is still a possibility.

Do you remove death to remove this 'unfun' issue. If you do remove death as a consequence does the game suffer (if the threat of death is a component of enjoyment of the game).

I personally want both players to have the threat of death but also have some narrative options to control the threat of death.

Just food for thought.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

One question though is 'are certain threats still existent.' You can make the argument that death is one of the worst things to happen to a player as they are taken out of the game for long periods of time.

With Raise Dead (and better) around, probably no longer than a parysis or Mind Blast stunning lasts. Without it, generating a new character (maybe even beginning during the combat that killed you?) at least keeps you occupied with the game.

The designers can make all sorts of rules to help mediate death (hero points, action points etc) but if death is possible then the player being taken out of the game is still a possibility.

Do you remove death to remove this 'unfun' issue. If you do remove death as a consequence does the game suffer (if the threat of death is a component of enjoyment of the game).

I personally want both players to have the threat of death but also have some narrative options to control the threat of death.

Just food for thought.

A close thing to a solution might be to ensure that characters are just "bleeding to death" for some time before they are finally dead. So death only happens if nobody at all survived. (In this case, everyone "stops" playing and they have to roll up new characters. This scenario usually doesn't happen often.

It might be nice if the DMG suggests a few options for handling players without an active PC - like having him control an NPC.

Eventually though, I think there will always be areas where you just can't get things perfectly. The moment you want the threat of death not just be imagined, but real, death to a PC will happen. But at least the game can try to avoid the "might as well be dead" situations, and also reduce the actual likelihood of a lasting death (easier healing, faster recovery).

 

[rkanodia]

I used to feel pretty strongly against the lessening of stun and paralysis effects; however, over time I've come to appreciate the argument that a player with no actions is a frequently bored or frustrated player. Hold person, stunning, etc. for a couple of rounds is one thing; however, having a player sit out an entire combat because of it is another matter completely. This also applies to situations where a given PC would not logically be a part of certain activities; in those cases, I'll often give the sitting-out players something to do, even if it's running NPCs in the opposition.

That sounds like a really good idea, although I would try to come up with some kind of reward structure for defeating the party. I'm just a jerk that way

 

[apoptosis]

With Raise Dead (and better) around, probably no longer than a parysis or Mind Blast stunning lasts. Without it, generating a new character (maybe even beginning during the combat that killed you?) at least keeps you occupied with the game.


A close thing to a solution might be to ensure that characters are just "bleeding to death" for some time before they are finally dead. So death only happens if nobody at all survived. (In this case, everyone "stops" playing and they have to roll up new characters. This scenario usually doesn't happen often.

It might be nice if the DMG suggests a few options for handling players without an active PC - like having him control an NPC.

Eventually though, I think there will always be areas where you just can't get things perfectly. The moment you want the threat of death not just be imagined, but real, death to a PC will happen. But at least the game can try to avoid the "might as well be dead" situations, and also reduce the actual likelihood of a lasting death (easier healing, faster recovery).

My feelings were the use of action points or and similar mechanisms is to actually remove the easy access of raise dead.

I guess I would do the same with stun and paralysis effects, action points can be used to try and mediate the condition (use an action point to initiate an action, allow another save or some such). Of course if someone runs out of action points then the same dilemma arises (in this case I don't mind, it puts some resource options back into the game).

The only potential issue with this is that paralysis effects could possibly become somewhat unimpressive (obviously this can be fixed as well).

Another thing that can help is to make mechanics such that combat never lasts very long and the sitting out becomes less of a problem (after a couple of rounds of combat my players go from excited and enthused to incredibly bored and lets get this over with and get to something interesting)

Now some groups really like long battles, but they have fell out of favor for us more and more.

 

[just__al]

Looking at the info for the new mind flayer, I was immediately struck by the nerf of the blast. It has dropped from stun to daze. Then, as someone posted from the minis rules, dazing doesn't actually force you to lose actions. :\

I find the 4e philosophy of "do something every turn"...bad. The death of paralysis and stun effects so that characters can always take actions reminds me unpleasantly of the Dodo from Alice in Wonderland, declaring that all have won and all must be rewarded. I cannot help but wonder why the "unfun" event of, God forbid, losing turns needs to be removed. Even in Candyland you can land on the dot squares and be prevented from moving. In Monopoly, you go to Jail. Yet Monopoly is a pretty popular game, for all the turn-losing foulness. I realize it is not fun to lose turns. Then again...if you don't want bad things to happen to your PCs, why are they headed into battle in the first place?

I also cannot help but wonder why save-or-dies were removed, but resurrection stayed. Rezzing is one of the most artificial aspects of the game, and I would be glad to seen it gone or turned into an Orphean quest.

Thoughts?

We had a gaming session where the party faced off against a druid that knew somewhat what the party was about. The party had earlier faced off against his lessers and the party sorceress sent half of them home blind and the other half home in a bag.

The druid opened the fight with Baleful polymorph on the sorceress.

The player failed her save and then went to go read a book for the next 3 hours.

UNFUN.

I should have offered to let her play the NPC that was with the group but I thought of it on the way home

and those 3 hours were the entire night of gaming...

 

[Dausuul]

We had a gaming session where the party faced off against a druid that knew somewhat what the party was about. The party had earlier faced off against his lessers and the party sorceress sent half of them home blind and the other half home in a bag.

The druid opened the fight with Baleful polymorph on the sorceress.

The player failed her save and then went to go read a book for the next 3 hours.

UNFUN.

I should have offered to let her play the NPC that was with the group but I thought of it on the way home

and those 3 hours were the entire night of gaming...

Actually, I'd much rather be baleful polymorphed than stunned. A creative player can do a lot while in the form of a small animal, as long as the DM isn't too rigorous about enforcing the change in mental ability scores.

 

[mneme]

I'm mystified that anyone's surprised about this.

3E Stun=Daze=Baleful Poly=Sleep = Turning = Frightened = Save or Die.

They've been saying Save or Die is gone (or at least -strongly- toned down) from forever.

Why? Because it breaks the game, more or less; once enough monsters and PCs have SoD effects, the game becomes almost entirely about SoD -- a series of rolls to avoid being removed from the combat, with the last side to fail their last roll getting summarily killed. Without SoD (or really, Save or Stop), one can have 25th level combats work more or less like 3rd level combats. With it? Not so much.

In essence, if SoS isn't completely gone, it needs to be priced at what it is -- the near-equivalent of doing all your foe's HP in damage, all at once.

Removing SoS is a problem in 4E as much as removing Time Walk was in later MtG releases.

 

[rkanodia]

Actually, I'd much rather be baleful polymorphed than stunned. A creative player can do a lot while in the form of a small animal,

Sounds like a good idea...

as long as the DM isn't too rigorous about enforcing the change in mental ability scores.

Whoops.