Stunlock: A DM's Worst Nightmare

[Fieari]

My players have just recently turned paragon, and I'm already dealing with these kinds of issues-- my players are admittedly pretty controller oriented, with each of the roles focusing on controller aspects as a secondary thing. And they use it well.

I've found it imperative that there be OTHER targets for them to aim at in most encounters. But for a solo boss fight, you don't want minions running around.

So, what if we extend the idea that a solo is 4 standard creatures a bit more... UK already has the two-rounds of actions thing-- but perhaps it could go further. What if status effects and negative conditions only applied to one ability of the monster? Disabled or limited one attack only, leaving other options still available? On top of saves at the beginning of the round and so forth.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Tequila!

Well Boss Resilience becomes largely redundant in the presence of Solo Resilience, so yeah I'd definitely drop it. (If the players have the right powers left over after chipping away the first 3/4 of the solo's HP, I think they deserve to mop up the final 1/4 in stunlocked safety.)

That's basically what I was thinking. As much as I like the whole stun = -1 standard action, daze = -1 minor action, etc. I think if you nerf conditions for 75% of the combat you have to let them function as is for the rest of it.

Whether you drop Boss Monster too depends on how you like your solos, I guess. Do you like your solo basically acting as two elites, or do you like inflicting just one terrifying I'll-bloody-you-with-one-hit turn on your players per round?

I know which I like.

Well, there are several problems with solo design you are maybe not considering.

For instance the whole idea of splitting a solo monster's actions into two turns with separate initiatives helps break up the long time between rounds where the monster will do nothing.

The idea of having two turns of movement helps make combat less static.

So I think I'll be keeping Boss Monster 'in some form', although I may make a few tweaks.

If a DM (such as yourself) wants to have that 'hit em' hard now' feel they can always just run the two turns on the same initiative score.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey RangerWickett!

Great April Fool's by the way.

Take every condition. Make a lesser version of that condition. When an elite or solo above the threshold would be affected by the condition, the lesser version happens instead.

Blinded? Bleary incurs a -2 penalty to attack rolls and Perception checks.

Dazed? Befuddled means the target grants combat advantage and cannot take reactions or interrupts.

Dominated? Compelled means that the PC in control chooses a standard action each round for the target. If the target doesn't take that action by the end of its turn, it becomes dazed until the end of its next turn.

Immobilized? We've already got slow.

Prone? We've already got slow.

Restrained? Slowed.

Slow? Eh, we can keep it.

Stunned? Dazed.

Weakened? Fatigued means the target does 75% damage.

The main problem with this approach is that 4E likes to have everything you need in the stat-block. Listing the above (which to an extent I have done with my Boss Resilience Trait) really takes up a lot of text space. When people see my solo stat-blocks they often comment that they are pretty big (and a tad daunting). Some of that is artificially due to the big trait blocks explaining these type of rules.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Fieari mate!

My players have just recently turned paragon, and I'm already dealing with these kinds of issues-- my players are admittedly pretty controller oriented, with each of the roles focusing on controller aspects as a secondary thing. And they use it well.

I've found it imperative that there be OTHER targets for them to aim at in most encounters. But for a solo boss fight, you don't want minions running around.

So, what if we extend the idea that a solo is 4 standard creatures a bit more... UK already has the two-rounds of actions thing-- but perhaps it could go further. What if status effects and negative conditions only applied to one ability of the monster? Disabled or limited one attack only, leaving other options still available? On top of saves at the beginning of the round and so forth.

My (current) solo/boss monsters have two standard actions and two minor actions per round (not counting action points, triggered actions and the occasional combat related move action). But as Tequila's playtesting shows, you really only need to nerf the standard actions to render the monster fairly ineffectual.

That's why I am favouring this new approach.

 

[keterys]

Yeah, part of the problem are things like curse, quarry, oath of enmity, and marked (ie, basic building blocks of classes) could be shrugged off depending on how carefully you word the difference between effects and conditions, and any exceptions.

Hmm, how about whenever anything affects your boss, you can make it Dazed instead, and you remove Dazed at the end of every turn (like a dragon does). It means you can't stack up penalties on it, but you can stop its immediates and minor actions?

And maybe Upper Krust's super bosses who count as double solos would tone the daze down slightly more.

Still needs some work, but it's closer. Just be aware there are plenty of PCs who don't do anything other than control, and will be reduced to at-wills against some of these creatures. And that means it could be _real_ grindy.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Howdy keterys!

Yeah, part of the problem are things like curse, quarry, oath of enmity, and marked (ie, basic building blocks of classes) could be shrugged off depending on how carefully you word the difference between effects and conditions, and any exceptions.

For me it would be DM's decision ultimately, but I'd start by saying its carte blanche on all negative effects and conditions.

That said, quarry strikes me as one that couldn't actually be 'shrugged off' in this manner by the solo. Its not a negative effect or condition. The ranger just chooses a target its keeping a track of.

Hmm, how about whenever anything affects your boss, you can make it Dazed instead, and you remove Dazed at the end of every turn (like a dragon does). It means you can't stack up penalties on it, but you can stop its immediates and minor actions?

And maybe Upper Krust's super bosses who count as double solos would tone the daze down slightly more.

Still needs some work, but it's closer. Just be aware there are plenty of PCs who don't do anything other than control, and will be reduced to at-wills against some of these creatures. And that means it could be _real_ grindy.

It is going to hit controllers harder in fights with solo monsters, however, lets hear the case for the defense:

1. Solo Monsters only make up a small percentage of encounters (I'd estimate maybe 10-15% of fights at the heroic tier, maybe 20-25% at the epic tier*)

*Based on WotC's official HPE modules for 4E.

So, yes controllers will suffer a little in those fights, but the flipside is that in any fight against Minions they totally rule. So to me this is just a little parity.

2. I'd say half the time a DM uses a solo monster, it probably won't be on its own. So again, controllers might be better served attacking the subordinates.

3. Solo monsters would still be vulnerable to conditions once they are dropped to 25% hit points. At this point the controller could swoop in and basically 'save the day'.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

So, what if we extend the idea that a solo is 4 standard creatures a bit more... UK already has the two-rounds of actions thing-- but perhaps it could go further.

For instance the whole idea of splitting a solo monster's actions into two turns with separate initiatives helps break up the long time between rounds where the monster will do nothing.

There's a lot to be said for Boss Monster, and Fieari's idea to take it one step further -- elites getting two turns and solos getting 4. An upper caste monster with multiple turns is certainly better than many (most?) published upper castes as-is; there's more chance of such a monster dealing some damage every round; and because the one monster virtually is several monsters, it's about as balanced with standard monsters as it can be.

But there's also a lot to be said for doing something similar to solve the common minion complaints -- "Minions deal too much damage per XP, yet they die too quickly" -- simply combine four minions into one, and play them as a single standard monster. It's simple, and it's balanced, as is effectively splitting elites and solos into multiple monsters.

But I think this line of reasoning somewhat defeats the purpose of having different monster castes. So while I don't see anything wrong balance-wise with the multiple-turn approach, I have other plans for my own elites and solos.

Yeah, part of the problem are things like curse, quarry, oath of enmity, and marked (ie, basic building blocks of classes) could be shrugged off depending on how carefully you word the difference between effects and conditions, and any exceptions.

The C4 clone, which gave me the inspiration for this start-of-turn save stuff, actually singles out all those fundamentals and makes them immune to getting shrugged off. So I'm a happy camper in this department.

Hmm, how about whenever anything affects your boss, you can make it Dazed instead, and you remove Dazed at the end of every turn (like a dragon does). It means you can't stack up penalties on it, but you can stop its immediates and minor actions?

You could do worse, though I'm not in love with the idea of solos turning every effect in the game into dazed.

 

[keterys]

Oh... they wouldn't turn everything into Dazed.

Just the stuff that was worse than Dazed. And if you tried to hit them with something Daze or worse, then added anything else onto it before its next turn

But, just viewing it as a brainstorm.

Fwiw, my epic fighter can do the following:

slow, immobilize & prone at-will (basically as an extra effect on top of whatever else I'm doing)
daze for 2 rounds (encounter, as long as I have an action point)
cannot stand 1 round (daily)
cannot make an attack that includes anyone else (so, all bursts turn off, for example) for 2 rounds (1 encounter, 1 daily)
remove from play for 1 round (daily)

And I've actually specifically avoided powers that I consider too control heavy that I've seen on another fighter, like various stuns, or immobilized until end of the encounter type tricks.

If you do shrug off everything before 25%, I'd wonder about my mark (combat challenge) and lawbringer's doom (paragon path feature) which are what I'd call building block features... but I could probably live with the rest, though I'd probably feel it was unnecessary to ignore the slows and prones... but, just one combat, so dealable.

If I leveled my druid up to epic, I could dominate for 3 turns, and polymorph for probably 2 turns... if I did none of that until the last 25%, I'd have, hmm... probably a single encounter power that did solid damage and helped my allies deal damage - though maybe instead one that made the enemy provoke OAs when they attacked, some daily summons that would probably get eaten quickly (but might be okay), and all at-wills from there.

My invoker would probably be fine - he does daze and blind and slow and what not, but he can do solid damage when he wants. Though, hmm, his path feature is to apply vulnerability 10 radiant when he hits with radiant, and if that doesn't go on, it'd really change up the way he plays and toss him back into the "at-wills" pile pretty much.

Which, I guess, brings up the other problem - be real careful about making a huge cutoff cause it might just make the combat boring for everyone but alpha strikers.

 

[S'mon]

I will reference D'karr again though, and agree that it is rather frustrating on the player's side when a monster simply shrugs off an effect at the start of its turn. (Your solos have the usual +5 bonus, yes?) I'd recommend at least being upfront and explicit with your players about this: "My solos roll saves at the start of their turn, so expect solos to largely ignore anything but damage."

I'd like to give a player perspective on this - my Fighter PC just levelled to 13th, after finding a +3 mace last session I just took an Encounter power that does sub-optimal damage (2d8+11 with mace) but can be used with the mace to stun a target until eomnt. I took this power specifically for use on Solo type foes - I could be doing more than twice the damage with my bastard sword & a different power (eg another power give 2d10+11 vs 2 foes) - and I would be pretty annoyed if this power had NO effect on Solos, which would be the usual result of "save at +5 at start of turn".

I would restrict any "save at +5 at start of turn" abilities to high-Epic Solos, major Demon Lords and such. Otherwise, dragon Action Recovery (daze/stun/dominates end at end of turn) seems plenty good enough for regular Solos, certainly at Paragon tier. That should be enough to prevent Wizards with encounter- long stunlocks from totally dominating.

Be wary of making rules necessary for end-of-campaign boss fights vs Demogorgon into general rules for all Solos.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hmmm, seems either way, somebody's getting nerfed.

What about this idea:

Action Recovery
By expending an action point at the start of its turn the monster can undo all conditions and negative effects.

This way a monster (either Elite or Solo) has the option of using action points for defence or attack.

If the Fighter stuns the solo monster, at the very least he is stripping it of an action point (in effect a standard action).

Any thoughts?