Taking Unfun out of Dazed and Stunned Conditions

[brainstorm]

eamon: As I have enough to do as a DM, my secondary goal is to prevent more work for myself. It is easier for me to change Stun than it is to put countermeasures into place for every BBEG I want to throw at the players.

Maybe using this logic, but still making stun brutal
Stunned:
- No Standard Action
- Dazed
- Immobilized

jamesmanhattan: This is a bit much for me. This would work for the PCs, but thinking of how it would impact my BBEGs, limiting them to a minor action would still be more limiting than I want.

Last night, I pulled out my MM, MM2 and MM3 and looked at several of the BIG BADDIES and imagined how threatening they'd be when hit with the Stunned condition. It's amazing how that one condition really takes away the threat level of even the most powerful monsters, especially if it is a Stunned until end of next turn condition. Throw a Weakened condition on top of that and they become even less of a threat and practically a pushover.

Now, here's an another alternative (trying to think out of the box here). Instead of changing the conditions, give each BBEG an extra series of actions based on their tier. Normally, a creature gets 1 series of actions consisting of 1 standard action, 1 move action and 1 minor action, unless their stat block specifies otherwise. Instead, I'd propose giving a BBEG (whatever creature/NPC the DM deems as the BOSS) a series of actions based on their tier. A Heroic Tier (level 1-10) BBEG would have 1 series of actions, as normal. A Paragon Tier (level 11-20) BBEG would have 2 series of actions (and thus 2 initiative counts per round) and an Epic Tier (level 21+) BBEG would have 3 series of actions (3 initiative counts per round). A Stunned condition that is imposed on a BBEG would lose 1 of their series of actions, so a Heroic Tier BBEG would still be affected normally, but a Paragon would still have 1 series of actions left and an Epic Tier BBEG would have 2 series of actions left while afflicted with the Stunned condition. So you don't nerf the player's power and at the same time you don't have a completely helpless BBEG.

Example: The Boss 17th level dragon gets 2 series of actions per round, so they roll initiative twice and on their 1st initiative they get 1 Standard, 1 Move and 1 Minor action, then on their second initiative they get another Standard, Move and Minor action. But the dragon is hit by a power that leaves them Stunned. The effect on the dragon is that it loses one of the two series of actions they get per round.

Thoughts?

 

[jamesmanhattan]

One problem is they never gave very good guidelines on creating solos.

Let's assume in a normal encounter monsters die one per round. Encounter lasts 5 rounds. At the start players are taking full 5 monsters worth of damage, but at the end are only taking 1 monster's worth of damage. That averages 3 monsters worth of damage per round for the entire encounter.

Since solos last the entire battle and are outputting full damage the entire time. I think they aimed for solos to do 3 monsters worth of damage.

They give them a standard action to do 2 monsters worth of damage, and give a lot of them a minor or immediates to do 1 monsters worth of damage. Plus some damage spikes for using rare powers, like dragon breath.

Usually a stun power against 5 monsters, shuts down 1 of them. A stun vs a solo, shuts down 3 monsters of damage. A solo's action points make up for this a little, usually an action point can restore 2 monsters worth of damage.

Raising everything's damage like the MM3 fixes things, sort of. It just feels like crap to have to rely on action points and waiting for the monster to come out of all the effects. Plus the monster could be weakened, stunned, etc and never be out from under the effect pile.

Giving every solo all those extra standard actions would have been great from the inception of the game, but now it takes some careful editing because many of their standard actions are meant to do 2 monsters worth of damage or more.

I just feel like it's a crappy game if it plays out like: face solo, stun it!, keep it from attacking, solo waits patiently, uses it's action point!, players are never challenged.

Changing Stun would be an easier solution than changing all the monsters. The designers tried to change the monsters with the MM2 and MM3, but that means all the MM1 ones are left to suck.

It's all a nightmare.

 

[jamesmanhattan]

No matter what, they tied a solo's threat to it's standard action. I'm starting to also come to the conclusion that for solos you have to downgrade Stunned to Dazed+Immobilized like one of the developers said he does.

I guess solos are that powerful, NO ONE STUNS A DRAGON, RAAAWRR!

 

[eamon]

eamon: As I have enough to do as a DM, my secondary goal is to prevent more work for myself. It is easier for me to change Stun than it is to put countermeasures into place for every BBEG I want to throw at the players.

Actually, I think the problems quite a bit worse on the player side of the fence for various reasons - and in any case, I'm not talking about countermeasures specific to the BBEG you'd like to save; I'm talking about countermeasures that are available in general.

In general, I'm opposed to changes that push the game further toward the "damage is what counts" direction. The problem right now is not that effects are effective - it's that they're inescapable. I like games to be fought on a whole range of dimensions - and that means countermeasures too. If it all boils down to simply collecting a bunch of hits with minor bonuses and bumps along the way, it's too straightforward, too undramatic - for me . Obviously, YMMV quite a bit.

 

[eamon]

Game Design & Complexity

Brainstorm, you mentioned that you weren't happy with countermeasures because of the extra work they impose on the DM. I don't think complexity necessarily involves complicated rules and tracking.

Compare Warcraft 1 with Starcraft 2: in the original warcraft, the orcs and humans were balanced because they were virtually identical. Sure, the opposing factions had "refluffed" creatures, but barring a few exception, most units were very similar. Still, there were lots of units and that makes things complicated. Balance was born of symmetry - and that particular type of balance is boring. On the other hand, starcraft 2's races are also fairly balanced. This balance is born not of symmetry however, but by the fact that various strategies each have different counters. Of course you can win simply by having more units and hitting harder - but it's easier to win if you pick the right battles and units. This kind of balance is the fun kind of balance - it's doesn't take a PhD to figure out, but since you don't know in advance what your opponent's up to, actually picking the right approach isn't trivial (not to mention actually executing it).

Or take a look at dominion - a magic-like game, yet it's fun to play despite the fact that there's only a very limited set of cards in any given game and the fact that all players start with the same deck.

Gameplay can be complex and interesting without being complicated and tedious.

Back to D&D, an issue that comes up with 4e is The Grind. In essence, this comes from the fact that all combats essentially boil down to attacking and dealing damage - and that whatever else you do, it hardly matters; what matters is hitting and hitting hard - and this takes a long time; it's Grind when it's too long. There are various ways of avoiding it (see Stalker0's guide to anti-grind) - but it's an issue to keep in mind.

One way to avoid grind is to keep combat's short - lot's of damage, few hitpoints. Another way is to inject confounding factors (traps, terrain, timing issues) that keep things off-kilter. Great encounters take lots of DM effort, and they're worth it (IMHO). A third way to avoid boredom is to make the game itself less grindy: that means less focus on slow obliteration of hit points via the only means to do so. This is where forced movement and status effects come in: they keep things dynamic and hopefully more engaging. By weaking that core pillar, you could fundamentally undermine the game and promote one of the key issues 4e has.

That's why I'd avoid making effects less lethal at all costs. Effects and other non-damage aspects of combat need to be made more relevant, not less relevant. So, if you feel stun is too effective, then weaken it by all means: but it's more fun to do so indirectly, by promoting possible counters. For example, a standard action heal check @ DC 10+half level of stunned creature to snap a creature out of a stun could be such a mechanic. Let the wizard's Dispel Magic end "magical" dazes and stuns. etc. Avoid solo's; or use them as particularly powerful elites - with backup minions that can cure nasty status effects, say. If I had to choose between revamping stun and revamping solo's, I'd choose to keep stun any day.

So sure, you could make stun less powerful, but that's a missed opportunity to spice things up. Why not keep it powerful but have readily available countermeasures instead?

 

[keterys]

I don't see how stun being around _helps_ fight grind. At all. In any way.

Make the argument that it prolongs it? Sure, I'd buy that.

 

[eamon]

I don't see how stun being around _helps_ fight grind. At all. In any way.

Make the argument that it prolongs it? Sure, I'd buy that.

What's the real problem with stun? It's a no-brainer: the best option.

What's the real problem with grind? You've only got no-brainer options: no real choice; doing the same thing over and over.

Combat needs to be dynamic and varied. Typical 4e Grind means damage, damage and yet more damage. Status effects should be more decisive, not less; that includes stun. The balancing factor should not be that they're "not that powerful" the balancing factor should be that there exist counters and the opposing party can still execute.

Stun isn't too powerful because the effect is all that brilliant - it's too powerful because you can't do anything to prevent it. If anything, it's the DPR strategy that's currently too powerful and making combats boring.

 

[keterys]

Ah well, guess we can agree to completely disagree

 

[Emryys]

Why not make Stunned the equivalent of both Dazed and Weakened, with each needing to be saved for seperately?

 

[jamesmanhattan]

How about you give out the option to very easily take a feat so players who hate stun can completely ignore it 50% of the time. That's what WotC solution seems to be FAQ for Player's Essentials: Heroes of the Fallen Lands!. The feat does the same thing as a level 14 item "Circlet of Arkhosia" except better.