Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mesh Hong" data-source="post: 5278008" data-attributes="member: 73463">Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to tell you that you are wrong and I can understand the reasoning behind the post.  That being: when a player is denied the opportunity to contribute to a combat encounter for more than 1 round it can be frustrating, this coupled with the way that each round can take a fair amount of time to resolve can mean, in some cases, that a player has no direct influence on the game for an hour or so. Also: on the other side of the table it can be frustrating for the DM when an important monster is rendered useless for a significant enough number of rounds to be reduced from a serious threat to a waste of time. But as far as I see it, it isn't necessarily the effects fault, in this case daze or stun. Yes it is easy to point at Daze and Stun and say its all their fault, but as effects go they are simple, elegant and have definite uses. In my opinion it is their use (or over use) that can cause a problem. Also remember that PCs and Monsters are designed using different rules, one has strict systems and powers (PCs), one has a few guidelines and a lot of leeway (monsters). While stun and daze have the same mechanical effect on PCs and monsters there application and consequences are subtly different. Monsters:With monsters you have complete control of how often and to what extent you use powers with daze and stun. If you find them Unfun then use them a lot less, but you will want to keep the threat of them there to bring out on a few occasions when appropriate. PCs:Here you have less control and here is where we get to the nub of the matter. Players love powers that stun, powergamers will instinctively be drawn to ways of stun locking enemies (to be fair by epic even reasonable parties will be able to do some chain stunning between them). The interesting thing is that human nature leads me to suspect that the same players that say it is fun to stun or daze enemies are usually the ones that think it is unfair to do it to them. Personally my rule of Fun/Unfun is that whatever the players can do the threats in the world can do as well. If the PCs can do something it is perfectly reasonable for the monsters to do it once in a while too. I also point out that the plot and the threats they face are designed proportionally to them, if they are optimised killing machines they are going to have to face seriously engineered killing machines in return. Once you point that out to a group they are usually a little more responsible about their power/item selection and you can reach a Fun balance. I will also point out at this point that monsters have no restrictions on traits or powers and you can develop saving throw mechanics to balance stunning powers (or other tricks the players develop). As an example my own personal preference for important plot creatures is: Saving Throws +5, monster may make an unmodified saving throw (+0) against any one effect it is subject to at the start of its turn (this includes effects that usually would not allow a save) This give a monster a reasonable chance of removing one troublesome effect before it acts, but by no means makes it impervious, which I think is a respectful solution to both players and DM. Now reading back through this post I realise that my own mental contortions and design ideology will probably land me in ultimately the same position that your design goal will. Reduce Unfun and maintain Fun. And to tell you the truth I am not 100% sure which is the most elegant solution between changing the status effect or changing the attitude towards the game. Like all things I suppose it is whatever works for you. I will end these ramblings with the footnote that both stun and daze are important tools in epic tier, by that level PCs are nightmarishly efficient and can pretty much cope with anything. I wouldn’t want to face epic level PCs without the brief respite of the odd daze or stun effect. Similarly dominate is another tool of the epic threat as should probably receive the same scrutiny.</blockquote>

Verification