When status effects annoy the players

[Stalker0]

Morrus I've definately been in this boat before as well.

I will say that status effects aren't really equal imo, especially slow, immobilize, and daze.

The reason is monsters tend to have better basic attacks than players. Further, many monsters have both good melee and ranged attacks.

So if I daze a monster, it charges me and still gets in a good attack. If I daze, the fighter, he gets an okay attack in, etc.


I found that I've steered away from controllers/artillery that apply status effects all the time. If I open the fight with a big status effect (like a dragon's stun) then the players deal with it...but then move on. My players don't mind that.

But there are several monsters in the game that literally have daze/immobilize/stun type attacks at will, and generally defenses are such that a player will get hit by these attacks most of the time. This is when players get "conditioned" every round and that's where the fun is lost imo.

Avoid those monsters and I think you will be alright.

 

[Rechan]

But there are several monsters in the game that literally have daze/immobilize/stun type attacks at will, and generally defenses are such that a player will get hit by these attacks most of the time. This is when players get "conditioned" every round and that's where the fun is lost imo.

And there are some monsters that are clearly broken and just need to be fixed.

 

[Kzach]

I'd fire the players and hire new ones.

Part of the challenge of a D&D game is overcoming obstacles. If players are complaining about conditions affecting them all the time, then they're not taking on the challenge of overcoming them. Given how many options there are to overcome such effects, the onus is completely on the players.

In fact, I'd really like to see the characters. I'd bet dollars to donuts that none of them have any anti-condition abilities, feats or powers. That, then, is their fault.

 

[Daern]

I've found as a player, that it really helps to have a decent back up ranged attack (I'm a fighter) for those rounds when dazed, slowed, immobilized etc. A worse problem are my die rolls!

 

[jasin]

As an above poster said, I typically avoid Stun. I find it rude.

The rudest 4E condition I've seen was "you cannot use encounter and daily powers" (courtesy of this girl).

Stunned or dominated is definitely worse tactically, but this takes the cake for just plain frustrating.

In my experience, hindering conditions have proven more frustrating for the players in 4E than 3E, when the severity is equal (for example, missing a turn in 4E provokes about as much bitching as getting hit by a fear effect and running away for the duration of the fight did in 3E). Not sure why that is. Perhaps it's an issue of perceived control? If you don't like running away for 7 rounds in 3E, well, get some remove fear scrolls; if you don't like being stunned in 4E, well... be luckier?

 

[jasonbostwick]

I found this problem a while ago in a game when the players ran into a vampire. An at-will, minor action dominate isn't fun when you're a fighter with a low will defense.
At the time I took the "don't whine about it, you could have done things to improve your defense or increase your resistance to mind-affecting attacks" approach, but I don't think I'd agree with that anymore. I don't think solutions that rely on pre-emptive planning through character creation make much sense.

The vampire's dominate came up in another thread in the last few days, and a comparison was made to the 3.5e vampire. The severity of a vampire's domination in 3.5e is much worse - they're affected for 12 days rather than 1 round.

The difference between the 3.5e and 4e effects is that the players can actually do something to actively prevent being dominated in 3.5e.

In 4E, without any houseruling, the vampires attack is simple - Ranged 10, +X against Will, Target is Dominated until the end of their next turn. The only way to adequately defend against this is to make a choice during character creation to choose a feat or power that helps you resist attacks against Will or mental affects. This is inherently a passive choice, made outside the game.

In 3.5E, the dominating gaze is a gaze attack - if a player is worried about being affected, the rules spell out that they can shut their eyes and the Vampire can't control them. The player can make an active choice in the middle of combat, weighing the penalties of being blind to the risk of being dominated.

I really appreciate the succinctness of the 4E conditions chart, and much prefer dealing with it to the 38 entry long list of conditions in 3E. That said, I think it removes a large amount of flexibility from the system without a considerable amount of ad-hoc rulings.

For whatever reason, the conditions in 3E felt more closely associated with their in-world causes. When a character is entangled in 3E, they're caught in a web that they can burn or a net that they can cut.
Conversely, when my character gets slowed in 4E all that means to me is "my speed is now 2, unless I use one of my movement powers which conveniently moves me a fixed distance unrelated to my current speed."

A good DM and smart players can get around this by proposing creative ideas to escape conditions, but in the middle of a grindy combat creativity can fall by the wayside a bit and the odds of a player saying they simply don't look at the vampire diminish.

 

[Kzach]

If you don't like running away for 7 rounds in 3E, well, get some remove fear scrolls; if you don't like being stunned in 4E, well... be luckier?

Or instead of choosing that uber damage dealing power/feat, choose a defensive one that will help you resist such things.

And if you choose the damage dealing one instead, don't complain when you have no options to resist conditions.

 

[FireLance]

I've had the occasional fight suffer under the weight of multiple status conditions, and these days, I try to ensure that I use statuses sparingly. I generally prefer monsters that apply status effects once per encounter or twice at most (e.g. the ability recharges when the monster is bloodied). If I use a monster that has an at-will attack that inflicts a status, I tend to place it in a group with other monsters that simply deal straight damage.

If you're willing to venture into house rule territory, you can allow the player to ignore one aspect of a status for a price - taking damage. Effectively, this represents the strain that the extreme effort of overcoming the condition places on the character's body and psyche. A good starting point (IMO) is probably 5 + level hit points in damage, where for simplicity, level is simply the character's level. You could use the level of the monster that inflicted the condition (and that would probably be more "realistic"), but it would be slightly more complicated to track in actual play.

I don't have an airtight definition of "aspect" at the moment. Right now, I think that the term will have to be defined separately for each condition. However, the rule of thumb is that whenever a condition restricts (including forcing or preventing) an action, you can take 5 + level damage to remove the restriction. So, if you're dazed, you can take 5 + level damage to take an additional move action. If you're stunned, you can take 5 + level damage to take a standard action, or 10 + twice level damage to take a standard action and a move action. If you're dominated, you can take 5 + level damage to prevent the enemy from choosing your action, another 5 + level damage if you also want to take a standard action, and a third 5 + level damage if you want to take a move action as well.

The real advantage I see in such a house rule is that it puts the decision whether or not to act back into the hands of the player. The character may eventually end up doing nothing (especially if he is already badly injured), but in many cases, the player will still be engaged with the game since the tactical position may make it worthwhile to take damage in order to act.

 

[Nebulous]

I also think your players are being sort of unfair, as all their powers unleash ungodly status effects on the monsters, yet they are whining about the same thing when done to them? I agree that STUN can be a big pain in the ass so i would use it very, very rarely as something special. Or maybe cut down on certain monsters spamming too many attacks, but overall i don't really find it a problem. I already up damage and lower hit points for all my monsters, but replacing status effects and amping the damage even more would be overkill, and frankly, somewhat boring. The status effects create interesting in-game story elements too, such the hydra in the session yesterday that dazed the cleric as she drowned from water burbling up in her lungs.

 

[jasin]

Or instead of choosing that uber damage dealing power/feat, choose a defensive one that will help you resist such things.

And if you choose the damage dealing one instead, don't complain when you have no options to resist conditions.

Casting remove fear still feels like a more active choice than taking Iron Will. It's also easier to learn and adapt; you can take a beating from fear effects, retreat, and return with remove fear ready. If you should've taken Iron Will, but didn't, even if you retreat, you won't be in a much better position when you come back even though you know what to expect.