When status effects annoy the players

[Peraion Graufalke]

I'm findind an issue whereby status effects appear to be fun-removing effects for the players.

<snip>

Do you have this problem? If so, what do you do about it? Do you simply not use the statuses?

As the DM of a small group (3 characters atm) I've avoided stun powers so far simply because removing 1 out of 3 characters from the fight (even if only for a few rounds) has a huge impact. IMO it's not that bad if you have 5 or more characters in the party.

On the other hand I'd happily target my group's warden with stunned (save ends) powers as he's a saving throw machine, if I'm tempted to use such a monster. I've used a gauth beholder against him recently and I dare say he had fun at being so resilient.

Basically, IMO the DM should design encounters with an eye towards the party's composition and strengths. E.g. if the party has lots of ways to grant additional saves or remove status conditions, give them the opportunities to use their abilities. If that's their weakness, then use such monsters sparingly. You can hand them appropriate magic items to lessen such weaknesses, of course.

As a player I don't have problems with status effects per se, and my fighter had been stunned for 2 rounds while being surrounded by 3 elite dragons once. Now that had my blood pumping . It is somewhat annoying for me to fail several saving throws in a row, but I'm getting used to it. (This has happened a lot in the last few sessions. I roll much better when I'm DMing. )

 

[roguerouge]

Pretty sure the same annoyed players would not like not being able to put the bucket over the Solo monster's head and kick it's ass with multiple stun/daze/immobilize/always prone/etc.

Exactly. We did this in third edition with house rules all the time. It really clarified if we were annoyed with the rule or if we were annoyed with ourselves for not preparing counters, but too lazy to devote resources to solving the problem.

 

[roguerouge]

Perhaps the answer is to just replace statuses with more damage.

I'd test this in a one-shot before implementing it. In my experience, battlefield control is one of the few places where DnD gets tactically interesting.

 

[TarionzCousin]

When are status effects not annoying?


I don't mind them most of the time. But one DM had 30 mirrors that dazed and slowed everyone in the room every round. That was a little higher on the scale than annoying.

 

[Sammael]

My suggestion would be to get rid of some status effects, and make sure that you don't use creatures that combine debilitating status effects that make the players annoyed. For example, slowed and dazed together is probably too annoying. Also, don't use multiple creatures with stun.

 

[ggroy]

In my experience, battlefield control is one of the few places where DnD gets tactically interesting.

I agree.

If one removed all the status effects in 4E and replaced them all with increased damage, the game would probably get kinda mundane or boring after awhile. Imagine if somebody made a watered down "microlite4e" game which removed all the status effects and other annoying stuff from 4E.

One mind as well play another game.

 

[Piratecat]

Perhaps the answer is to just replace statuses with more damage.

I don't particularly like them either, and when choosing monsters I'm now careful not to pick too many with irritating status effects. I up damage in general (about 5 points per tier while reducing hit points a bit), and I've had some luck with a few things:

- Describing them evocatively. It helps a little when they aren't just "blind", but there's a giant tick clinging to their face and making it impossible to see.

- Adding environmental effects that help add tactical richness. My last fight was in a surging street mob. When someone got slowed, they still used the automatic and involuntary push 2 from the mob to help propel them along out of range.

- Replacing the really irritating conditions like stun with more interesting choices. In a big fight against a solo recently, I removed its "I stun everyone and heal" power with threatening reach. The latter ended up being a lot more interesting.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I find that a balanced approach between damage and status conditions works best. Creatures with great status effects often have low(er) damage, which (coupled with the control most conditions apply) can make fights grind a bit. If in doubt, I try to err on the side of more damage and less conditions, as lots of damage tends to lend a sense of urgency to a battle.

Just the other day, one of my DMs ran a fight where all the creatures had significant amounts of control (despite the fact that none were controllers) and the terrain was quite hindering (tons of chokefrost and we started with our backs to a slope which, if you were pushed onto it, required an Acrobatics check to avoid falling prone). We spent the first half of that combat prone, dazed and unable to use any powers except at-wills. While no one whined about it, I was kind of bored and so (it appeared) was the rest of the party. We didn't feel threatened (despite the fact that I couldn't use my healing powers) because their damage was pitiful; victory was all but a foregone conclusion. It was simply that being on almost total lock down for 4-5 rounds felt tedious (which ended once we finally killed the thing locking out our powers and immediately transitioned to the mop up phase).

That fight would have been much more interesting (IMO) if the dazing creatures had been removed and a pair of high damage rogue types put in their place. I imagine that change would have made the outcome seem a bit more in question, and left us with a few real choices intact.

A house rule I use to help mitigate the impact of conditions (slightly) is allowing even conditions that aren't "save ends" to be saved against via a bonus save (such as that granted by Sacred Flame). It's a fairly minor change, but having a chance to remove "dazed until end of next turn" from the fighter so that he can continue to use combat challenge is nice.

 

[OchreJelly]

I think the bigger issue is that status effects contribute to parts of the game that can be frustrating. That goes right up there with the following:
- Status effect action denial
- Bad run of dice luck
- Higher level monsters with high defenses / hard to hit

Now I stress the "can be" part of the frustration, because really any of those in smaller doses usually contribute to encounter variety.

Notice how all of those frustration factors are largely edition neutral. To some extent or another this has always been a part of the game. So is this a problem for my game? For me, not really. My players enjoy finding clever ways around problems, and really that's part of the game.

As an aside I do feel this is contributing to extended combat lengths, which is really as separate issue.

 

[Fifth Element]

It's a bit of a running joke in the campaign I'm running now that the paladin (the group's only defender) typically has at least two status effects on him at all times. He takes pride in his failed saves. Monsters do bad stuff to you. That's just the way it is.

Alternatively, you could play a whole group of wardens. I tried playing one for the first time over the weekend. I had five status effects on me at various points in combat - and succeeded at all five of my Font of Life saves at the beginning of my turns, meaning I received no ill effects from them at all. It was quite awesome.