On Tuesday the 12th of July, 2010, I took part in a very interesting conversation on twitter. It was started when @AlioTheFool made a comment about players not liking certain conditions. What followed was an hour-long tweet discussion of the topic of what it means to win and how conditions may affect that in 4e D&D. The primary participants were @TheAngryDM, @AlioTheFool, @RobertsonGames and me (@DMSamuel), and to a lesser extent @countingku, @SarahDarkmagic, @mhasko, and @OverloadUT.
–
STUN
Being stunned is probably the worst condition for a player because it removes him/her from the action entirely. On page 277 of the Player’s Handbook, we find that stun imposes three constrictions on a PC when they are stunned: 1) the PC now grants combat advantage (making the PC easier to hit), 2) the PC is unable to flank an enemy (possibly making it harder for a PC and allies to hit enemies), and 3) the PC can take no actions other than free actions (the worst part of the condition).
As far as I’m concerned, the first two effects of the condition are no big deal, but number 3 really does a number on the player, not just the PC. You see, being unable to take actions (other than free ones) effectively removes the PC from the game. Usually this is a save-ends effect, and PC’s have a 55% change of rolling 10 or higher on a 20-sided die, but that also means they have a 45% chance of failing that save. I run games with 5-6 players on a regular basis and combat is not truly fast (at least, not as fast as OD&D). I make it as quick as possible, but if I have 6 players and 3 monsters on the table, it could be 10 minutes before the stunned PC gets a chance to save again. If they fail that save a second time, they could be out of the game for 20 minutes.
–
DOMINATE
Being dominated is not as bad as being stunned for the simple fact that the player is not taken completely out of the game. If you get a player that is a good role-player they can have fun with the dominated condition, swearing that they don’t want to do it as they attack their comrades. Page 277 of the Player’s Handbook tells us that being dominated includes two constrictions on PC actions: 1) the PC is dazed – since the dazed condition includes 3 effects, being dominated really imposed four constrictions, so let’s start over: 1) PC grants combat advantage (making him/her easier to hit), 2) PC is unable to flank an enemy (possibly making it harder for a PC and allies to hit enemies), 3) the PC can take either a standard, a move, or a minor action, and cannot take opportunity or immediate actions, and 4) the dominating creature chooses the PC’s action (if it chooses to use a power, it is limited to using at-wills). This has been errated for clarity, but still works mechanically as I have represented it here.
So, a dominated player isn’t taken out of the game entirely, but it takes a player with patience and the right attitude to play a dominated PC. Compared to stun, this is only slightly better, but it is at least playable – stunned PCs do nothing, dominated ones have the chance to role-play an exciting battle of will. The danger of being dominated is that, when failing a save, the player can end up injuring their own allies, whereas stun doesn’t have that element involved.
–
WINNING
The experiences that I have as a player and a DM have not been good when it comes to these two conditions. The simple fact is that stunned and dominated players just weren’t having fun. As alluded to above, the problem doesn’t lie in the initial application of the power, it lies, instead, in what happens when a player fails a save. A player that sits out the game for 30 minutes because they fail two stun saves is not having fun. This was an assertion I made during the twitter conversation and received several responses of varying agreement or disagreement.
At this point the conversation gained new terms because @TheAngryDM mentioned the word winning. There was talk of teamwork and whether or not D&D could be considered a team sport, if one side or the other must win, if the game is DM vs. Players, and how one would define winning in the first place. This became the central question of the second half of the conversation. In my opinion, winning in D&D should be defined as the condition that exists when everyone playing the game is having fun. That is what I try to focus on when I am designing encounters, story arcs, and campaign settings, and it is the goal to which I aspire when actually running a session.
The hard part of running a game with that goal is that people have different ideas about what is fun and what is not fun. In my opinion, it is the DM’s job to provide a varied enough experience that every player (including the DM) has the opportunity to have fun at every session. If that happens, then both sides win. But what does this have to do with Stun and Dominate?
–
IN GAME
Stun and Dominate suck the fun out of the game for the players. As a result, I made the decision to take them out of my game. Done! Perfect solution, right? Well, the people that contributed to the twitter conversation had some really good points. A couple of them said, basically:
“If winning means having fun and the players have fun using powers that stun or dominate, why take that away from them?”
My response was:
“Why should the players get to do it if the monsters don’t? If I take something out of the game, it is out for everyone, just as if I change a rule it is changed in all instances, not just for some people and not others.”
But I thought about what they said and it makes a lot of sense to me. The DM has more options than the players do. If one monster is taken out of action for a turn or two, that is much less harmful to the DM’s fun than it would be to take a single player out for a turn or two.
I started thinking about the situation and remembered something that happened a month or two ago: A new player in my group had the opportunity to take a power that let him dominate a creature. This PC was a level 11 Wizard (Conjuror) and he used the lvl 9 Wizard Attack Power Summon Succubus (daily). This power allows the succubus to dominate each target once per encounter. So once the Succubus is on the battlefield, it can dominate each creature once, on successive turns. It cannot dominate the same target twice in an encounter. The PC used this power in the second session in which he played. I allowed it. I hadn’t caught that power when I looked at his PC sheet, and I didn’t want to take it away during the game. The other players mentioned that I don’t allow dominate powers in the game, but I made the quick ruling that I would allow it this time and we went on. The players had a lot of fun with a dominated Dire Bear that session. I had a lot of fun too – it was interesting trying to describe the creature make an attack that it obviously wasn’t choosing.
–
SO WHAT’S THE POINT?
Well, now I have a conundrum. Do I add Stun and Dominate back into the game permanently for monsters and players, or just the players? As the party rises in levels, they are becoming uber-powerful. I think the game breaks down a bit as you get into the higher tiers (though this is a topic for another time) and it is becoming more difficult to challenge them effectively. I feel like maybe the players can handle the challenge of Stun and Dominate returning to the game. So – do I add them back in? What do you think I should do?
–
Until next time, I wish you good gaming.
~DM Samuel
I ruled that certain skills could be used as minor actions if you are trained in them, including ‘knowledge skills’ & heal. This gives the other players a chance to add an extra +2 to any saving throw. If the first save fails, the +2 becomes a +4. Given that by the time creatures are stunning/dominating, players should already have bonuses to their saves (along with being able to make extra saves) Its really unusual for these conditions to last.
How about adding them back in to the game but All durations are: until the start of the user’s next turn? Then the creature or player will only be out fir one round rather than potentially along time, real world wise.
Good questions, personally I feel that dominating creatures are rare enough that I would leave that in. As you said there is plenty of opportunity to roleplay the situation. When asked by the dominated player which ally they are attacking, its really fun for the DM when you can say “oh, I don’t know, why don’t you pick.”
Stun is a much harder decsion. I’ve been on the fun-killing, receiving end of stun both as a player and a DM. It may be as simple as replacing any power that says ‘stun’ with ‘dazed.’ That way powers till work, but affected creatures aren’t completely useless. It may throw off the power cost a bit, but if done across the board may not be big of an issue. Or maybe its like Dazed, but only move and/or minor actions can be used.
Simple solutions to a silly problem: Healing Surge to remove an effect. Remember a lot of monsters have Healing Surges, too, despite no second wind.
I remember reading a blog post about a houserule for stunned and dazed. Dazed limited players to a standard action I think, and stunned limited them to a minor action. This gave the players are chance to do something, especially once they level some more. I’ll comment again if I find the blog post about it.
Add them in just for the players to use against the monsters.
As you said you have more than enough to do as the DM. Being the DM usually mean never having to be bored. While even players that are not stunned have to wait from 5 – 10 minutes before its their turn again.
You may also want to consider changing stun, making it more like a state of confusion. Perhaps they consider then slowed and have a chance that they target gets switched to the nearest party member (perhaps on an odd die roll). So the player may decide if he or she wants to risk hitting a party member. This is a lot more fun than losing a turn.
JesterOC
Some good suggestions in the comments. I would agree with Sanderson though, remove the roll for a save and just make it a 1 turn event. Also, there are powers and magic items that give player’s bonuses to saves. If it is becoming an issue in your game consider dropping items (or giving suggestions for picking up certain powers and abilities).
How about mixing up the effects by pulling an old school D&D mechanic out? Have them roll to save at the point of being hit? If they make a save, they shake off the effect immediately, otherwise they have to roll to save as per 4E rules on the following turn.
I think the key point is to try and limit the number of monsters that stun and dominate. I agree that it can be a combat effect that gets old fast. Keep in mind that the MM3 beefed up their damage output. Consider doing the same for older edition monsters too. Maybe just having them hit a little harder can make for an exciting fight, over throwing out a lot of conditional states in attacks.
My comments regarding this:
http://bit.ly/9OeoYg
Quite a good article, and an excellent question. As a DM, I have confronted this very problem, and quickly realized that I was the only one having a great big ball of fun with the dominated characters. It was pretty clear the players were not enjoying it. Ultimately, it comes down to what the game is for, and what my role as a DM is. If my intent is to smoosh the players into weepy little smears, then hey, I’m only using monsters (+6 LVL, of course) that can stun, dominate, and humiliate. If, on the other hand, I want to facilitate a fine time by all, then maybe I keep those unhappy conditions in my back pocket.
But… part of the thrill of the game (speaking from the scary side of the DM screen) is not knowing. It’s the ignorance. My recommendation, and in fact, my intent, is to keep stun and dominate in the game, but only march it out on very special occasions: “The ghost peers deep into your soul, and you feel icy claws sink into your mind… but no, you shake it off.”
See, regardless of the die roll, that’s a miss. But it’s also a seed. The players think, “Oh crap, this thing has dominate.” It rachets up the fear but doesn’t mess with the fun. Rarely, oh so very rarely, you’ll have to use the effect, or risk losing its teeth. But just the threat should be enough.
Wow everyone, great comments! I guess I hit a hot button with this issue? It must be on more minds than just my own. Let me try to address each one of you separately:
@The Twixt: Interesting, so an ally could use heal to give a +2 to save, but not use their own standard (use it as a minor). This sounds good, but if the player still fails their save it puts them out for another round. I like the idea regarding skills though. I already let the PCs make knowledge checks to ID monsters as a minor action anyway, so it does match some of my own style already implemented in game. I’ll have to think on it.
@Rob Sanderson: This, so far, is the best option that I can see working in my games. It satisfies all the conditions of my conundrum.
@DieMacher: Interesting, good idea – shift stun into the dazed category. The thing is, I would just not pick powers that stun then, so it’s really like taking stunned out of the game. So really, I would be taking it out of monster powers and am left with the same question.
@Rev. Lazaro: Also a good idea – I already do a couple of “strange” things with healing surges, so this could either fit right in, or make it seem like surges are too fiddly. Hmmm, I’ll have to think on this as well.
@Klee Baker: Yes, please try and find the post and comment here – I’m interested in reading the rationale behind it.
@JesterOC: You’re just saying that because you are in my game :) Seriously though, good idea, something to think about.
@Geek Ken: I have thought about giving them a save at the beginning of a turn, but some classes (I’m thinking of the Warden) already have that and giving it to everyone would be like cheating that class (or PC that took that power). In terms of damage output, I have been tweaking dmg and defenses of the monsters since the third session. My players are very tactical and I had to do that to keep the challenge at an appropriate level. I was really relieved to see the changes in MM2 and then MM3 because it meant that I was doing something right :)
@Dean: Oooh, now that is a good idea. Make stun like an Uber-Daze, giving a penalty, but not taking the players out of the game. Hmmm.
Lots of good stuff here. I’ll have to think on it and decide which is best for my various groups. Every gaming group is different, and my DMing style changes a little bit depending on the makeup of the group and the personalities of the players.
Thanks everyone for commenting!
Hi Dixon, missed your comment the first time!
So you are saying I should:
1) leave Stun and Dominate in play for the players to use
2) Take it 90% out of the game in terms of monsters
3) give the impression that it is still in play
4) narrate in such a way as to make the players THINK it’s in play in the current battle
Excellent!
I think things like Stun and Dominate need to be in the game. They’re the “oh crap” equivalent of 3e’s level drain – when you see a monster toting stun or dominate, it’s a clear indication that that monster needs to die fast.
Having said that, I think it’s beholden on the DM to minimise the fun-killing aspect of the conditions. Don’t use them too often, and when you do, try to think of something the player can do while they’re out of action. Give them the minions to control, or a brute or a soldier – something they can happily bash the others with, but which isn’t giving them too much tactical knowledge to use against you.
My players mostly complain about daze since stun and dominate happen so infrequently. As a player, I have no problem with any of them…granted, I play very infrequently.
While I do agree that there is a little bit of a frustrating component to being stunned or dominated, I think those conditions also force some interesting tactical decisions. Suddenly being able to grant a saving throw or a bonus to a saving throws really shines. You also want to focus on avoiding or eliminating the source of the stun.
The best use of stun I’ve seen was the end of Pyramid of Shadows. My players were pulling out all the stops to boost saves, remove the stunned condition, get the stunned character out of the stunning area, and otherwise help each other out. Without that effect, I think the battle would have been pretty blah.
I definitely wouldn’t use those conditions frequently. I’d even try to use daze infrequently, though a little more often than stun or dominate, since it still allows players to do something.
I like Dixon’s approach. In our game last night we came across some DM frustration with our use of Dominate and Dazed. It made for a pretty good story and the long term effects were pretty minor, but I understand the frustration…it appears as if the players just run roughshod over the enemies. But I also agree that it’s no fun to be denied your actions as player. Even with all the house rules and suggestions, combat still takes a long time, and its hard to stay engaged if there’s nothing to do.
I like the idea of the threat of it, without it actually happening (like level drain). You can change Dominate power into something like the Psion’s “Betrayal” where the NPC makes the player move & basic attack an ally but still allows him to take some or all his actions on his turn.
Another approach to try is to make the conditions STRONGER, but in return the affected creature still gets to do something on its turn. I think these versions of the conditions would have roughly the same amount of power as the initial versions, but more fun for affected the player:
Dominated
* You grant combat advantage.
* You can’t flank.
* Before you act on you turn you get one extra move action and one extra standard action. How you use these extra actions is determined by the dominator. The only powers and other game features that the dominator can make you use are ones that can be used at will. If the dominator tries to force you to harm yourself in any way, you may make a saving throw to cancel the command. Once the dominator is done controlling you, you may only perform one move action or one minor action, but no standard actions.
Stunned
* You fall if you are flying, unless you can hover.
* You are dazed and weakened.
* If you move or make an attack on your turn, you fall prone immediately afterwards.
As a point of clarification, my player has taken some hits for this conversation, but he shouldn’t. He didn’t say a word. It was me who had the problem with stunning him.
Dean (@ArcaneSpringboard) posted the following link above, and I really like his solution. Check it out: http://bit.ly/9OeoYg
While I think it’s a great idea and it’s been suggested elsewhere to have other characters use actions to help the PC succeed at the save, it presents another problem. Now two players are wasting turns dealing with an effect. The key is to never have a turn where a player is completely idle. Maybe they aren’t “being heroic” every round, but every round should present an opportunity to do something.
I and @countingku discussed healing surges being burned to allow a PC to break a stun/dominated effect. The problem with just one is that it doesn’t present enough penalty for breaking out. My suggestion, inspired by @gamefiend is to have the player burn 1d4+1 surges. This presents a risk to remove the effect. You get to keep the effect in the game for both monsters and PCs, but you present an option that allows them an out. Then it’s up to the player to determine whether the cost/benefit is worthwhile.
Or, if multiple healing surges is too much, what if a PC could burn a healing surge to move up one notch on the Will effect chain? The same idea as saves on the disease chain. If you’re stunned, as a free action spend a healing surge to become dazed, which allows you one action this turn. Fail your save, move back a step to stunned and repeat next turn. (Writing this now, I think I actually really like this option.)
@Dean Interesting idea, although I don’t have a problem with my paragon group on this (They quickly realized the importance of making saves, they’re heavy into powers/feats/items that help with saves). My heroric group hasn’t followed the same path, might try the uber-dazed with them (once they get to a level where they start encountering stun). I am a little concerned with removing the scare factor of stunned, as @colmarr stated, it makes for a nice ‘oh crap’ for higher level characters as long as it isn’t over used.
In my game I make Stun and Dominate progressive effects. Instead of the usual first failed save makes the condition worse, I make it a little better. After the first failed save against stuns and dominations it becomes dazed. At the end of the next turn the player recovers, no saving throw needed. Not all conditions need to get worse; heroes can slowly regain strength of will, it just takes a little longer for some and instead of being stunned or dominated they are dazed. Another quick focus on collecting themselves and they’re right as rain.
This came up last night. For the most part, I’ve taken stunned, dominate and, to some degree, dazed, out of my monster powers. However, my players still have them and a lot of powers with them. They unleashed all of that on my monsters last night, and sucked all of my fun out of an encounter. They dominated the main (elite) guy at the beginning, twice in a row. They then pulled out a daily that can daze (save ends) multiple targets along with a power that means to the end of the encounter one monster can only move up to half of its speed without falling prone. This meant that I didn’t really get to do anything for a good 15 minutes or so other than tally up the damage. I know I sound a little whiny, but it is what it is.
What I’m going to do in the future is provide a way for certain bad guys to shrug off the effects, but find a way to be clear at the beginning that they think such a thing can happen.
I actually considered something like Dean mentioned regarding Stunned. Dazed plus Weakened sounds like a good re-definition of Stunned. In that case, I wouldn’t give the option of spending healing surges to escape the effect. The player still has the option of acting on his or her turn.
To be clear, I don’t really have an issue with Dominated. The player still gets to act on their turn, and it serves as a great role-playing opportunity. My only issue is a round where a PC is alive and cannot act (Stunned.) Unconscious kind of bites too, but I don’t know how one would get around that (and without it there’s very little need for a Leader anymore, not to mention it replaces just being Dead.)
Well I´mreally against removing parts of the game, but in the case of stun i really believe minimizing its usage in combat can be beneficial, lets face it, no body likes to wait an entire round (10 min or so) just to see an 8 and fail the save to wait another 10 min… I’m currently minimizing the use of Stun for something less drastic (like dazed/dominated) when fluff permits it, but I’m thinking into trying a diminishing return system, first fail you get a +2 on the next save, second fail and you get a +5 to the third, just to make it really unlikely for a player expend more than 2 rounds out of play
This is indeed a conundrum for sure. Some of the things included here might be slightly off topic to the blog post but I feel it is a necessary discussion. As a player and a DM, being out for a round or two can be very frustrating. On the same token, while players get frustrated and the fun factor starts to drain when these conditions are applied, there are several player powers that have these affects, that the players will use or at times, OVERUSE whenever they can. Like SarahdarkMagic said above, the DM can be drained of fun as well.
Ask yourself this, why is the player(s) dominated or stunned? Were they reckless and jumped into the thick of things because they like hack and slash and didnt assess the situation? Did the party not come together tactically and everyone is doing whatever they want? If this is the case, why should the players be “rewarded” for screwing up and remove conditions and such?
Everyone can have a bad night, have bad dice rolls, or they could have an awesome night of dice rolling, however the players Ive seen, cant take the bad with the good and start to whine about it being unfair. Like I mentioned on twitter, players cant expect to skate through everything and always come out on top. There will be some encounters/situations that they are not meant to succeed at. I feel that there has to be repercussions or rewards for their actions.
For monsters, those powers are or at least should be encounter or daily powers. An at-will dominate, while it does suck, makes for great role playing aspects and adds a bit of morality. Dominate a good aligned player and watch them cringe. LOL.
While everyone likes to have fun during play, those ideas of fun can be so widespread that it can be hard for a DM to accommodate them all, ALL of the time. What I also find frustrating, that with the varying degree of ideas of fun, some players enjoy only certain parts of the game and refuse to partake in others like skill challenges, role playing or whine about conditions and take joy in dishing the conditions with no thought about the DM. They just roll the dice, say the power they are using and roll for damage if its a hit. To me as a player and a DM, that isnt very fun either. It can also be frustrating when a player isnt ready on their turn and take several minutes ho humming about what they want to do. Why not use the “downtime” between turns to observe what the rest of the party is doing and strategize in your head about how you would like to act. I dont see how that could be boring even if stunned. “Well crap, Im stunned, I cant move or act”, why cant I talk and direct the party to some weak spots I see on the monster, or sing, or something entirely out of the norm than sit there and pout.
I dont think it should fall on the DM in every instance when these conditions are applied for the player to be entertained.
Some of the ideas presented here do have merit but I would not remove these conditions from the game. Im not a fan of using a surge to get rid of the effect entirely, but I do like the 1d4+1 surges but increase with the tiers to maybe 2d4+2 and 3d4+3 respectively. I also like the idea of the condition getting progressively better.
With the group I was in, the fear of a dominate or stun wouldnt matter cause they would just do it back ten-fold. However, it could work in other groups.
OK, I think Ive rambled enough for now.
I don’t know if it’s been mentioned, but you might want to try letting players take a save as an immedieate interrupt when the power takes effect. That way, the effect comes into play only so often, and it gives another opportunity to save.
Statistically, that means your chance to save (assuming 55%) jumps to 110% by the first time they have to save. If they fail the first one, then they are at 165% by the second time. Of course, this is no guarantee, but it may be just enough to get the PC up and running before they actually have to leave for the night.
The alternative, suggested by @deadorcs is just get wasted until you make your safe. This also comes with the bonus that the player won’t be able to leave until he/she at least makes 1 save.
No, your math is wrong.
One roll doesn’t influence the other. The two rolls are treated as two individual, separate events, so they each have 55% chance of success.
There is no case where you could add that together and get a 110% chance to save because each is treated as a singular event not influencing the outcome of the other.
The only way you can calculate and stack percentages like that is if you are drawing something out of a finite pool, when you take one thing out, it influences the chances of drawing the stuff left in the bag.
It sounds great though! LOL
I do like the idea of letting the player use a minor action to immediately roll a save.
Fair enough. I take Statistics next semester.
Still, maybe an interrupt that leaves them -2 to all until end of next turn.
@DM Samuel: While Opportunist was wrong to add the percentages together, he is right that by adding another saving throw roll, the chances of successfully escaping the condition increase.
In scenario one (a save only at the end of round 1), a player gets one chance to make a save with a 55% chance of success. Therefore, their chance of ending the condition in round 1 is 55%
In scenario two (an immediate save and another save at the end of round 1), the player gets two chances over the same time period. They are only still stunned if they fail both saves. The chance of failing both rolls is 45% x 45% = 20.25%. The player’s chance of succeeding on one of the rolls is therefore 79.75%.
Adding the extra chance to save infinitely increases the chance of avoiding the condition altogether (0% vs 55%) and significantly increases the player’s chance to throw off the condition by the end of round one (55% vs 79.75%).
You’re thinking of the gambler fallacy, which doesn’t apply until after the dice have started rolling.
Ah, you are correct. See, my math was wrong too. Or rather, the way I was thinking about it was incorrect.
I do like the idea of the immediate save for dazed, stun, and dominate effects. But doesn’t that dilute the Warden’s Font of Life class feature, which allows a warden to make a saving throw at the beginning of his/her turn? Granted, it’s not an immediate interrupt, but it does allow the warden to attempt a save twice per turn.