PDA

View Full Version : [4E/Any] Why Stunning Players is Bad...



Grynning
2009-08-30, 11:43 AM
I have a large (8 players plus DM) group that has been playing 4th ed since release. We are now split into two groups, with 7 and 5 players for 3 different campaigns, but as you can imagine, our combats take quite a while most of the time, especially since we all have multiple characters and it can take a bit for people to remember all the abilities of who they're playing that night.

Over the course of our original campaign, we discovered that the Stun condition made combat almost intolerable for players affected by it, and given that we were fighting a lot of dragons, it was happening a lot. Stun basically tells you that you lose your next turn. You can't do ANYthing, except in rare cases where someone can remove a stun. This doubles the standard 5-10 minute wait between turns and makes people prone to wandering off, losing interest, etc. and thus slowing down combat for everyone else.

We have now instituted a houserule that replaces all Stun conditions on players with a Daze, or an Immobilize or something similar if the DM feels that it's appropriate. It's made fights with Dragons, Lamias, etc. much more enjoyable since everyone at least gets to do something on their turn. But flipping through the MM's and Dungeon Delve, I've noticed that WotC has a LOT of stuff that stuns players. I think this is poor design, because when a player gets stunned, you're basically telling them they don't get to play for a round.

My question is whether this an example of WotC not having a strong grasp of how the game actually plays, or if we are just slower at combat and/or more impatient than most groups? Has anyone else houseruled out Stuns or similar conditions in their games?

P.S. - Since I've started playing SWSE, I've decided the Condition Track is the "gold standard" for how status effects should be handled in a game. Anyone ever tried replacing 4th ed or 3.5 status effects with that for D&D?

Foryn Gilnith
2009-08-30, 11:45 AM
WotC doesn't have a strong grasp of how the game is played. Based on playtest reports and general internet whining, that should be obvious by now. I suspect that your group may have something to do with it, though. A SWSE-style Condition Track would be great to put in 4e if stuns are this common (I prefer 3.5 as-is), but I can't point you to any, unfortunately.

valadil
2009-08-30, 11:49 AM
I agree that removing control from players makes the players have less fun. The worst was 3rd ed's confusion spell.

I don't think 4th is particularly bad about it. At least you get to save each round. It still sucks, but it's a huge improvement from 3.5.

If I were to make a change to it, I'd probably say that you can still do minor actions while stunned. Or something to that effect.

Kurald Galain
2009-08-30, 12:05 PM
On the other hand, I believe the actual problem is the 5-10 minute wait between turns (and I suspect that actual time may be even slower in some cases).

The philosophy of Never Impairing Player Characters simply does not appeal to me.

Grynning
2009-08-30, 12:08 PM
On the other hand, I believe the actual problem is the 5-10 minute wait between turns (and I suspect that actual time may be even slower in some cases).

The philosophy of Never Impairing Player Characters simply does not appeal to me.

We're dealing with a full group. 5 minutes between turns really isn't bad if you consider that it's only taking 5 minutes for the other 4 players and all the monsters at paragon level. The 7 player group takes closer to 10 minutes because, well, there's more of us and we have a couple of less hardcore players in that one.

I'm not advocating Never Impairing Player Characters. Daze, Immobilize, Weaken, etc, I am fine with. Minuses like the SWSE condition track are fine. I am saying that Stuns are an impairment to the GAME because they just leave people out until they're un-stunned.

oxybe
2009-08-30, 12:20 PM
reduce the amount of monsters that stun and use them only on "special" occasions.

really it's like complaining that your 3rd ed players keep dying from your enemies' spells and yet you keep using NPCs/Monsters who have SoD spells with high save DC.

while the Stun condition can cause the fights to drag on a bit, as GM you have noticed this in advance and mostly have the choice of:

A) suck it up
B) not use the offending monsters/abilities
C) house rule the offending monsters/abilities

you opted for "C"

Foryn Gilnith
2009-08-30, 12:28 PM
He's not complaining that when he uses those monsters, bad things happened. If it were just that, he'd avoid them. His problem, as illustrated in the third paragraph, is that these monsters are everywhere. Unless he wants to throw out half of the Monster Manual and all published adventures, (which is still an option, admittedly) he needs to do something about it.

Shpadoinkle
2009-08-30, 12:37 PM
WotC doesn't have a strong any grasp of how the game is played.

Fixed that for you.

Grynning
2009-08-30, 12:38 PM
Also to clarify, I'm not actually DM'ing right now. The houserule was invented and agreed upon by several members of the group and 2 of the 3 people that are DM'ing right now are using it. So it's not like this is just my opinion, this was the result of a discussion between a half a dozen people who all have extensive experience with the system.

Also, I'm asking if anyone else has had similar experiences; or whether anyone has been fine with stuns or "lose a turn" effects in their games. I did kind of invite the comments on playstyle, but I didn't want that to be the focus here.

Brigham
2009-08-30, 12:43 PM
Do not supplant the STUN effect. Instead, ask your players to roleplay the stun.

Address the stunned player: "Instead of planning the move for your next turn, consider how the character is stunned, what the character does, etc." The player can come up with any number of pseudo-actions that have no bearing on game play and which hold true to the mechanical intent of the stunned condition.

It could be as simple as "I stand still as stone," which would be lame and unimaginative, but understandable if a player is pipped about being stunned. A player could take into account the cause of the stun (dragon tail whip, magical effect) on his physcial and mental state. Maybe he's overcome with pain/fear/ecstasy from a crotch shot tail whip from a dragon or something.

Main point: Forgoing mechanically significant actions during combat does not preclude wrapping the inaction in good storytelling.

Indon
2009-08-30, 12:47 PM
Main point: Forgoing mechanically significant actions during combat does not preclude wrapping the inaction in good storytelling.

Extending this would imply that people making death saving throws should describe how their characters are bleeding to death.

I don't think that would make bleeding to death any more fun - and bleeding to death is actually already more mechanically engaging than being outright stunned is.

I think the houserule is an interesting one. I've seen that a bit of stun-frustration in a 4th edition game I'm playing, in fact (6 players).

If I continue to see it pop up, I'll be sure to bring this thread up with the DM.

Tengu_temp
2009-08-30, 01:02 PM
Do not supplant the STUN effect. Instead, ask your players to roleplay the stun.

Address the stunned player: "Instead of planning the move for your next turn, consider how the character is stunned, what the character does, etc." The player can come up with any number of pseudo-actions that have no bearing on game play and which hold true to the mechanical intent of the stunned condition.

It could be as simple as "I stand still as stone," which would be lame and unimaginative, but understandable if a player is pipped about being stunned. A player could take into account the cause of the stun (dragon tail whip, magical effect) on his physcial and mental state. Maybe he's overcome with pain/fear/ecstasy from a crotch shot tail whip from a dragon or something.

Main point: Forgoing mechanically significant actions during combat does not preclude wrapping the inaction in good storytelling.

I don't know about you, but I don't really find this a much more interesting alternative. No matter how I describe it, it still doesn't change the fact that at the moment I'm doing nothing.

Brigham
2009-08-30, 01:08 PM
edit:

Avoiding unfruitful, already long debated, argument.

Yoren
2009-08-30, 01:19 PM
I've been playing off and on since release and while I do agree that being stunned sucks it hasn't really caused that many problems in my group. Although to be fair it is slightly smaller (4-5 players) than yours. Just out of curiosity what are you fighting that can cause the stunned condition so much?

Your houserule seems okay but may I suggest something like - dazed -> slowed after first save -> free and clear after second save. This would remove the total action loss but also retain the feeling that being "stunned" is worse than being dazed.

Also Dreadnought is your friend :smallwink:

oxybe
2009-08-30, 01:41 PM
He's not complaining that when he uses those monsters, bad things happened. If it were just that, he'd avoid them. His problem, as illustrated in the third paragraph, is that these monsters are everywhere. Unless he wants to throw out half of the Monster Manual and all published adventures, (which is still an option, admittedly) he needs to do something about it.

i checked through the first half or so of the MM1. aside from the buttload of dragons (72-85, i'm including the dracolich in here) i only found a handfull of monster that had the stun ability, virtually all of them epic or high (+15) paragon and mostly elites & solos. the first monster with stun i found in heroic tier was the ettercap, which could stun as the secondary attack of his bite if the initial hits.

hardly "everywhere".

then again i never use dragons unless it's a very special occasion.

Foryn Gilnith
2009-08-30, 01:56 PM
But flipping through the MM's and Dungeon Delve, I've noticed that WotC has a LOT of stuff that stuns players. D&D?

The original post was an exaggeration, apparently; and my post exaggerated the exaggeration even further. I don't actually play 4e, I just read about it on the Internet, which accounts for the disconnect.

Kurald Galain
2009-08-30, 02:07 PM
It strikes me that if the players are bothered by being stunned, they should build their characters so as to avoid that - for instance by upping their will defense, keeping a paladin or warlord around to remove conditions, using feats that boost saving throws, et cetera. If worst comes to worst, there's always the Orb of Unlucky Exchanges...

Altima
2009-08-30, 03:16 PM
Items are your friend. Since the PCs are dragon hunters, perhaps some specialized gear for them, like a brooch that will allow them to use a healing surge to remove a stun x/day-encounter.

Stun is kind of a cheap tactic (unless monsters use it to set up a damage spike), but that will defense is there for a reason. Have to make those physical types vulnerable to something, after all.

Thajocoth
2009-08-30, 03:21 PM
I like that houserule. I think I'm gonna steal it. Thanks. I'll replace stuns with both dazed and immobilized, so you can take a single action, you just can't move. (As it's supposed to be stronger than either, but it's more fun if you can do SOMETHING. Even if it's just Second Wind.)

Well, next time I run a game at least...

FlawedParadigm
2009-08-30, 03:26 PM
I keep hearing this bleating of "Will defence", but last I checked, Stun could hit Fort or Will, and I'm told at higher levels, it even hits AC. Also, Stun is something you can't give yourself extra chances to save against unless you've got Font of Life. You can't really form any other kind of defence against it unless you have the Bahamut's Vessel ED.

I'm not saying to rule it out entirely, but I do notice players only get the effect in small doses, and mostly at Epic, while I see monsters with it fairly often. It's fine on solos; they're outnumbered, probably outgunned, and Stun just makes things temporarily more fair. It's seeing it on other things that's a bother. In short; I think overuse of it is a problem more than the condition itself, but the condition itself is no rose either.

Mordokai
2009-08-30, 03:42 PM
To me, Stun wasn't problematic because I couldn't take actions. It was problematic because others could hurt me and I couldn't do aynthing about it. Admittedly, one is tied to another, but the latter can be much more detrimental to ones health than the former. If you're hidden or the enemy ignores you, I'm quite happy to let him attack the other party members. When I make my save I'll do my job. Until then, wait for me.

This is looking pragmatically at the problem and from a 3.5 player viewpoint. Stun used to be somewhat more of a problem back in 3.5 than it is in 4E, but the basic principle carries over. And in my experience, Stun isn't all that much of a problem. If other players and DM make their moves fast you shouldn't wait all that long. Of course, in the party of this size, I can see why that would be a problem. But I won't say I support that rule. As somebody mentioned, Stun can be a great help to a monster and while you're supposed to win at the end(at least most of the times), taking an ace player(so to speak) away from the opposing team just seems low to me.

My two cp.

Tehnar
2009-08-30, 04:56 PM
I think the problem in 4e is the delivery system of any given status condition. IMO, any challenging encounter will consist of monsters that can hit you with any of their attacks at least 75% of the time. And with little or no way to increase your defenses, getting inflicted with something is pretty much a certainty.

Mystic Muse
2009-08-30, 05:20 PM
It strikes me that if the players are bothered by being stunned, they should build their characters so as to avoid that - for instance by upping their will defense, keeping a paladin or warlord around to remove conditions, using feats that boost saving throws, et cetera. If worst comes to worst, there's always the Orb of Unlucky Exchanges...

will defense can only go so high and is rather hard to increase. Paladins and warlords can ALSO be stunned meaning they'll be out of the fights. even with feats you still waste a turn and I don't know anything about this orb but unless it's an at will power it's not what you need.

Raum
2009-08-30, 06:07 PM
My question is whether this an example of WotC not having a strong grasp of how the game actually plays, or if we are just slower at combat and/or more impatient than most groups? I suspect the problem is exacerbated by your group size. Losing a turn is one thing when you get another five to ten minutes later, it's quite another if you have to wait 45 minutes or more for you next turn.

I'd take a different approach though - have you looked at converting to a system with faster combat resolution?

Tyger
2009-08-30, 06:54 PM
Out of curiousity, how was this any different in your (I am assuming you've played for a while) 3.5 games? Color Spray, Flesh to Stone, Imprisonment, Dominate Person, Confusion, Sleep, Hold Person, Cause Fear, bard song fascination, Command, being stunned (ala Power Word Stun or any of a thousand variations)... tonnes of ways for the characters to get taken completely and totally out of the fight, just like Stunned in 4e. Most of those in 3.5 didn't give you a save every round to break out of it either.

Did you permit characters to have a scaling holds in those situations?

Cainen
2009-08-30, 07:39 PM
Out of curiousity, how was this any different in your (I am assuming you've played for a while) 3.5 games?

What does this have to do with the topic? 4E does not arbitrarily get a free pass because 3.5 was worse in this aspect.

Grumman
2009-08-30, 07:46 PM
Out of curiousity, how was this any different in your (I am assuming you've played for a while) 3.5 games? Color Spray, Flesh to Stone, Imprisonment, Dominate Person, Confusion, Sleep, Hold Person, Cause Fear, bard song fascination, Command, being stunned (ala Power Word Stun or any of a thousand variations)... tonnes of ways for the characters to get taken completely and totally out of the fight, just like Stunned in 4e. Most of those in 3.5 didn't give you a save every round to break out of it either.
I've only seen these succeed against PCs about 4 times in the time I've been playing. Sure, it sucks if one gets you, but combats don't last as long and the PCs defenses are better, both of which make them less of a problem.

Gralamin
2009-08-30, 07:52 PM
I've addressed this before, but specifically in relationship to bosses:



Step 4) Avoid conditions that disable characters. While Stunned and Petrified are powerful and make your boss a threat, it can also anger players. Players want to be participating in a boss fight, and taking them out is frustrating. Some players might not have a problem with this, but others will. When in doubt, avoid them entirely.

The less important an encounter is, and the less time it lasts, the more acceptable it is to use stunning conditions, generally. There are plenty of ways of making a threatening encounter without removing actions.

Reinboom
2009-08-30, 08:36 PM
Oh, hey. I had this same conversation recently:
*beginning of conversation cut and messenger names replaced*
[14:44] Trog: As a DM I am okay with nearly any class in DnD 4e. Truthfully the player's class doesn't matter so much to me. Its the individual powers that might be in question if it turns out they can stun as an at-will power or something.
[14:45] Reina: ...that'd be gross.
[14:45] Trog: Same here.
[14:45] Trog: Well then don't ever run the githzari Cenobite. It has that power. Very broken.
[14:45] Reina: Cenobite? Where was this printed?
[14:46] Trog: MM
[14:46] Reina: Hmmm, ok, will look
[14:46] Trog: I gave a creature I made that same power and it pretty much eliminates at -least-half of the party's attacks.
[14:47] Trog: It was a TPK. Needless to say I am changing the power and rerunning the fight this weekend. Thank god for play testing. =P
[14:48] Reina: Good idea.
[14:48] Reina: I find Dazed to be excellently designed.
[14:48] Trog: yes
[14:48] Trog: that is what I am changing it to, actually
[14:49] Reina: I also find that modifying stun to 'Dazed but can't use encounter powers or dailys' to be interesting.
[14:49] Trog: so basic attacks only? Hmm... interesting
[14:50] Reina: right
[14:51] Trog: isn't there a condition already that does that? Or maybe I'm thinking of a power effect.
[14:51] Reina: I believe you are thinking of a power effect. I can not think of a condition that locks things out based on will/enc/day
[14:54] Trog: Yeah the stunned condition is very 3.x. They did all this work to ensure that no matter wht you could do -something- each round of combat... and then they include stunned. If they made it a PC only power I could see that working but as something that can be inflicted on a PC it doesn't work. Unless it is an encounter power and used sparingly.
[14:59] Reina: Even then I don't like it.
[14:59] Reina: Conditions are most interesting when it forces players to play around it.
[14:59] Reina: Even the "slowly become petrified" works better.
[14:59] Trog: yup
[15:00] Reina: Oh, that's an idea. Have most 'stun effects' only stun if they are already dazed.
[15:00] Reina: Otherwise, it just dazes.
[15:01] Trog: well except the power is "DMG and player is stunned until the end of the GC's next turn." Making it had to avoid that second attack.
[15:02] Trog: so while the duration is short... it is easy to keep going. One PC got maybe 2 actions the entire combat. =/
[15:03] Reina: DMG, become dazed. They have an opportunity to remove the condition, or move the hel... wait. The Gith follow shifters. That's... rude.
[15:03] Reina: Yeah, turning Dazed in to "you can only do at-wills" would work better then, instead.
[15:04] Trog: you mean stunned, right?
[15:04] Reina: No! I want to punish my players more! MWAHAHAHA.
[15:04] Reina: er, yes.
[15:04] Trog: heh
[15:05] Reina: And slow being drop down to 2 movement? Feh! It should be petrified!
[15:06] Trog: I'm not sure how I feel about slow. It has come in handy now and then. Mostly it doesn't make too much of a difference though.
[15:07] Reina: Yeah..
[15:07] Reina: Wizards got too hung up with thinking they had created Chess 2.0 with that one.
[15:07] Trog: indeed
[15:07] Reina: Of course, and also forgetting that pawns are vicious.
etc. etc.

Anyways, what I proposed in that does work quite well at trying to make stun a unique and powerful condition that doesn't anger the players too much.
tl;dr:
Change stun in to:
Dazed and cannot use Encounter or Daily powers.

Grynning
2009-08-30, 10:01 PM
Out of curiousity, how was this any different in your (I am assuming you've played for a while) 3.5 games? Color Spray, Flesh to Stone, Imprisonment, Dominate Person, Confusion, Sleep, Hold Person, Cause Fear, bard song fascination, Command, being stunned (ala Power Word Stun or any of a thousand variations)... tonnes of ways for the characters to get taken completely and totally out of the fight, just like Stunned in 4e. Most of those in 3.5 didn't give you a save every round to break out of it either.

Did you permit characters to have a scaling holds in those situations?

In 3.5, there's an item, ability or spell answer to everything above, and an optimized party generally had most of them.

In 4th ed, it's entirely possible to build a decently optimized party, but with no answer to stunning or a number of other status conditions. The problem in our experience was mainly coming up with dragons and other monsters with multi-target stuns. Several members of the party would get hit, so while the others took their turns, 2 or 3 people sat out, and started getting distracted. I think the houserule came out of a fight (when we had the group of 8) against 3 dragons at one time (and yes, it was a level appropriate encounter) where all three of them used frightful presence in succession (ending up with many players spending 3 full turns of the combat stunned). Even with a Warlord, a Paladin and 2 clerics, at the level we were playing, there was no way for us to do anything about it. While that was partly the DM's fault for not realizing how nasty that ability truly was, it was a perfectly reasonable tactic and the encounter made sense story-wise (after all, our party had sworn an oath to defeat an evil dragon ruler; a lot of his minions are, well, dragons).

As far as the actual prevalence of stun abilities, I admit my statement wasn't based on quantitative research but more on a general impression. I made the post after reading an encounter in the Dungeon Delve book (23-2) that included a trap that could "save ends" stun multiple party members and having an AVGN "what were they thinking" moment. Granted, reading it again you'd have to be kinda dumb for it to happen to more than one party member, but still...it just seems like very mean-spirited DM'ing to basically kick a player out of combat for any length of time.

I like Rein's suggestion above, although I would clarify it as "Can't use encounter or daily attack powers" so ppl could still use items or utilities.

PS:

...

I'd take a different approach though - have you looked at converting to a system with faster combat resolution?

I actually play several different systems, including M&M, Savage Worlds, SWSE, etc., and yes, 4th ed probably has the slowest combat, but that's what this particular group is focused on right now, and we do enjoy it. I just figure, if you already know that the combat takes a while, why take away someones long-awaited turn just for having the bad luck of being the one hit with the stun effect?

Reinboom
2009-08-30, 11:11 PM
On the Stun trap thing. DMing a Wizard's game day for... I believe PHB2.
The very last encounter had, iirc, 12 hidden traps throughout the room. All of these traps were of a high attack to hit, vs fort, against any nondemon who begins their turn on or moves over it. The hit was 3d10 damage and stun (save ends). So, effective stun lock unless you get lucky.
Further, the 'boss' of the encounter was a mezzodemon that was up a size category (Large), and other extra properties.
Their trident is reach 2 with immobilize on hit, and they had an ongoing poison damage breath weapon.

There was also a bearded devil and 2 small demons that spat fire.

I do not think Wizards even rereads these things.

Raum
2009-08-31, 07:46 AM
I actually play several different systems, including M&M, Savage Worlds, SWSE, etc., and yes, 4th ed probably has the slowest combat, but that's what this particular group is focused on right now, and we do enjoy it. I just figure, if you already know that the combat takes a while, why take away someones long-awaited turn just for having the bad luck of being the one hit with the stun effect?I agree, was just thinking that other systems might speed combat up for the entire group. Please don't take that as being against modifying / removing stun!

Antacid
2009-08-31, 09:43 AM
I think the houserule came out of a fight (when we had the group of 8) against 3 dragons at one time (and yes, it was a level appropriate encounter) where all three of them used frightful presence in succession (ending up with many players spending 3 full turns of the combat stunned). Even with a Warlord, a Paladin and 2 clerics, at the level we were playing, there was no way for us to do anything about it. While that was partly the DM's fault for not realizing how nasty that ability truly was, it was a perfectly reasonable tactic and the encounter made sense story-wise (after all, our party had sworn an oath to defeat an evil dragon ruler; a lot of his minions are, well, dragons).

In that case, the problem wasn't the Stun effect, it was entirely due to the substitution of multiple lower-level Solos for appropriately-levelled monsters. Solo monster powers are designed to reduce the party's action economy - multiple Solo monster area-of-effect powers are going to wind up stacking v.s. multiple opponents, so even with relatively low attack modifiers they'll wind up hitting more often than intended because they have more chances to work, as your group discovered.

Solo monsters of a lower level than the party aren't really ideal for encounter design at the best of times; more than one in a single encounter will usually create problems regardless of what powers you give them. Just adding XP totals together doesn't guarantee you'll get an encounter of the difficulty you're going for.

What the DM should have done is restatted the dragons as level-appropriate Elite monsters, and changed their abilities accordingly. That would probably mean removing the area-effect quality of both Frightful Presence and their breath weapons, verisimilitude be damned.

kc0bbq
2009-08-31, 12:56 PM
In that case, the problem wasn't the Stun effect, it was entirely due to the substitution of multiple lower-level Solos for appropriately-levelled monsters. Solo monster powers are designed to reduce the party's action economy - multiple Solo monster area-of-effect powers are going to wind up stacking v.s. multiple opponents, so even with relatively low attack modifiers they'll wind up hitting more often than intended because they have more chances to work, as your group discovered.It seems like what was forgotten was that XP budget is not the only thing to consider when balancing a fight. There are other considerations, like how to use solos or that overlevel soldier types can't be used on most parties easily.

Solos cheat the system, intentionally, because they are generally used one against many. Their abilities are based on that. Their action economy is based on one against a standard party (this includes effects that limit the party's action economy).

Unless your leader types are really, really smart about playing leader types, multiple solos are way out of whack as encounters.

Downgrade the dragons into elites for the fight or modify their abilities to match the kind of scene you want to have play out.

Occasionally, solo action economy breakage hurts the solo. The young behir vs. Flaming Sphere. My party's fighter is built to hit and to take damage, and the Cleric is built to facilitate that. He's a marking machine and it's been a few levels since he's missed with on a AoO to keep something locked down. The behir was out of APs, so he couldn't get away from the fighter who kept it's tail stuck to the flaming sphere. With three turns a round he was getting crushed by the wizard at the cost of a minor action a round.

Kurald Galain
2009-08-31, 01:01 PM
Solos cheat the system, intentionally, because they are generally used one against many. Their abilities are based on that.
In theory, perhaps. In practice, solo fights tend to be rather easy (because of the players' multitude of actions, and because the solo gets whacked with every status effect in the book) and can become quite boring (because once the solo is no longer a threat, you still have to wade through hundreds of HP). So yeah, they break the system, and that doesn't work out too well.

Shadow_Elf
2009-08-31, 03:22 PM
I know in one of our sessions, we stabilized our party Paladin after he dropped below 0, but he was out of healing surges for the day. For the rest of the fight, it came to his turn and the DM said "Okay, your turn... Oh, wait, nevermind." In the end, though, while his character did nothing, the player certainly did stuff, such as advise some of the other PCs on tactical decisions and just generally enjoy the high tension of the battle. It helped raise the mood a bit when my beastmaster Ranged rolled two natural 20's on Synchronized Strike with her Fullblade and her spider's bite. She completely demolished the baddie that knocked out the Paladin.

Antacid
2009-08-31, 03:45 PM
In practice, solo fights tend to be rather easy (because of the players' multitude of actions, and because the solo gets whacked with every status effect in the book) and can become quite boring (because once the solo is no longer a threat, you still have to wade through hundreds of HP). So yeah, they break the system, and that doesn't work out too well.
A DM is supposed to use solos a few levels higher than the party for 'true' boss fights, depending on party skill and optimisation, to balance out this problem. Which is why using multiple lower-level solos, especially solos with AoE attacks like dragons, is the exact opposite of how they're supposed to be used.

Kurald Galain
2009-08-31, 03:53 PM
A DM is supposed to use solos a few levels higher than the party for 'true' boss fights, depending on party skill and optimisation, to balance out this problem.
That strikes me as the exact wrong answer to the problem, actually (it mainly means it has more HP for the party to trudge through). Rather than upleveling the solo, I would recommend a bunch of minions or lesser monsters, to make the combat interesting.

(edit) see this thread (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75854/19397322/Solo_Encounters__GoodBad_for_LFR_mods) for discussion on the matter.