(3.5) Sudden Stunning [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Azernak0

2010-02-20, 06:21 PM

There is a weapon enhancement from DMG II that seems to be too powerful. For 2,000 gold, so it's not even an enhancement plus, you can add an effect to your weapon that every time you hit someone you can use a Swift Action to force them to make a DC 10 + 1/2 Character level + Charisma modifier or be stunned for 1d4+1 rounds. This means that a Paladin with a positive charisma modifier or any Fighter with a charisma enhancement can potentially insta kill a dragon. Attack, botched saved, CDG’s all around. Is it just me or is this weapon enhancement bogusly too powerful?

Tanaric

2010-02-20, 06:24 PM

Stunning, while powerful, doesn't render an opponent helpless. You're thinking of paralyzed.

Melee should be able to have nice things, by the way.

The Glyphstone

2010-02-20, 06:26 PM

It's also Cha/day uses.

Grumman

2010-02-20, 06:29 PM

Stunning makes you vulnerable to sneak attacks, but not CdGs.

The_Snark

2010-02-20, 06:30 PM

Firstly, the enhancement was reprinted/errata'ed in the Magic Item Compenium as the Stunning Surge enhancement; it reduces the stun time to 1 round and makes it a +1 enhancement rather than giving it a flat cost.

Second, stunning (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#stunned) isn't quite as powerful as you think; a stunned creature isn't helpless, and can't be coup de graced. It is still pretty bad, and most lone monsters won't survive 1d4+1 rounds of uninterrupted attacks from the entire party... but a lone monster that was intended to be a challenge should have an excellent shot at passing that Fortitude save. Generally, the save DC on the stunning ability is going to be a lot lower than the save on, say, the wizard's Finger of Death or Baleful Polymorph.

The DMG2 version is still a bit too good, but mostly because of the low cost. The ability is nice, but not unbalanced.

ericgrau

2010-02-20, 07:06 PM

But they lose their turn and can be sneak attacked. That's still a bit much. The attacker merely loses a d6 of damage to attempt it; his own actions aren't otherwise hampered and any class can pick up this weapon without any drawback to their existing class features. This ability seems like it could break action economy pretty bad.

Melee should be able to have nice things, by the way.

Non-melee breaking the game is no excuse to break it more. It's a reason for gaming groups to play in a reasonable fashion without trying to break the game. And most groups I hear about and have been in don't have this problem for whatever reason. Maybe they're not spending all their time thinking of ways to break the game.

Demons_eye

2010-02-20, 07:09 PM

And drop things held such as weapons, spell components, or dangerous items.

Starbuck_II

2010-02-20, 07:10 PM

But they lose their turn and can be sneak attacked. That's still a bit much.

Non-melee breaking the game is no excuse to break it more. It's a reason for gaming groups to play in a reasonable fashion without trying to break the game. And most groups I hear about and have been in don't have this problem for whatever reason. Maybe they're not spending all their time thinking of ways to break the game.

It has a low save unless you really pump Cha.

ericgrau

2010-02-20, 07:11 PM

It scales as fast as a good save. More importantly, it doesn't take an attack. Even casters require a standard action. Giving that and as a swift action would be wtfbroken.

The Glyphstone

2010-02-20, 07:13 PM

It has a low save unless you really pump Cha.

Not that low, compared to a spell DC. At, say, level 10, it's a DC of 15+Cha. That'd be the same DC for a 5th level spell for a sorcerer (15+Int for a wizard). The spell DC can be augmented with Spell Focus, but aside from that they're equal - so if you're a melee class with a reason to pump Cha (Paladin, Battle Bard), you're no worse off than the caster.

Tanaric

2010-02-20, 07:15 PM

Non-melee breaking the game is no excuse to break it more. It's a reason for gaming groups to play in a reasonable fashion without trying to break the game. And most groups I hear about and have been in don't have this problem for whatever reason. Maybe they're not spending all their time thinking of ways to break the game.

We'll be generous and give Hypothetical Fighter #1 16 Charisma. That's +3 to the save. We'll say he's level 10. I'll leave you to decide what CR 10 encounters are actually at serious risk from a Stunning Surge weapon.

If something fails a DC 18 fort save, it's stunned for one round. This ability can be used once per round, up to four times per day. The horror! The sheer, game-breaking horror!

Nice things and broken games are not the same.

ericgrau

2010-02-20, 07:17 PM

That's pretty lousy optimization. It is expected to make your abilities work together as the most basic level of character building. A fighter doesn't pick up this weapon. A paladin does.

Tanaric

2010-02-20, 07:19 PM

Ah, borderline insults, what would we do without you?

You just got done saying your group doesn't try to break the game. Neither do I.

Personally, I'd stick it on a Snowflake Wardance Bard if I actually wanted the ability to work right now.

We'll say that Hypothetical Bard #1 has a +6 Charisma bonus at level 10. On a successful melee attack, he can force something to make a DC 21 fort save or be stunned for one round.

Better, yes. Game-breaking?

Even if you don't include obviously broken spells, just about any caster can do the same thing at range, and earlier, without an attack vs full AC.

Starbuck_II

2010-02-20, 07:19 PM

ericgrau

2010-02-20, 07:23 PM

Getting abilities that work well with your high stat is not trying to break the game. It's basic character building. A weapon that is only OP when you don't gimp yourself to avoid it is still OP.

arguskos

2010-02-20, 07:24 PM

Yeah, but then you get DMs ragging on Pally: that is'nt honorable. Some DMs will do that.
Heck on the Pathfinder forums: 1/2 of the posters on a pally thread said pally can't attack bandits planning an ambush without first announcing himself.
And we all know how useful THAT forum is. :smallsigh:

As for the concept of basic character optimization, it's fair to assume that if you have a Cha of 9, you are not going to get a special ability that keys off Cha, cause that's a waste of your time. Now, a melee character that has Cha as a relevant stat (say, a Hexblade or Paladin of Tyranny or something) would dearly love this enhancement. Is it broken? No. Is it perhaps a bit too good in the DMG2 rendition for the given cost? I would judge it to be so, yes, but thankfully, the MiC fixed the issue for us. Your mileage may vary.

Tanaric

2010-02-20, 07:26 PM

It's... it's like talking to a brick wall. :smallconfused:

Even assuming that you have a huge modifier for it, the save is still only on par with any other, and twice or more times as difficult to force in the first place, compared to any save-or-stun/paralyze spell.

Witness Hold Person. Which lasts more than one round. And is free. And paralyzes, instead of Stunning.

Unless HP is overpowered.

ericgrau

2010-02-20, 07:28 PM

Yeah... ditto. It's almost as if I have a habit of not saying the same thing twice and ignoring anything contrary to this habit, as it makes for a circular discussion. Or avoiding pointless discussion in general.

And we all know how useful THAT forum is. :smallsigh:

As for the concept of basic character optimization, it's fair to assume that if you have a Cha of 9, you are not going to get a special ability that keys off Cha, cause that's a waste of your time. Now, a melee character that has Cha as a relevant stat (say, a Hexblade or Paladin of Tyranny or something) would dearly love this enhancement. Is it broken? No. Is it perhaps a bit too good in the DMG2 rendition for the given cost? I would judge it to be so, yes, but thankfully, the MiC fixed the issue for us. Your mileage may vary.

Yeah, I'm gonna rescind saying that it's game breaking and just say that it's a wee bit powerful. Only in the sense that haste would be game breaking compared to a system that didn't have it. Really, it's dumb for most melee to not have some kind of haste, but that's expected so it's ok. Stunning is a mechanic that is already obtainable, so allowing it through an item with reasonable cost is ok. The only issue is now what is "reasonable cost". I think +1 is a bit cheap for such a major ability that normally takes a dip or a feat and another +1 enchantment. How about +2?

Amphetryon

2010-02-20, 07:41 PM

Stunning is a reasonably decent enhancement. The fact that it's almost the exclusive province of Crusaders, Hexblades, and Paladins should indicate that it's got a ways to go before being 'overpowered'; before you add 'what about DMM Persist-zilla', realize that those are almost certainly not reliant on the stunning enhancement to continue to do their jobs at a level consistent with the rest of the party's expectations.

One could also point out that stunning is relatively easily overcome by the Quick Recovery feat.

Temotei

2010-02-20, 07:43 PM

I don't think it's overpowered in MIC. The DMG II version is somewhat unbalanced, but it's not game-breaking.

Tackyhillbillu

2010-02-20, 07:49 PM

It scales as fast as a good save. More importantly, it doesn't take an attack. Even casters require a standard action. Giving that and as a swift action would be wtfbroken.

This? This isn't even close to true.

Just saying. Caster's can end the game with a Swift Action. Actually, there are a couple of threads showing that the ability to trade a Standard Action for a Swift would quickly end in catastrophe.

lsfreak

2010-02-20, 07:50 PM

Firstly, it's not even +1. It's 2000gp.

Secondly, where does it say that the MIC stunning surge is a replacement of sudden stunning? They are similar, but the MIC one is a Fort save, 1 round, limited to one creature per day, and is a +1 price. The DMG2 version is a Will save, 1d4+1 rounds, can target any number of creatures, and is 2000gp. However, as far as I can find, one is not the replacement of another.

Tanaric

2010-02-20, 07:51 PM

You know, I missed that part. He seems to have glossed over the opening line of the Stunning Surge property. Namely,
On a successful melee attack, you can command this weapon to emit a surge of magical energy.

So, yeah. *shrug*

Edit: There's a sidebar near the ToC in the MIC. It mentions that they changed stuff. Read it, love it, hate it, whatever. Though a lawyer-minded person could try to argue that they're not the same, it wouldn't get very far with any DM I know.

Though looking at the MIC again, it looks like the normal Stunning was updated to a flat DC 17 fort save on a crit.

Stunning Surge is the variable, 1+cha mod times per day, swift activation.

Edit: Rubbed my eyes and corrected some stuff. :smallredface:

lsfreak

2010-02-20, 07:59 PM

Though looking at the MIC again, it looks like the normal Stunning was updated to a flat DC 17 fort save on a crit.

Stunning Surge is the variable, 1+cha mod times per day, swift activation.

Right, and that's all well and good. But there's still nothing that says sudden stunning is to be replaced by stunning surge. Different names, different effects, different prices, with zero mention of replacement. The items that were updated all had the same name, as far as I'm aware, and are this clearly 'the same item, but updated.' Sudden stunning/stunning surge is different.

Starbuck_II

2010-02-20, 08:02 PM

Wait, the DMG 2 was a Will save? I thought that was a Fort save! Yes, that is more powerful.

Tanaric

2010-02-20, 08:03 PM

I was referring to Stunning being a replacement for Sudden Stunning, not Stunning Surge.

I don't know anyone who would get far with the argument that they're different things. For the purpose of this discussion though, let's say they are.

Sudden Stunning is obviously more powerful than Stunning Surge. With the duration of the stun and the low price, it's toeing the line of being overpowered. I, personally, would direct people to Stunning Surge to avoid sharp corners meeting soft flesh.

Demons_eye

2010-02-20, 08:07 PM

Sudden Stunning is obviously more powerful than Stunning Surge. With the duration of the stun and the low price, it's toeing the line of being overpowered. I, personally, would direct people to Stunning Surge to avoid sharp corners meeting soft flesh.

Why no have both?

Tanaric

2010-02-20, 08:12 PM

Because that would be wrong and offends my morals on multiple levels.

Plus, you can't activate them both with the same swift action.

Doubleplus, my point was that people should use Stunning Surge instead of Sudden Stunning, semantics about it not really being updated aside.

Azernak0

2010-02-20, 08:17 PM

I understand (now at least) that Stun is not as nasty as Paralysis but consider that it is only a +2,000 gp effect and most non-caster classes have no way of even using Swift Actions so it costs them nothing.

Imagine a level 4 Hexblade / 3 Paladin of Tyranny Cohort with a +1 Sudden Stunning Longsword. With gear, he's at a +6 for Charisma so the DC is only 19. However, the henchman has Aura of Sadness (from Bind and Improved Bind Vestige), Aura of Despair (from PoT), and Dark Companion (ACF from PH2). The build gives enemies around him a -6 on their save so it is basically a DC 25 for be stunned for 1d4+1 Rounds. An Adult Black Dragon fails the save on a 13 or less.

Obviously the above build is going to be the henchman of a Sorcerer who is going to throw out Save or Loses. I am aware that the negative to saves are going to be a bigger boon to the Sorcerer but that isn't really the point. For 2,000 gold, it is possible to utterly screw over something that can not make a Reflex Save. Melee are supposed to, and definitely should, have nice things too. However, the cost to power ratio on this bonus seems to be a little out of whack. If the MIC version isn't nearly as powerful because most things can make Fortitude Saves, the Stun only lasts 1 round, and it isn't a flat cost than it is probably powerful but balanced.

Tanaric

2010-02-20, 08:28 PM

I understand (now at least) that Stun is not as nasty as Paralysis but consider that it is only a +2,000 gp effect and most non-caster classes have no way of even using Swift Actions so it costs them nothing.

I'm operating on the assumption that you use the (in my mind) updated version, Stunning Surge, from the MIC. That is a +1, not +2000gp.

If you insist on using Sudden Stunning, then yes, the results are going to be significantly more potent.

Also, a good many melee classes have things to do with their swift actions. Activating a Stunning Surge weapon certainly isn't a waste of one, though.

Imagine a level 4 Hexblade / 3 Paladin of Tyranny Cohort with a +1 Sudden Stunning Longsword. With gear, he's at a +6 for Charisma so the DC is only 19. However, the henchman has Aura of Sadness (from Bind and Improved Bind Vestige), Aura of Despair (from PoT), and Dark Companion (ACF from PH2). The build gives enemies around him a -6 on their save so it is basically a DC 25 for be stunned for 1d4+1 Rounds. An Adult Black Dragon fails the save on a 13 or less.

Without getting into the whole "Ohmigod you took Leadership? You're horrible!" deal, how, exactly, does save penalty stacking help a Sudden Stunning weapon any more than another save?

Yes, it works. Yes, it's a potent combination. But you're combining the borderline broken version with a very specific example of save-reducing abilities, which is where you cross the line of general use into specific optimization.

Just about anything can be made overpowered with the right combination of classes and feats. And that's not saying anything about Leadership.

Azernak0

2010-02-20, 08:45 PM

The stacking penalty was never meant to be a "Holy Cthulu! Look at what it does in the hands of a Debuff Specialist!" I was just showing that a fairly basic character design could take it and put it to great use.

My whole premise was about the DMG II version. If MIC version was meant to be an update, which it probably was considering it has the exact same description, then that's all well and good because it is significantly less powerful. I did not know of the MIC one until I looked at it just now. However, I am still not referring to the MIC version. I was wondering what everyone else thought about the DMG II version.

So far, it seems like the consensus is that the DMG II version is too powerful.

Sinfire Titan

2010-02-20, 08:47 PM

Wait, the DMG 2 was a Will save? I thought that was a Fort save! Yes, that is more powerful.

Will saves are the second-best save though.

If it proves to be a problem, throw a Construct or Undead or Divine caster at the player for two or three sessions. There's so many ways to become immune to Stunning it may as well not exist.

Tanaric

2010-02-20, 08:48 PM

It depends on your group, really. It wouldn't be at all out of place in a group of semi-optimized wizards/clerics/druids, for instance.

If, however, your party consists of a Fighter, a Monk, and a heal-bot Cleric, it's going to raise eyebrows.

Essentially, it boils down to the usual warning about certain stuff working properly with different groups.

For general purpose, I'd advise using Stunning Surge over Sudden Stunning. If your meleers are contending with God-wizard and his sidekick, Clericzilla though, by all means give them the Sudden Stunning.

Azernak0

2010-02-20, 08:52 PM

Will saves are the second-best save though.

The Save is Reflex though, which is generally only the third best. :smallwink:

lsfreak

2010-02-20, 08:55 PM

The Save is Reflex though, which is generally only the third best. :smallwink:

Yea, that's my fault. I meant to write Reflex back when I was describing the differences between the versions, but for some reason wrote Will.

Sinfire Titan

2010-02-20, 09:01 PM

WAT...

Will I can understand, and Fort is blatant, but Ref? How did that happen?

Tanaric

2010-02-20, 09:03 PM

Maybe they were watching too much Naruto when they came up with it. :smallwink:

If you don't know what I'm talking about, that's probably for the best.

Azernak0

2010-02-20, 09:05 PM

WAT...

Will I can understand, and Fort is blatant, but Ref? How did that happen?

Well, you need to dodge the lightning bolt that comes out of the sword like a laser?

Yeah, I'm not even going to try to defend that one... :smallsigh:

Sinfire Titan

2010-02-20, 09:06 PM

Maybe they were watching too much Naruto when they came up with it. :smallwink:

If you don't know what I'm talking about, that's probably for the best.

If I wanted to watch 100 episodes of filler, I'd watch Inuyasha.

Akal Saris

2010-02-20, 09:53 PM

For a veery small bit of playtest info, I've gotten the DMG II version of the enchantment on two of my characters, both bards.

Char 1: ECL 10 game, Human Bard 6/Talon of Tiamat 4/Half-Fire Elemental (LA +4, house-ruled to free).
Used: twice in 3 combats so far. Both times the opponent made his save, even with my ridiculous Cha of 26 or so. So instead of stunning the opponent, I instead hit him for 2d6-1. Yippee.

Char 2: Half-Drow Bard 8.
Used: Never, the game ended too soon. But it was her only threatening melee option here as well, and she's got it on her bladed gauntlets, so she can still wield a whip and stun opponents on an AOO, which would have been quite nice.

Overall, I'd say the DMG II version is a bargain and is a choice pick for a Cha-heavy build - if I were to price it where it belongs, I'd guess as either a +1 or a 10,000 gold enchantment.

The MIC version isn't really as good (because it's a fort save, and only 1 round, though you get 1 more use), and I probably wouldn't bother purchasing it even for a Cha-heavy character. I do believe that the MIC version is meant to supercede the DMG II version, given that the flavor text and purpose are the same (though RAW it does not actually supercede it)

Roderick_BR

2010-02-20, 10:37 PM

A stunning ability? Like the monk's one? Well, if it does last for more than 1 round, then yes, it could be useful.

Tackyhillbillu

2010-02-21, 12:28 AM

If I wanted to watch 100 episodes of filler, I'd watch Inuyasha.

I liked that show better when it was called Yu Yu Hakusho. And I liked that show better when it was called Dragon Ball Z!

(If you don't know what am I talking about... well, that is alright.)

Xenogears

2010-02-21, 12:30 AM

I liked that show better when it was called Yu Yu Hakusho. And I liked that show better when it was called Dragon Ball Z!

(If you don't know what am I talking about... well, that is alright.)

I thought Yu Yu Hakusho was better than DBZ personally....

OT adding Vow of Nonviolence (or was it Vow of Peace?) to get another +4 to the DC makes it much harder to resist. Course then your an Exalted character..

Tackyhillbillu

2010-02-21, 05:11 AM

I thought Yu Yu Hakusho was better than DBZ personally....

OT adding Vow of Nonviolence (or was it Vow of Peace?) to get another +4 to the DC makes it much harder to resist. Course then your an Exalted character..

Swing and a miss.

Azernak0

2010-02-21, 07:53 AM

A stunning ability? Like the monk's one? Well, if it does last for more than 1 round, then yes, it could be useful.

Well, think of it like this:

For 2,000 gold you can emulate one of the signature moves of another class. And do it better.

Tackyhillbillu

2010-02-21, 08:22 AM

Well, think of it like this:

For 2,000 gold you can emulate one of the signature moves of another class. And do it better.

What, the Unarmed Swordsage? I can't remember any signature moves.

Darrin

2010-02-21, 08:45 AM

Plus, you can't activate them both with the same swift action.

Synad might be able to do that. Or RKV.

What, the Unarmed Swordsage? I can't remember any signature moves.

Make the Monk Cry (Ex).

Akal Saris

2010-02-21, 12:45 PM

Well, think of it like this:

For 2,000 gold you can emulate one of the signature moves of another class. And do it better.

Well, for the price of a monk's belt you can imitate the other 2 signature moves of that same class, so that's not so surprising in of itself.

tyckspoon

2010-02-21, 01:01 PM

The MIC version isn't really as good (because it's a fort save, and only 1 round, though you get 1 more use), and I probably wouldn't bother purchasing it even for a Cha-heavy character. I do believe that the MIC version is meant to supercede the DMG II version, given that the flavor text and purpose are the same (though RAW it does not actually supercede it)

If the names are the same than the MIC version is an official update. They mention as much somewhere in the intro texts. Did the same thing to the Parrying and Collision properties, among others.