I play on discord and if I'm ever out of commission instead of planning my next move I'll spend my time finding awesome gifs to post related to the combat.
Being circumstantially frustrated is a feature, not a bug.
An interesting assertion. I assume you're about to explain why.
Life can be unfair, and a game that wishes to emulate real life in any capacity needs to include at least the barest hint of unpleasantness.
So, the reason we have these lose-a-turn effects is that we're trying to emulate real life in some capacity. I'm just gonna say it, Memnosyne -- I don't think this is a good premise. But that's fine. I can still argue against you without having to tear this premise limb from limb. Because there are other ways to include at least the barest hint of unpleasantness. This isn't the only option! Arguably it's not even the best option. I'm a fan of having a bad guy steal a magic item from the party, for example.
It isn't on the designers to add bumpers for those who can't handle being told "no".
This sentence, the one you're reading now, is the only acknowledgement I'm going to make of this ad hominem snark.
If a player goes down and gets bored, let them control one or two of the mobs. Give them a die to roll for environmental hazards.
This transforms their role to the exact opposite of what they signed up for, though. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that this isn't ideal.
I'm sure the modules written for young children have suggestions for how to avoid tantrums when the player isn't happy with predictable outcomes. Those could be a good source to borrow from.
And *this* sentence, the one you're reading *now,* is the only acknowledgement I'm going to make of *this* ad hominem attack.
Look: The arguments I'm seeing are as follows. 1: Losing a turn is not that bad, actually. 2: Losing a turn can be made less bad, maybe even good, in various ways without having to remove the mechanics. 3: Removing the mechanics, and leaving everything else as is, seems like it would be disastrous. 4: Removing the mechanics, and adjusting everything else to keep the game working well, would be an unreasonable amount of work.
Is that an accurate summation of the arguments in favor of lose-a-turn effects?
1. The premise is based on the real history of D&D, which consisted of the original developers standing in a field swinging swords at one another. There have obviously been heavy modifications for lore and playability, but the source of the content is built upon a common understanding of how the real world works.
2. Ad homenim is an attack against a person, rather than their argument. My statements weren't targeting you specifically. The conversation revolves around the group of people who are unsatisfied with being prevented from participating in an element of the game. Yes, there was plenty of snark, but both lines you refer to stand on their own. A) It is not the designers responsibility to compromise the integrity of their creation for a dissatisfied minority, and B) One of the major distinctions between standard D&D and TTRPGs designed for youth is this very topic, mitigating negative reactions to otherwise reasonable* consequences.
(In this case, reasonable is being defined as what one might expect to actually experience under normal circumstances. Incapacitation and paralysis are extremely well represented in our world.)
3. You seem to be making the assumption that players inherently view their relationship with the DM as adversarial, rather than as a form of group story telling. There is nothing wrong with playing that way, but that certainly isn't how I play, and that is also a major point of controversy in these forums. Either way, the examples were merely that. If you don't like those, then let the player take over an ally NPC, or change the rules for your table to make your party happy.
Rule 0 for DMs is that the Rulebooks are guides meant to be ignored whenever they interfere with enjoyable gameplay. Houserules are explicitly encouraged.
Being circumstantially frustrated is a feature, not a bug.
An interesting assertion. I assume you're about to explain why.
Life can be unfair, and a game that wishes to emulate real life in any capacity needs to include at least the barest hint of unpleasantness.
So, the reason we have these lose-a-turn effects is that we're trying to emulate real life in some capacity. I'm just gonna say it, Memnosyne -- I don't think this is a good premise. But that's fine. I can still argue against you without having to tear this premise limb from limb. Because there are other ways to include at least the barest hint of unpleasantness. This isn't the only option! Arguably it's not even the best option. I'm a fan of having a bad guy steal a magic item from the party, for example.
It isn't on the designers to add bumpers for those who can't handle being told "no".
This sentence, the one you're reading now, is the only acknowledgement I'm going to make of this ad hominem snark.
If a player goes down and gets bored, let them control one or two of the mobs. Give them a die to roll for environmental hazards.
This transforms their role to the exact opposite of what they signed up for, though. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that this isn't ideal.
I'm sure the modules written for young children have suggestions for how to avoid tantrums when the player isn't happy with predictable outcomes. Those could be a good source to borrow from.
And *this* sentence, the one you're reading *now,* is the only acknowledgement I'm going to make of *this* ad hominem attack.
Look: The arguments I'm seeing are as follows. 1: Losing a turn is not that bad, actually. 2: Losing a turn can be made less bad, maybe even good, in various ways without having to remove the mechanics. 3: Removing the mechanics, and leaving everything else as is, seems like it would be disastrous. 4: Removing the mechanics, and adjusting everything else to keep the game working well, would be an unreasonable amount of work.
Is that an accurate summation of the arguments in favor of lose-a-turn effects?
Removing the chances of losing a turn reduces the frisson of combat. Risk is a great deal of what makes the game fun for many people. For those people, there is very little appeal to your position. I think that is the argument more than any of the points you have listed.
Removing the chances of losing a turn reduces the frisson of combat. Risk is a great deal of what makes the game fun for many people. For those people, there is very little appeal to your position. I think that is the argument more than any of the points you have listed.
I agree, this is basically what it comes down to for me as well. Risk, uncertainty, the chance of unfavorable outcomes means the weight of my, and my party's, decisions is greater. Thus increasing the "frisson" (had to look that one up, nice word to add to my lexicon) of the game.
I'm seeing a lot of answers here with the impression that I want DMs to rewrite lose-a-turn effects to be less frustrating without compromising the danger they pose. That's not the impression I meant to give. There's a new edition generation of D&D in the works, and the developers are taking feedback from us. That has led me to rethink some of the base game mechanics and whether or not they are good for the game. And looking back at my group's experience with these lose-a-turn effects, it's caused a lot of frustration and very few thrills to make up for it. I'm certainly going to bring this up in the next feedback survey, but I wanted to hear some other arguments first.
I'm seeing a lot of answers here with the impression that I want DMs to rewrite lose-a-turn effects to be less frustrating without compromising the danger they pose. That's not the impression I meant to give. There's a new edition generation of D&D in the works, and the developers are taking feedback from us. That has led me to rethink some of the base game mechanics and whether or not they are good for the game. And looking back at my group's experience with these lose-a-turn effects, it's caused a lot of frustration and very few thrills to make up for it. I'm certainly going to bring this up in the next feedback survey, but I wanted to hear some other arguments first.
I think lose a turn effects are good for the game, I just think they're too commonly handed out to monsters. (players are also monsters imo)
These effects should be truly rare(ie powerful/high-level), and lesser versions should be more common. Ones that don't fully incap people. Just, restrict the types of options available. More of these type effects would be a happy medium course, as it allows CC to still be a threat without truly causing a player to sit out the entire session because they failed a save.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I'm seeing a lot of answers here with the impression that I want DMs to rewrite lose-a-turn effects to be less frustrating without compromising the danger they pose. That's not the impression I meant to give. There's a new edition generation of D&D in the works, and the developers are taking feedback from us. That has led me to rethink some of the base game mechanics and whether or not they are good for the game. And looking back at my group's experience with these lose-a-turn effects, it's caused a lot of frustration and very few thrills to make up for it. I'm certainly going to bring this up in the next feedback survey, but I wanted to hear some other arguments first.
To be honest, that is the impression I was getting, or maybe imposing myself. Fair or unfair, criticism without constructive solutions, at least to me often does come across as a blanket rejection of the thing and its associations. I guess I'd also add that the reaction someone has to an event, positive or negative, has at least as much to do with their own outlook as it does to the event itself.
But I take your point that different mechanics that would inject risk and penalty without removing players from the action of the game might be a positive change. Action economy is king and effects that reduce or increase one sides actions are powerful.
I'm seeing a lot of answers here with the impression that I want DMs to rewrite lose-a-turn effects to be less frustrating without compromising the danger they pose. That's not the impression I meant to give.......
This may be less a matter of arguments than preference. Clearly, there are strong feelings going in both directions.
The best course is likely not to modify the core ruleset, but to rather incorporate chapters on alternative playstyles. For example, "Gritty"/"Standard"/"Heroic".
Each would provide general rule changes that would accommodate different priorities. "Heroic" would focus on Champion driven narratives that play more like bardic songs, whereas "Gritty" would focus on world-driven narratives where the character's are likely to struggle, if they manage to survive at all. Anything in between would be up to the table, as usual.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
I don't have any issue with new editions. Broad overhauls are a part of the normal development process, I'm just referring to fiddling with minutia. If OneD&D emphasizes variant rulesets like I proposed above as part of the DMG, that would address the fundamental issues without sacrificing anything.
Rearranging fantasy classes and abilities is notably different from eliminating or changing basic mechanics derived from real interactions.
...that they're modifying the core ruleset. The process is already started and announced. If there is a time for feedback, now is it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
It’s bigger than that. One D&D will usher in the next generation of D&D with new and more comprehensive versions of the core rulebooks that millions of players have enjoyed for the past decade. The rules will be backwards compatible with fifth edition adventures and supplements and offer players and Dungeon Masters new options and opportunities for adventure. The evolution of fifth edition has shown us it’s less important to create new editions of the game and more important to grow and expand the game you love with each new product.
What is changing in One D&D?
There will be many fundamental updates to D&D that we will collect your feedback on. In the upcoming Unearthed Arcana playtest content, you’ll see proposed updates to character backgrounds, races, classes, feats, information presentation, and more. Ultimately, the answer to what will change depends on what we hear from you throughout One D&D playtests.
It'll be interesting to see what actually changes. They are open to user input on the unearthed arcana material, but they are also emphasizing backwards compatability with 5e and growing and expanding existing content, rather than making a new edition.
Input on non-UA playtest material is probably not what they're asking for.
I also think that conditions like paralyzed and stunned need to be changed somewhat. Being able to get auto-crits on someone is insanely powerful, and yet these conditions are not accounted for in CR calculation. Since these abilities don't affect CR calculation, they can be put on low level enemies like chuuls (that can Multiattack with the paralysis effect) which makes the low level enemies much more powerful than their CR shows. If the conditions are not changed in the future, I also hope that WotC makes these conditions much harder to get (especially the paralyzed conditon). That way, low level players won't be facing Low CR creatures that are able to rob the rogue of his turns and kill him (Yes I'm the DM that threw 3 chuuls that the party). Instead, players will be facing those enemies at later levels when they have more spell slots and can more easily save against the condition.
If nothing else, these conditions should be accounted for in CR calculation to make defeating said enemies more rewarding.
I also think that conditions like paralyzed and stunned need to be changed somewhat. Being able to get auto-crits on someone is insanely powerful, and yet these conditions are not accounted for in CR calculation. Since these abilities don't affect CR calculation, they can be put on low level enemies like chuuls (that can Multiattack with the paralysis effect) which makes the low level enemies much more powerful than their CR shows. If the conditions are not changed in the future, I also hope that WotC makes these conditions much harder to get (especially the paralyzed conditon). That way, low level players won't be facing Low CR creatures that are able to rob the rogue of his turns and kill him (Yes I'm the DM that threw 3 chuuls that the party). Instead, players will be facing those enemies at later levels when they have more spell slots and can more easily save against the condition.
If nothing else, these conditions should be accounted for in CR calculation to make defeating said enemies more rewarding.
Ok, I need to clear something up with my DM immediately. Yes, the CR rules fail to tell the DM how paralyzed works. But studying monster stat blocks like the chuul can help grant insight into how such monsters have their CR calculated. My theory is that inflicting paralyzed on a hit effectively turns some of the monster's attacks into crits and gives the monster an effective +2 AC for the purpose of calculating challenge rating. It's stupid that we have to reverse engineer the stat blocks to figure this stuff out. I wish they would just show their work for the math, perhaps in the monster description. Basically, the monsters do factor in the paralyzed condition; the writers just forgot to tell us.
I really think these effects are fine as is. It sucked when it did happen, but it’s part of the game.
What it sounds like is, you agree that it's bad for the game, but it would be too difficult to extract it without causing more damage. A necessary evil, perhaps.
Sorry if I gave that impression. Maybe I should have used better wording. I don’t think it is bad for the game, no more than I think rolling a 1 is bad for the game. It’s sucks to roll a one, but it’s part of the game, and I’m fine with that too. I do t know I would call it a “necessary evil either.
And with a new Edition coming, low CR creatures that have these effects may very well be addressed. But if they are not I will still be happy to play with them in the game. I don’t think that removing lose-a-turn effects is needed, but just like anything else if creatures need to be rebalanced to have the appropriate CR then hopefully they make the changes. We will just have to see what future UA’s bring.
If you are the players in my game, then yes, lose-a-turn is the worse thing in the universe. It causes whinging, complaining, sulking , the works. On the other hand, they do spend looooong times on their turns (5+ minutes is normal, I've seen a few 10+ minute turns). Maybe if they HURRIED THE *** UP and LISTENED THE FIRST TIME and STOPED ASKING STUPID QUESTIONS and ******ING COMMITTED TO SOME ***ING COURSE OF ACTIONARRGGGHHHH!
*deep breath* Ah, sorry, had to get that off my chest.
Seriosuly, as a GM I hate it when one of my monsters doesn't get have a turn (Stunning Strike, I'm looking at you). It must be worse for a player who only controls one character at the table.
Intellectually I know it's part of the game, emotionally it still sucks. Somehow getting a turn while affected by conditions like blindness is better than no turn at all, even when you can't effectively do anything. I guess its a sense of control issue.
While I joked above about the long turns, they does make the issue worse. Missing your turn is sort-of OK if it comes around again in 5 minutes, but not if it's over half an hour later.
My player group banned speed factor initiative solely because it meant sometimes they lost actions (for example, you declare to move to a creature and attack but it goes first and moves away and now you can't do anything). Two players told me they would quit the game over this. Obviously very strong feelings over missing a turn.
Worst case scenario, a DM could house rule a "Force of Will" option which would allow a player to act normally for a turn, regardless of conditions, at the cost of rolling d4-1 and taking that many points of exhaustion. This could be a blanket gamble for any player who wants to do something that defies the basic order of things.
It could also be scaled according to how extreme the request is.
d4-1 could be debilitating, but would leave options.
d6-1 can't kill you, but could pretty well take you out of combat for the rest of the adventuring day.
d8-1 would have a 25% chance of killing the character outright.
d10-1 would have a 40% chance of instant death.
Etc...
Edit: of course, instant death is disruptive it its own way. Even if voluntary.
I feel you. Played a zealot barbarian in my first ever One-shot, testing the game out. Come to the boss fight, and we're facing a dragon rider. The rider got eliminated pretty quickly, the dragon took to the air.
I was stuck on the ground, unable to throw a spear far enough to even hit the damn thing, got the first turn to unleash my breath attack, and the second to try and throw a spear, and then I was completely out of the fight due to a lack of flying capabilities. Absolutely nothing I could do while the monk was riding the dragon and punching it, and the wizard was chasing it on his flying broom.
I'm pretty sure I swore off playing a non magic-using class right then and there. [Not to say I never played a melee char again, but I always found a way to have a backup long-ranged spell for it.] It was frustrating..
Agreed. I can site a recent example for myself, playing as a caster for a game where I've been allowed to recently re-create my character with a brand new set of homebrew spells I wanted to test out. [What they were/did is of little importance, a lot of them are CON saves due to the nature of these spells however, but doesn't apply to this example] so, I start slinging spells, start trying to do 'something' and this creature is just constantly resisting everything I throw at it.. And then the one time it does fail, it uses up it's legendary resistance..
Safe to say, I felt completely useless in that encounter, wasted so many of my resources just to try and get 'something' to work, and it ultimately failed. It opened up some roleplay interaction for my char by the end of it, due to the frustrating nature of the attempts, due to no fault of my own, being completely ignored. That said, my 'successful' attempt is what ultimately did this beast in, as that legendary resistance I burned up allowed our monk to do something in regards to his story to it, and I did do chip damage as well, even if none of the effects I wanted to test out worked. So I wasn't useless, but it sure felt that way and the party could feel the frustration growing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I play on discord and if I'm ever out of commission instead of planning my next move I'll spend my time finding awesome gifs to post related to the combat.
An interesting assertion. I assume you're about to explain why.
So, the reason we have these lose-a-turn effects is that we're trying to emulate real life in some capacity. I'm just gonna say it, Memnosyne -- I don't think this is a good premise. But that's fine. I can still argue against you without having to tear this premise limb from limb. Because there are other ways to include at least the barest hint of unpleasantness. This isn't the only option! Arguably it's not even the best option. I'm a fan of having a bad guy steal a magic item from the party, for example.
This sentence, the one you're reading now, is the only acknowledgement I'm going to make of this ad hominem snark.
This transforms their role to the exact opposite of what they signed up for, though. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest that this isn't ideal.
And *this* sentence, the one you're reading *now,* is the only acknowledgement I'm going to make of *this* ad hominem attack.
Look: The arguments I'm seeing are as follows. 1: Losing a turn is not that bad, actually. 2: Losing a turn can be made less bad, maybe even good, in various ways without having to remove the mechanics. 3: Removing the mechanics, and leaving everything else as is, seems like it would be disastrous. 4: Removing the mechanics, and adjusting everything else to keep the game working well, would be an unreasonable amount of work.
Is that an accurate summation of the arguments in favor of lose-a-turn effects?
1. The premise is based on the real history of D&D, which consisted of the original developers standing in a field swinging swords at one another. There have obviously been heavy modifications for lore and playability, but the source of the content is built upon a common understanding of how the real world works.
2. Ad homenim is an attack against a person, rather than their argument. My statements weren't targeting you specifically. The conversation revolves around the group of people who are unsatisfied with being prevented from participating in an element of the game. Yes, there was plenty of snark, but both lines you refer to stand on their own. A) It is not the designers responsibility to compromise the integrity of their creation for a dissatisfied minority, and B) One of the major distinctions between standard D&D and TTRPGs designed for youth is this very topic, mitigating negative reactions to otherwise reasonable* consequences.
(In this case, reasonable is being defined as what one might expect to actually experience under normal circumstances. Incapacitation and paralysis are extremely well represented in our world.)
3. You seem to be making the assumption that players inherently view their relationship with the DM as adversarial, rather than as a form of group story telling. There is nothing wrong with playing that way, but that certainly isn't how I play, and that is also a major point of controversy in these forums. Either way, the examples were merely that. If you don't like those, then let the player take over an ally NPC, or change the rules for your table to make your party happy.
Rule 0 for DMs is that the Rulebooks are guides meant to be ignored whenever they interfere with enjoyable gameplay. Houserules are explicitly encouraged.
Removing the chances of losing a turn reduces the frisson of combat. Risk is a great deal of what makes the game fun for many people. For those people, there is very little appeal to your position. I think that is the argument more than any of the points you have listed.
I agree, this is basically what it comes down to for me as well. Risk, uncertainty, the chance of unfavorable outcomes means the weight of my, and my party's, decisions is greater. Thus increasing the "frisson" (had to look that one up, nice word to add to my lexicon) of the game.
I'm seeing a lot of answers here with the impression that I want DMs to rewrite lose-a-turn effects to be less frustrating without compromising the danger they pose. That's not the impression I meant to give. There's a new
editiongeneration of D&D in the works, and the developers are taking feedback from us. That has led me to rethink some of the base game mechanics and whether or not they are good for the game. And looking back at my group's experience with these lose-a-turn effects, it's caused a lot of frustration and very few thrills to make up for it. I'm certainly going to bring this up in the next feedback survey, but I wanted to hear some other arguments first.I think lose a turn effects are good for the game, I just think they're too commonly handed out to monsters. (players are also monsters imo)
These effects should be truly rare(ie powerful/high-level), and lesser versions should be more common. Ones that don't fully incap people. Just, restrict the types of options available. More of these type effects would be a happy medium course, as it allows CC to still be a threat without truly causing a player to sit out the entire session because they failed a save.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
To be honest, that is the impression I was getting, or maybe imposing myself. Fair or unfair, criticism without constructive solutions, at least to me often does come across as a blanket rejection of the thing and its associations. I guess I'd also add that the reaction someone has to an event, positive or negative, has at least as much to do with their own outlook as it does to the event itself.
But I take your point that different mechanics that would inject risk and penalty without removing players from the action of the game might be a positive change. Action economy is king and effects that reduce or increase one sides actions are powerful.
This may be less a matter of arguments than preference. Clearly, there are strong feelings going in both directions.
The best course is likely not to modify the core ruleset, but to rather incorporate chapters on alternative playstyles. For example, "Gritty"/"Standard"/"Heroic".
Each would provide general rule changes that would accommodate different priorities. "Heroic" would focus on Champion driven narratives that play more like bardic songs, whereas "Gritty" would focus on world-driven narratives where the character's are likely to struggle, if they manage to survive at all. Anything in between would be up to the table, as usual.
I have some unfortunate news for you. https://www.dndbeyond.com/one-dnd
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
Is there a mission statement that I'm missing?
I don't have any issue with new editions. Broad overhauls are a part of the normal development process, I'm just referring to fiddling with minutia. If OneD&D emphasizes variant rulesets like I proposed above as part of the DMG, that would address the fundamental issues without sacrificing anything.
Rearranging fantasy classes and abilities is notably different from eliminating or changing basic mechanics derived from real interactions.
...that they're modifying the core ruleset. The process is already started and announced. If there is a time for feedback, now is it.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
It'll be interesting to see what actually changes. They are open to user input on the unearthed arcana material, but they are also emphasizing backwards compatability with 5e and growing and expanding existing content, rather than making a new edition.
Input on non-UA playtest material is probably not what they're asking for.
I also think that conditions like paralyzed and stunned need to be changed somewhat. Being able to get auto-crits on someone is insanely powerful, and yet these conditions are not accounted for in CR calculation. Since these abilities don't affect CR calculation, they can be put on low level enemies like chuuls (that can Multiattack with the paralysis effect) which makes the low level enemies much more powerful than their CR shows. If the conditions are not changed in the future, I also hope that WotC makes these conditions much harder to get (especially the paralyzed conditon). That way, low level players won't be facing Low CR creatures that are able to rob the rogue of his turns and kill him (Yes I'm the DM that threw 3 chuuls that the party). Instead, players will be facing those enemies at later levels when they have more spell slots and can more easily save against the condition.
If nothing else, these conditions should be accounted for in CR calculation to make defeating said enemies more rewarding.
Ok, I need to clear something up with my DM immediately. Yes, the CR rules fail to tell the DM how paralyzed works. But studying monster stat blocks like the chuul can help grant insight into how such monsters have their CR calculated. My theory is that inflicting paralyzed on a hit effectively turns some of the monster's attacks into crits and gives the monster an effective +2 AC for the purpose of calculating challenge rating. It's stupid that we have to reverse engineer the stat blocks to figure this stuff out. I wish they would just show their work for the math, perhaps in the monster description. Basically, the monsters do factor in the paralyzed condition; the writers just forgot to tell us.
Sorry if I gave that impression. Maybe I should have used better wording. I don’t think it is bad for the game, no more than I think rolling a 1 is bad for the game. It’s sucks to roll a one, but it’s part of the game, and I’m fine with that too. I do t know I would call it a “necessary evil either.
And with a new Edition coming, low CR creatures that have these effects may very well be addressed. But if they are not I will still be happy to play with them in the game. I don’t think that removing lose-a-turn effects is needed, but just like anything else if creatures need to be rebalanced to have the appropriate CR then hopefully they make the changes. We will just have to see what future UA’s bring.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
If you are the players in my game, then yes, lose-a-turn is the worse thing in the universe. It causes whinging, complaining, sulking , the works. On the other hand, they do spend looooong times on their turns (5+ minutes is normal, I've seen a few 10+ minute turns). Maybe if they HURRIED THE *** UP and LISTENED THE FIRST TIME and STOPED ASKING STUPID QUESTIONS and ******ING COMMITTED TO SOME ***ING COURSE OF ACTIONARRGGGHHHH!
*deep breath* Ah, sorry, had to get that off my chest.
Seriosuly, as a GM I hate it when one of my monsters doesn't get have a turn (Stunning Strike, I'm looking at you). It must be worse for a player who only controls one character at the table.
Intellectually I know it's part of the game, emotionally it still sucks. Somehow getting a turn while affected by conditions like blindness is better than no turn at all, even when you can't effectively do anything. I guess its a sense of control issue.
While I joked above about the long turns, they does make the issue worse. Missing your turn is sort-of OK if it comes around again in 5 minutes, but not if it's over half an hour later.
My player group banned speed factor initiative solely because it meant sometimes they lost actions (for example, you declare to move to a creature and attack but it goes first and moves away and now you can't do anything). Two players told me they would quit the game over this. Obviously very strong feelings over missing a turn.
Worst case scenario, a DM could house rule a "Force of Will" option which would allow a player to act normally for a turn, regardless of conditions, at the cost of rolling d4-1 and taking that many points of exhaustion. This could be a blanket gamble for any player who wants to do something that defies the basic order of things.
It could also be scaled according to how extreme the request is.
d4-1 could be debilitating, but would leave options.
d6-1 can't kill you, but could pretty well take you out of combat for the rest of the adventuring day.
d8-1 would have a 25% chance of killing the character outright.
d10-1 would have a 40% chance of instant death.
Etc...
Edit: of course, instant death is disruptive it its own way. Even if voluntary.
I feel you. Played a zealot barbarian in my first ever One-shot, testing the game out. Come to the boss fight, and we're facing a dragon rider. The rider got eliminated pretty quickly, the dragon took to the air.
I was stuck on the ground, unable to throw a spear far enough to even hit the damn thing, got the first turn to unleash my breath attack, and the second to try and throw a spear, and then I was completely out of the fight due to a lack of flying capabilities. Absolutely nothing I could do while the monk was riding the dragon and punching it, and the wizard was chasing it on his flying broom.
I'm pretty sure I swore off playing a non magic-using class right then and there. [Not to say I never played a melee char again, but I always found a way to have a backup long-ranged spell for it.] It was frustrating..
Agreed. I can site a recent example for myself, playing as a caster for a game where I've been allowed to recently re-create my character with a brand new set of homebrew spells I wanted to test out. [What they were/did is of little importance, a lot of them are CON saves due to the nature of these spells however, but doesn't apply to this example] so, I start slinging spells, start trying to do 'something' and this creature is just constantly resisting everything I throw at it.. And then the one time it does fail, it uses up it's legendary resistance..
Safe to say, I felt completely useless in that encounter, wasted so many of my resources just to try and get 'something' to work, and it ultimately failed. It opened up some roleplay interaction for my char by the end of it, due to the frustrating nature of the attempts, due to no fault of my own, being completely ignored. That said, my 'successful' attempt is what ultimately did this beast in, as that legendary resistance I burned up allowed our monk to do something in regards to his story to it, and I did do chip damage as well, even if none of the effects I wanted to test out worked. So I wasn't useless, but it sure felt that way and the party could feel the frustration growing.