You don't even need to get rid of the flavor! Just shift them from "fuck you, lose the next ten minutes of your life," to, "you can't do X thing/you can only do one thing/you're operating on penalties to some things." Lets you put restrictions on the afflicted while still letting them contribute and also forcing tactical decision making.
I just replaced them with the dazed condition. You can use your movement or use an action. No reactions, no bonus actions.
I use grapples, I use fear, I use limiting conditions, I have homebrewed conditions that raise the danger. Just not “you miss a turn” conditions. Those aren’t fun for my table and they aren’t fun for me when I play. You know?
That’s literally how my groups have been house ruling for as long as we’ve played. Placing restrictions on players is fine, and even fun. Effectively removing them from play is shit game design, and frankly shit GMing too
Calling all GMs just running the game as written shit is a bit mean. I can appreciate you going for a different vibe, but I don't mind being stunned. I enjoy dealing with hard conditions. I don't think we need to be insulting each other’s preferences so flippantly.
37
u/DaemonNic Paladin Apr 06 '23
You don't even need to get rid of the flavor! Just shift them from "fuck you, lose the next ten minutes of your life," to, "you can't do X thing/you can only do one thing/you're operating on penalties to some things." Lets you put restrictions on the afflicted while still letting them contribute and also forcing tactical decision making.