Tweet
Given that stunning is only done by mages, and generally at a distance, I had assumed that it increased spell fail rate. But not so. It does wreck monster melee by 25% to both to_hit and damage. But it only reduces spell rate by 1/10, via the one in ten chance for the monster to lose a turn. I'd rather see a 1 in 6 or 7 (roughly 15%) increased chance of spell failure. That makes stunning viable. As it stands, it only helps vs monster groups, as they lose turns at 1 in 10 per monster, while you lose a turn (or get only 50% of normal spell damage) only one in roughly 10 turns (at speed 30). Versus a single monster, this is pretty much a wash. So I rarely use it, despite it being a cool feature. It's better in melee: the player loses 1 turn in 10, but the monster loses up to 50% (or more, if you have very high AC) in damage. Perhaps I should start carrying Raal's as a rogue.
-
-
Update: After this investigation, I did an experiment: Stun monsters and Shield, then melee as a mage. Using Barrukheled, at only 216 damage vs evil, I was able to melee a Great Crystal Drake and a Great Bile Wyrm with essentially zero damage in response. (the GCD didn't breathe, and I have Thorin.) The GCD did 5 total melee points damage. The GBW did 20. This certainly improves the situation enormously; it's much easier than Rune of Protection. However, it still doesn't help against big spellcasters: I am actually doing closer to 100 damage than 200 per turn, because of low hit probability. Taking them in melee simply doesn't help.
Comment