The issue here is that those spells are clearly defined what they do and enemies will be limited in how many times they can use them. Also spellcasters are usually an archetype that is understood to have such powers and are targeted first in most tactical combat games, including DnD. As it stands now, any enemy no matter how mundane looking could whip out some obscure ability or bomb that the player had no way of knowing about and now they get their turn taken away.
There is also an argument of expectations. It is really frustrating for an experienced DnD player to play a DnD video game and have it not work anything close to the tabletop. People in the DnD community have been starved for a proper CRPG based on the DnD ruleset for a long time. Larian has promised this game would be that and so far it is failing to live up to that promise.
My comment was in reply to someone who said "it wasn't fun" to have effects that caused a character to miss a turn. Which, to me, seemed like an odd thing to say considering the type of stuff that has existed since conception in this game we're talking about.
Your comment gets closer at articulating the concern, in my opinion. Just to see if I understood you, what you're saying is:
1. The effects in question should be limited, and
2. They should come from obvious sources, like spellcasters.
It makes me wonder. How limited do you think it should be? Obviously, you don't have an exact number of times it should show up in a game, but you seem to have a gut sense of how often you think it should happen. Have you noticed your own game play being ruined by dozens of instances of your characters not having turns? Are you getting a lot of TPKs? In other words, is there any way to quantify your sense that it's happening too much?
And why should it just come from spellcasters? Is your argument that it lacks verisimilitude otherwise? I could get behind that if the effects didn't make any sense. But if the effect makes reasonable sense, and it makes the weapons more interesting and diverse for a lot of players... then it seems like a good thing. Unless it's making the spellcasters useless? Is it making the spellcasters useless?
You don't need new conditions at all to achieve this.
- An attack to charge
- An attack that makes AOE damages
- An attack that inflict the prone condition
- An attack that inflict the blind condition
- An attack that inflict the stunned condition
- An attack that reduce the ennemy speed by 2
- An attack that gives advantage to an ally engaged with the same ennemy during 1 turn
- And so on....
A rose by any other name....
I agree with Rhobar121's comment about how none of this is complicated.
...a good DM should be very wary about using these types of spells against players.
Oh my goodness, I don't think I could disagree more. This is an issue of personal taste. It's basically a player saying, "I prefer a DM who does it this way." That's certainly fine, but it doesn't speak for all players, and it doesn't define whether a DM is good or bad in a universal sense. From my perspective, these things exist in the game, and I accept that they will be used, both to the players' benefit and detriment, depending.
