D&D 5E No Monsters Immune to Stun?

[Dausuul]

Would it be reasonable to say that all/most undead and constructs have immunity to stun as a house rule?

Are there any monks in your party? If so, the answer is a resounding no. Monks are extremely reliant on stun (too much so IMO, but it's how the class is built). Stunning the boss is the monk's opportunity to shine. The rest of the time, they're just mediocre warriors.

If there are no monks, it's probably fine. But in that case I doubt you'd be asking.

Maybe they could be immune to "mundane" stuns but remember that even the monks stunning fist comes from his use and manipulation of chi and that one more level and his unarmed strikes count as magical.

PCs have precisely zero non-magical ways to stun things*, so it certainly wouldn't cause any problems. It also wouldn't do anything.

*If you consider Stunning Strike magical, I assume you feel the same way about the soulknife's Rend Mind.

 

[turnip_farmer]

Are there any monks in your party? If so, the answer is a resounding no. Monks are extremely reliant on stun (too much so IMO, but it's how the class is built). Stunning the boss is the monk's opportunity to shine. The rest of the time, they're just mediocre warriors.

If there are no monks, it's probably fine. But in that case I doubt you'd be asking.


PCs have precisely zero non-magical ways to stun things*, so it certainly wouldn't cause any problems. It also wouldn't do anything.

*If you consider Stunning Strike magical, I assume you feel the same way about the soulknife's Rend Mind.

Monks have one (1) singular ability that stuns. That's it.

If a player whines because one of their abilities doesn't work on a certain specific type of enemy they occasionally face, they would not be welcome at my table.

 

[dave2008]

Whats the deal with stun immunity? I looked through the monster manual and almost no monsters have it. The Helmed Horror (the only construct I saw that had it) and the Revenant both have it, but no other monsters with those types seem to. Also the Demilich gets immunity but not the Lich (the other floating head undead, the flameskull, does not get stun immunity).

What makes those guys so special? Would it be reasonable to say that all/most undead and constructs have immunity to stun as a house rule? Can I pretend it should be errata-ed and call it day? Surely monk's stunning fist doesn't work on nearly every monster! Am I missing something?

Tiamat is immune to the stunned condition, and she can spend a legendary action instead of being stunned!?

 

[turnip_farmer]

Tiamat is immune to the stunned condition, and she can spend a legendary action instead of being stunned!?


View attachment 132277

View attachment 132278

That's not what it says. She can't be stunned, but if a monk does a stunning blow and she fails the save, instead of being stunned she loses one of her legendary actions this round.

 

[dave2008]

I just checked on D&D Beyond (you can filter by condition immunity) and not including swarms, 35 monsters have stun immunity. As @CapnZapp suggests, most of these are post MM. Only the demilich, helmed horror, & revenant have stunned resistance in the MM while there are 9 monsters in MToF with stun immunity

 

[dave2008]

That's not what it says. She can't be stunned, but if a monk does a stunning blow and she fails the save, instead of being stunned she loses one of her legendary actions this round.

Why would Tiamat make a save for an effect she is immune too?

 

[turnip_farmer]

Why would Tiamat make a save for an effect she is immune too?

Because if she fails it she loses a legendary action.

I didn't write the rules, don't ask me to explain why they're written in such a confusing way.

 

[dave2008]

Because if she fails it she loses a legendary action.

I didn't write the rules, don't ask me to explain why they're written in such a confusing way.

But she can't fail a saving throw she doesn't need to take. She is immune to being stunned. It is one of her condition immunities. Just like all her other immunities, you don't roll a save to see if she takes 1/2 fire damage, because she is immune to fire damage.

I personally just think it is a mistake. That is the only way it makes sense to me. I mean, it pretty much negates her stun immunity as written.

 

[auburn2]

I don't see why that should be houseruled and it really nerfs monks. It should be very rare to find an enemy immune to stun. If it is not then Monk should be retooled.

Keep in mind a monk needs to spend a ki point for it, so he is drawing on some spiritual power to stun his enemy, so no reason that should not work on undead or anything else really. At 5th level they can use it a maximum of 5 times a SR total and each time it only stuns the enemy for 1 turn if they fail.

Compare that to a 5th level wizard who can throw out hypnotic pattern and disable half a dozen enemies or more for an entire battle and have a whole bunch more spells to casl.

 

[auburn2]

Because if she fails it she loses a legendary action.

I didn't write the rules, don't ask me to explain why they're written in such a confusing way.

Does she. I have not read her stat block, but most of them say if XXX fails a saving throw XXXr can "choose" to pass instead. Why would she choose to succeed on a save that is not going to have any affect?