NitesShade
Villager
I agree having fun is the first priority. Also, I do feel my PC is greatly diminished by the modification. Hence we are revisiting. Also, I like your suggestion.
D&D 5E Impact of size on Monk's Stunning Blow ability
I agree having fun is the first priority. Also, I do feel my PC is greatly diminished by the modification. Hence we are revisiting. Also, I like your suggestion.
If anything, the lore of stunning blow in 5ewould say that stunning blow would be easier for a smaller creature. The larger target would have larger or more lines of ki to hit.
If you really wanted to do size based penalties, the monk would have a penalty to the attack but the wolf would have a penalty to their save.
If you really wanted to do size based penalties, the monk would have a penalty to the attack but the wolf would have a penalty to their save.
Cap'n Kobold
Hero
Like others, I think that you did the right thing by not disrupting the game with a discussion mid-flow.
However, I do not think that this is a good rule: I do not think that it is required for balance, and I do not think that it makes sense thematically.
Monks are not Bruce Lee or similar. Monks are magic. The damage a monk's kick does has nothing to do with the force behind it, and a Monk's stunning strike isn't required to hit the opponent's jaw. Their opponent isn't even required to have a jaw since the ability is called out as messing with the flow of ki. - Hence why it works on undead, slimes etc.
The stunning strike has a lesser chance of working on a large creature because they tend to also have higher constitution. Actual penalties are unnecessary.
However, I do not think that this is a good rule: I do not think that it is required for balance, and I do not think that it makes sense thematically.
Monks are not Bruce Lee or similar. Monks are magic. The damage a monk's kick does has nothing to do with the force behind it, and a Monk's stunning strike isn't required to hit the opponent's jaw. Their opponent isn't even required to have a jaw since the ability is called out as messing with the flow of ki. - Hence why it works on undead, slimes etc.
The stunning strike has a lesser chance of working on a large creature because they tend to also have higher constitution. Actual penalties are unnecessary.
While I am in other cases (e.g. halflings with greatswords) a fan of some realism when it comes to physics, although the game is in no way an accurate simulation, in this case there is a perfectly simple explanation (also applicable IRL) why your Halfling monk is totally able to stun the wolf:
The monk does not stun the wolf by the sheer power of the blow, but because he is able to hit certain anatomic "Chakra" points aka nerve knots with precision, which causes the stun.
So this ruling is not great, tell your DM to read a bit about Shaolin and their astounding capabilities to get an idea.
LordEntrails
Hero
I agree with others. It was important to keep the game flowing, but the ruling was a mistake.
Previous editions had a lot of these types of size restrictions, one size larger/smaller and all that. But 5E doesn't and I agree. Adding ability restrictions based on size is not necessary, and goes against the intention of how such things should work in 5E.
Previous editions had a lot of these types of size restrictions, one size larger/smaller and all that. But 5E doesn't and I agree. Adding ability restrictions based on size is not necessary, and goes against the intention of how such things should work in 5E.
I believe the correct term is supernatural.
AkaKageWarrior
Explorer
It's a fantasy game, so is the "pressure point" stuff... (I've experienced that myself in sparring, with some kind of black belt - it was ridiculous!)
This size limit does NOT make sense and limits the monk's ability too much.
This size limit does NOT make sense and limits the monk's ability too much.
