Are there size limits on Stunning attacks?

[Dwarmaj]

Just curious if anyone has run into problems with monks stunning Large or Huge creatures.

I have a hard time visualizing a monk stunning a creature larger than itself.

Dwarmaj

 

[graydoom]

I haven't had problems with it, but then again it hasn't come up. If it ever did, I don't think I'd have a problem with it, though... the way I see it, the well-placed blow of the monk would be able to stun any stunnable creature, regardless of size. The monk just makes a well-placed blow imbued with ki energy, or somesuch... and there you go, stunned big guy!

In summary, no, I wouldn't have any problems with it. But if you do, you might want to just give large or larger creatures a bonus to their saving throw instead of making them immune. A bonus progression of +1 for large, +2 for huge, +4 for gargantuan, and +8 for colosal.

 

[Psyduck]

agreed

I haven't had problems with it, but then again it hasn't come up. If it ever did, I don't think I'd have a problem with it, though... the way I see it, the well-placed blow of the monk would be able to stun any stunnable creature, regardless of size. The monk just makes a well-placed blow imbued with ki energy, or somesuch... and there you go, stunned big guy!

In summary, no, I wouldn't have any problems with it. But if you do, you might want to just give large or larger creatures a bonus to their saving throw instead of making them immune. A bonus progression of +1 for large, +2 for huge, +4 for gargantuan, and +8 for colosal.

I agree, up to the point in making the DC harder. A large sized creature's fort save is already hard to overcome. Let's not make it impossible for the monk (or at least a 1 in 20 chance of making it)

 

[Wippit Guud]

Stun only works on humanoids, anyways. I can't think of any huge ones...

 

[graydoom]

Re: agreed

I agree, up to the point in making the DC harder. A large sized creature's fort save is already hard to overcome. Let's not make it impossible for the monk (or at least a 1 in 20 chance of making it)

Personally, I agree on this. I think that stunning attack works fine as it is. But if someone else doesn't, I'll still do my best to help them fix the problem they see in a (semi-)balanced manner. And that was my best suggestion for fixing the problem he saw (stunning attack working vs large+ creatures) with a balanced solution (bonuses to saves) instead of a solution that totally nerfs stunning attack (like total immunity for large+ creatures).

[thought process explanation mode]
Even if I disagree with the basic assumptions (namely, that stunning attack shouldn't work vs large creatures), I still try to do my best to help out. I'll argue strenuously that stunning attack is perfectly fine as it is, but if someone says "Sigh, I just think it shouldn't be as good vs large+ creatures, and don't really want to debate that point" I will say "Sigh, I don't agree with you on that, but here's a way to give you that effect without too much harm done." That's one of the big considerations I make when posting... sometimes, people will ask you to accept some basic assumptions that you may disagree with, and the best thing to do is just accept them and help the person the best you can. Argument on the basic assumptions past a certain point just bogs down the discussion.
[/thought process explanation mode]

 

[graydoom]

Stun only works on humanoids, anyways. I can't think of any huge ones...

Actually, I think it works on most creatures. IIRC, the restrictions on what it can be used on are the same as sneak attack.

From the PHB, page 39
Constructs, oozes, plants, undead, incorporeal creatures, and creatures immune to critical hits cannot be stunned by the monk's stunning attack.

I believe this means that all other types can be stunned by the monk's stunning attack.

 

[Psyduck]

Re: Re: agreed

Personally, I agree on this. I think that stunning attack works fine as it is. But if someone else doesn't, I'll still do my best to help them fix the problem they see in a (semi-)balanced manner. And that was my best suggestion for fixing the problem he saw (stunning attack working vs large+ creatures) with a balanced solution (bonuses to saves) instead of a solution that totally nerfs stunning attack (like total immunity for large+ creatures).

[thought process explanation mode]
Even if I disagree with the basic assumptions (namely, that stunning attack shouldn't work vs large creatures), I still try to do my best to help out. I'll argue strenuously that stunning attack is perfectly fine as it is, but if someone says "Sigh, I just think it shouldn't be as good vs large+ creatures, and don't really want to debate that point" I will say "Sigh, I don't agree with you on that, but here's a way to give you that effect without too much harm done." That's one of the big considerations I make when posting... sometimes, people will ask you to accept some basic assumptions that you may disagree with, and the best thing to do is just accept them and help the person the best you can. Argument on the basic assumptions past a certain point just bogs down the discussion.
[/thought process explanation mode]

Well in that case, I agree with your resolution. Just thought I'd add my 2 cents

 

[Cullain]

I agree, I'm not sure why they shouldn't wok vs. large or huge creatures. But if it's an issue for you, maybe place a bonus/penalty on the DC equal to the creature's size modifier.

I fugure stunning attack is as much the monk channeling his ki as anything else, so I've never had a problem with it as is, however.

Cullain