D&D 5E Is this a reasonable ruling re: stunned creatures?

[iserith]

"Narratively" it can explained in any number of ways to either support or rebuke the ruling. That's super easy to do in a game based on make-believe.

What matters is how a particular ruling affected the player's enjoyment. In this case, negatively by the looks of it. So the narrative explanation is completely irrelevant.

 

[Nebulous]

I roll out in the open. SO the players and pc know when the critter is stunned. The critter and his allies know when the monk is stunned. As long is monk is blowing resources to make the strike. I MOSTLY don't care.

We roll almost everything in the open as well. If I cheat behind the scenes it's by fudging numbers the players don't have access to.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't think the player is particularly entitled to know whether an enemy passed their save under any circumstance. They will find out how stunned the creature is when its turn comes around.

This is strange to me. How do you resolve monster saves without the player knowing? Do you not say what the monster rolled on their save for the player to compare to their save DC?

 

[DND_Reborn]

Last night I made a ruling that annoyed one of my players and want to do a reasonableness check.

The monk pc had stunned a monster on his previous turn. On the monk's turn, he hit it and tried to stun it again. It occurred to me that there was no way to tell whether or not it worked- after all, it was already stunned.

Would you consider this a reasonable ruling?

I would consider it reasonable on the fly, but ultimately I would change it for next time.

I understand from the player's POV they need to know in case a later attack hits and if they want to spend the ki to attempt to stun again. For them it is a resource management issue. Ki is limited enough IME and players shouldn't have to be forced to use it again because narratively you feel they would not be aware if they "restunned" the target. There are more than enough ways to narratively justify they would know, after all this is their KI we talking about hear.

Let me ask you this: if a caster casts Charm Monster on a creature which is smart enough to understand what is happening, and it makes the save, but pretended to be charmed, does the caster know the creature is actually charmed? A target with a great Deception check could easily make the caster think it was still charmed, couldn't it?

If casters know if their targets succeed or fail, so should the monk IMO.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I would consider it reasonable on the fly, but ultimately I would change it for next time.

I understand from the player's POV they need to know in case a later attack hits and if they want to spend the ki to attempt to stun again. For them it is a resource management issue. Ki is limited enough IME and players shouldn't have to be forced to use it again because narratively you feel they would not be aware if they "restunned" the target. There are more than enough ways to narratively justify they would know, after all this is their KI we talking about hear.

Let me ask you this: if a caster casts Charm Monster on a creature which is smart enough to understand what is happening, and it makes the save, but pretended to be charmed, does the caster know the creature is actually charmed? A target with a great Deception check could easily make the caster think it was still charmed, couldn't it?

If casters know if their targets succeed or fail, so should the monk IMO.

The charm example is interesting. I probably wouldn't feel comfortable pulling that trick on the players, but let's flip it around. It would be totally awesome if the players did that o the NPC that tried to charm them!

But in the monk example I feel that this is a bad ruling, simply because it seems pretty obvious to me that the ability is designed to be spammable, and this requires knowing it worked, so you should just describe it in a manner that the monk knowing makes sense. Now I can understand how spamming the stun can be annoying, but I don't think this is a good way to address the issue.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I don't think this is a good way to address the issue.

Maybe allow the PC a Wisdom (Perception) check with a low to moderate DC, like 10 or maybe 15, to determine if the stunned creature failed its save and was "restunned"?

 

[cmad1977]

Oof. Bad call.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Maybe allow the PC a Wisdom (Perception) check with a low to moderate DC, like 10 or maybe 15, to determine if the stunned creature failed its save and was "restunned"?

Slows down the game. If you don't want the stun to be spammed, then limit it to once per turn (or once per target per turn) and give the monk some hefty buff in other area to compensate. More ki points, better damage die etc. But ideally these sort of houserules should be established before the character creation.

 

[prabe]

How unreasonable this ruling is really depends on how you handle other similar saves. If you put a marker on or under every monster on the board that fails its save against, e.g., hypnotic pattern, then this is kinda inconsistent and unreasonable. If you only make it obvious that a creature has failed its save when it fails to act (continuing the case of hypnotic pattern) then this is consistent and not particularly unreasonable--though maybe you should have made it clear to the monk's player how things work at your table. In this particular case, since you're not adding a condition, I think you have a better case, but I can see why a player might get miffed.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Slows down the game. If you don't want the stun to be spammed, then limit it to once per turn (or once per target per turn) and give the monk some hefty buff in other area to compensate. More ki points, better damage die etc. But ideally these sort of houserules should be established before the character creation.

Well, the perception check was just an option. A simple house-rule could be if a target fails a save by 5 or more, the caster (or monk) knows the target failed. For me it also things a common as fireball. If the DM tells the caster, "X made his save, Y failed, Z also failed" then the DM should tell the monk if the stun worked or not. If the DM doesn't inform the players about other spells, they shouldn't about stunning either if the target is already stunned.

FWIW, our table already gives monks a bit more ki and better martial arts damage, as well as a couple other nifty features (such as Instant Stand). I can't tell you how this would balance out with the OP's table, obviously.

And though I generally agree such rulings should be talked over during session 0, not every possibility can be addressed. That's why my response to the OP was "I would consider it reasonable on the fly, but ultimately I would change it for next time."