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

[jmartkdr2]

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.

Most people I play with would totally go along with it if I asked what their insight modifier was before telling them "he seems to be charmed." Players are just as capable of choosing not to metagame as dms are.

 

[jgsugden]

PCs are the heroes. While I might allow a tricky and savvy NPC to fake being stunned, I would always tell the PC if the enemy appears to have been subjected to a spell or ability for a second time. It is the most heroic option.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Most people I play with would totally go along with it if I asked what their insight modifier was before telling them "he seems to be charmed." Players are just as capable of choosing not to metagame as dms are.

Sorry, but I am not following your point at all...

 

[Guest 6801328]

Ever watch boxing? You can tell when a boxer is stunned from a punch and if a subsequent punch does it again. So I don't consider your ruling reasonable. Everyone wants to see that they are being effective in combat so you're also taking away part of the fun of being a monk.

I'm not sure I could possibly care less about what happens in real life boxing.

But I do agree that the OP is taking away part of the fun of being a monk, for no upside.

 

[Mort]

I think the monk should be able to tell whether the target is "re-stunned."

1. The monk should be trained to know the signs without even a roll (for his own stun certainly);
2. Monks have it hard enough as it is and this nerfs the ability for no real reason.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Ever watch boxing? You can tell when a boxer is stunned from a punch and if a subsequent punch does it again. So I don't consider your ruling reasonable. Everyone wants to see that they are being effective in combat so you're also taking away part of the fun of being a monk.

Ever watch someone box a gelatinous cube? I bet it would be harder to tell.

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?

A lot of players will announce the DC when they call for a saving throw, and 80% of the time or so it would be obvious even if they didn't, because based on level there is not a huge range they could have. If I'm not sure I can ask "what is the DC".

And to be clear, most of the time I do everything out in the open. Occasionally I'm a little secretive if I don't think the effect would be obvious. Usually I wouldn't bother with that unless the enemy is particularly mysterious for some reason or if it is something directly consequential to how the whole group responds over the next several turns. I'd probably call for perception checks to figure it out. And even if some characters fail I'm still going to tell the group if some succeed, they'd just know that it was metagame knowledge that some of their characters don't have.

Saving throw results are metagame knowledge. Usually the actual in game narrative consequences of failing or succeeding would be clear enough that it's easier to just talk openly about them as though they were character knowledge, but that is not intrinsically true.

Personally I probably wouldn't generally try to enforce such an approach to stunning strike as the Stunned condition gives all attacks against a target advantage, so being secretive, even if justified, requires players calling out to hits with and without advantage. Plus I'd still want to give characters a perception roll or something to figure it out, and it's just too much bother for something that gets used so much. But I might bother if a particular enemy was invisible or had a very unusual or unfamiliar anatomy or something. I think it probably takes practice to know when an ooze or animated suit of armor is stunned.

 

[tommybahama]

Ever watch someone box a gelatinous cube? I bet it would be harder to tell.

Oh yeah. It just jiggles in place like a bowl full of Jello when stunned. For an animated suit of armor, the helm slumps down and the arms go limp as it appears to reboot itself internally.