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

[the Jester]

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?

 

[iserith]

I feel like that's a ruling designed in a lab to annoy players because it comes off that the DM is annoyed at the monk stunning the monster. (Even if that wasn't the intent.)

What's the upside to making this ruling?

 

[tommybahama]

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.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

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.

 

[Oofta]

Did the monk want to know immediately or after the end of their turn?

Immediately when they hit? I agree there's no way of knowing. As you say, on the monk's second turn they haven't changed the status of the monster at the point they make the strike, the monster didn't become unstunned just because they made their save the second time. The monster only potentially becomes unstunned after the monk's turn is over.

Ruling the other way would also be fine - the monster is starting to show signs of becoming unstunned.
As DM you have to make those kind of calls on a pretty regular basis. As long as you're consistent and basing your decision on logic you're good to go in my book.

 

[jasper]

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.

 

[Worrgrendel]

The thing is Monk's can stun on each hit. So if he hit the first time he probably wanted to know if it took because he may have wanted to spend another Ki to try to stun again knowing the first hit failed. I see no reason to keep it from the player as it takes away a part of their schtick by not knowing. How would you feel if you hit 4 times and spent 1 Ki on the Flurry and 4 more Ki on Stunning Fist (5 total) only to find out it failed on your first hit and you only needed to spend 2 total Ki?

 

[BluejayJunior]

As others pointed out, you can narratively explain if the enemy failed the second save. I don't think it is necessarily unreasonable to say the character doesn't know if it failed or not. But do you do that for all effects? Do players know if some enemies save vs their fireball? Do players know if enemies save against other spells that don't have an immediate noticeable fail state? Like obviously you know if something fails against Faerie Fire, but Bane doesn't have a noticeable effect.
If you normally let players know when something fails, but didn't do it this time, then you are being unreasonable. You are just trying to punish the monk for stun-locking the enemy.
If you don't normally tell players whether or not enemies fail saves, then it is reasonable.

 

[MarkB]

Looking at it in narrative terms, the target doesn't just stand there passively for a round and then - ping! - suddenly start moving and fighting again the moment the monk's next turn ends. They spend that time struggling to shrug off the effects and get back into the fight. That is a process, and one that an experienced combatant might reasonably be able to observe, and know whether their foe is at the start or the end of it.

 

[Bacon Bits]

As others pointed out, you can narratively explain if the enemy failed the second save. I don't think it is necessarily unreasonable to say the character doesn't know if it failed or not. But do you do that for all effects? Do players know if some enemies save vs their fireball? Do players know if enemies save against other spells that don't have an immediate noticeable fail state? Like obviously you know if something fails against Faerie Fire, but Bane doesn't have a noticeable effect.
If you normally let players know when something fails, but didn't do it this time, then you are being unreasonable. You are just trying to punish the monk for stun-locking the enemy.
If you don't normally tell players whether or not enemies fail saves, then it is reasonable.

Yeah, if the Monk doesn't know when their stunning punch failed, then you probably shouldn't tell anyone when anyone fails or passes a save for anything. Something like web or polymorph might be basically obvious, but everything from charm person to fireball isn't exactly clear when a save is failed or passed. And if it's true that the PCs don't know, then the NPCs don't get to know, either.

This strikes me as one of those things where you can choose to play that way and it's perfectly viable and it might be more "realistic" or more simulationist, but it makes the game more difficult because you're creating new metagame knowledge categories. I have played in campaigns that have played like this back in AD&D days, and it never feels fair when the DM uses metagame knowledge that their spell effect failed (and, IMX, they inevitably do). It's even worse when the DM lets slip to the players that their NPC failed or passed ("Oh, natural 1!") and then complains that the players are metagaming when they act on that knowledge. It's extra work that doesn't add a lot more fun to the game.

Indeed, at some point you have to ask why you would know that you're damaging a creature with an attack at all. Why do you get to know what you rolled on your d20 attack roll? Why do you get to know what you rolled on your damage roll? Isn't knowing that metagame information that you might not know in reality? Again, you can play this way... but it's not really fun.

Edit: Spelling