log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E No Monsters Immune to Stun?

dave2008

Legend
Does she. I have not read her stat block, but most of them say if XXX fails a saving throw XXXr can "choose" to pass instead. Why would she choose to succeed on a save that is not going to have any affect?
I posted images of the text from the book in post #35 FYI, we are not talking about her legendary resistance, but her condition immunities and her multiple heads trait, heck for the ease of it see below:

1612653938441.png
 

log in or register to remove this ad


dave2008

Legend
That's an awkward way of letting stuns still be somewhat useful on Tiamat without letting them do what they normally would.
I guess that could be what they are going for, but to me it is complete BS. Why even list her as immune to the stunned condition if your are going to negate stuns by spending a legendary action (or save or legendary resistance). It makes no sense. If the intent was to make stuns somewhat effective, all you need is the Multiple Heads trait, there is no need to make her immune to the stunned condition
 

Zubatcarteira

Now you're infected by the Musical Doodle
Probably so that she can't be stunned if her Legendary Actions run out. Still lets a Monk help out by reducing the LAs, but stops her from getting stunlocked to death.
 

dave2008

Legend
Probably so that she can't be stunned if her Legendary Actions run out. Still lets a Monk help out by reducing the LAs, but stops her from getting stunlocked to death.
But she is immune to being stunned - she can't be stun locked. She doesn't have to use LA or LR on stun effects
 

Monks have one (1) singular ability that stuns. That's it.

If a player whines because one of their abilities doesn't work on a certain specific type of enemy they occasionally face, they would not be welcome at my table.

Stunning Fist is central to the Monks Oomph from 5th level onwards. If you make a whole heap of monsters immune to Stun, you're totally nerfing the Monk class.

It would be like making a whole heap of monsters immune to Radiant damage. Your Paladin players will hate you.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
But she is immune to being stunned - she can't be stun locked. She doesn't have to use LA or LR on stun effects
Tiamat is clearly meant to be forced into saving throws to keep her legendary actions without stun attacks having any other effect (so once she's run out of legendary actions, nothing more can happen).

And no, that's not how the rules for immunity work.

There really isn't nothing more to say.
 

dave2008

Legend
Tiamat is clearly meant to be forced into saving throws to keep her legendary actions without stun attacks having any other effect (so once she's run out of legendary actions, nothing more can happen).

And no, that's not how the rules for immunity work.

There really isn't nothing more to say.
I understand that is the supposed intent of the Multiple Heads trait, but why then make her immune to stuns? It is rather odd to say, hey if your hit with studs 5 times in a round you loose a LA, but that 6th time has no effect at all. To me, one or the other is a mistake. They don't make sense together.
 

I understand that is the supposed intent of the Multiple Heads trait, but why then make her immune to stuns? It is rather odd to say, hey if your hit with studs 5 times in a round you loose a LA, but that 6th time has no effect at all. To me, one or the other is a mistake. They don't make sense together.

It's best to read it as 'instead of the usual effects of being Stunned, she loses a LA instead. If she has no LA's to lose, she is immunee to Stunned.
 

dave2008

Legend
It's best to read it as 'instead of the usual effects of being Stunned, she loses a LA instead. If she has no LA's to lose, she is immunee to Stunned.
I get that too, but that makes no sense to me. I mean how often is tiamat going to fail 5 saves for a stunning effects in one round? I guess if she is fighting a group of all monks? IMO, it is best to read it as a mistake (either the trait or the condition immunity).

It doesn't really matter to me as I have my own much more powerful version of Tiamat, and I eliminated that part of the multiple heads trait.
 

jgsugden

Legend
Don't count numbers of monsters. Think about how often we'll see these monsters in the game.

Monsters generally fall into 3 categories - common, rare and unique. Where is this written? Nowhere. However, we all recognize it, even if we might shift a monster around between categories in our specific campaign worlds as opposed to where most DMs will put them.

A common monster is one that you may face a lot in a campaign world. Goblins, skeletons, zombies, animals, ogres, etc... They will not be in every campaign, but they'll be in a lot, and you'll end up facing them in multiple encounters in many games.

A rare monster is a monster that doesn't get used over and over, but isn't terribly uncommon to see in a game. There is the occasional 'Flumph Dungeon' or 'Peryton Riders' adventure where they get more use, but typically they're a one off encounter.

Unique monsters are either really unique or effectively unique. The number of times you would see multiple of them in a campaign would be really, really rare. When they hit the battlefield, your eyes go to them and you know it is a special moment in the game.

So, how do the monsters break down that have stun immunity?

Common: Swarms

Rare: Helmed Horror, Two Headed Cerberus, Thessalhydra, Lynx Creatlach, Underworld Cerberus, Eye of Fear and Flame, Skull Lord, Elder Elements, Steel Predator, Warforged Collosus

Unique: Named Monsters, Living Demi-plane, Mighty Servant of Leung, Revenant, Demilich, Walking Statue of Waterdeep, Astral Dreadnaught, Molydeus


Note that a good number of those beasties are CAMPAIGN WORLD SPECIFIC, for Eberron, Theros, Forgotten Realms, etc... You might see them adapted for Homebrew, but a PC playing in a boxed setting is very unlikely to face a Underworld Cerberus, Walking Statue of Waterdeep, and Warforged Collosus in the same campaign.

My 8th level monk has faced only swarms from this list.

Stun Immunity is a rarity outside swarms. I'd tend to guess that well over half of all 'swarm immune encounters' are with swarms. Helmed Horrors are likely the next most common. I think Revenants make a singular appearance in many campaigns, but it is rare to see them multiple times in the same campaign. Beyond that.... I don't see a tendency for these things to be used overly much.
 

I get that too, but that makes no sense to me. I mean how often is tiamat going to fail 5 saves for a stunning effects in one round? I guess if she is fighting a group of all monks? IMO, it is best to read it as a mistake (either the trait or the condition immunity).

It doesn't really matter to me as I have my own much more powerful version of Tiamat, and I eliminated that part of the multiple heads trait.
Note there's no "instead" in the rules text for Tiamat's multiple heads. Without the condition immunity she would be both Stunned and lose a legendary action if she failed a save vs stun.

I agree it could be worded more clearly, but it does make sense.
 


dave2008

Legend
She can't be stunned, but instead of getting stunned, she would lose an legendary action if she fails the saving throw, which in theory, could be slightly annoying in her eyes.
Then why is she immune to stuns? You can get that exact effect with just the Multiple Heads trait, there is no need for immunity to the stun condition, and yet she has it.
 

Hmm, I like the idea of an enemy with Legendary Actions , being immunes to stuns, but the Monk can still put a damper in things by burning thru said enemy's Legendary Actions.
 

Stalker0

Legend
It's best to read it as 'instead of the usual effects of being Stunned, she loses a LA instead. If she has no LA's to lose, she is immunee to Stunned.
This is how I read it as well, though I do find the language very strange.
Then why is she immune to stuns? You can get that exact effect with just the Multiple Heads trait, there is no need for immunity to the stun condition, and yet she has it.
"Technically" it means that if she runs out of Legendary Actions, she is still immune to stun. Aka "for a little while my stuns do a minor thing to you, and then do nothing to you".

Now is that an incredibly weird way to go about it? Yes
Is that probably overkill? Yes
Is that technically better than just giving her the multiple heads quality? Yes
 

Then why is she immune to stuns? You can get that exact effect with just the Multiple Heads trait, there is no need for immunity to the stun condition, and yet she has it.
Cuz then she would just LA to no sale the stun. If she has no LA, she can't no sale a saving fail when she needs it. The Monk won't be hitting like a truck but still helps out in a way.

Also Tiamat standing there being dizzy while everybody gangba-I mean dog pile her would be anticlimactic. They just chose, in a confusing way, to explain how the Monk's main gimmick can still help the party out regardless in that fight.

Also the MM, and both halves of Tyranny of Dragons were early in 5E's life. And said Tyranny of Dragons were written with help/by(?) Kobold Press and it was their first major working experience with the 5E mechanics IIRC. So that could be a "vestigial" leftover from working it out.The real question is, does it say the same thing, copy paste, in Tiamat's Descent to Avernus stat block? Or did WoTC clean it up a bit?
 
Last edited:

dave2008

Legend
Cuz then she would just LA to no sale the stun. If she has no LA, she can't no sale a saving fail when she needs it. The Monk won't be hitting like a truck but still helps out in a way.
She still has Legendary Resistance at her disposal too. I mean the situation that requires her to fail 5 saves (which she can do every round), and then use up all of her LR so that her immunity to the stunned condition kicks in is pretty ridiculous.
Also the MM, and both halves of Tyranny of Dragons were early in 5E's life. And said Tyranny of Dragons were written with help/by(?) Kobold Press and it was their first major working experience with the 5E mechanics IIRC. So that could be a "vestigial" leftover from working it out.The real question is, does it say the same thing, copy paste, in Tiamat's Descent to Avernus stat block? Or did WoTC clean it up a bit?
I'm not sure, but it says the same thing on D&D Beyond and their is only 1 entry for her on that platform (only some things which have changed and get a book specific entry too).

I do think this is a reason, that is why I think it is a mistake.
 

dave2008

Legend
"Technically" it means that if she runs out of Legendary Actions, she is still immune to stun. Aka "for a little while my stuns do a minor thing to you, and then do nothing to you".

Now is that an incredibly weird way to go about it? Yes
Is that probably overkill? Yes
Is that technically better than just giving her the multiple heads quality? Yes
I realize that is technically all true, but the possibility of having to fend off 5 stuns with LA, after failing 5 saving throws (which she can do each round) and using up all of her legendary resistance seems pretty remote. So much so that I think having the further back-up plan of immunity to the stunned condition was a mistake. I mean the scenario where that kicks in is not likely to ever happen.
 

Zubatcarteira

Now you're infected by the Musical Doodle
She can still spend her LA normally, so you don't necessarily need to stun 5 times. Say, she uses 3 LAs, then you land a stun twice, then she can't use LAs anymore for that turn. If she uses LRs for it, then it leaves her more vulnerable to high-level spells.

Highly unlikely with a +10 con save, yeah, but I believe there are ways to nerf her in the actual adventure (haven't played, just what I've heard), making her lose LAs and such, so that might work out better in-context.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top