log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E No Monsters Immune to Stun?

turnip_farmer

Adventurer
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.
I think maybe we're envisaging different things here. I don't make whole heaps of monsters immune to being stunned, just more than the Monster Manual does. Constructs, basically. Unless your campaign is filled with constructs that's not a major problem. You just occasionally come across things your superpower doesn't work on. The whole party finds themselves in similar situations at some point.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

dave2008

Legend
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.
Just thought I would point out that, per D&D Beyond, there are 7 monsters immune to radiant damage and 17 with resistance. The total of the two is less than the # of monsters immune to being stunned (even when you remove the swarms).

However, that makes me thing they really should come up with an equivalent to resistance for conditions. I've used advantage on saves as a type of condition resistance before.
 

dave2008

Legend
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.
Nice catch, I missed that. I think subconsciously always inserted the "instead" in there as she would loose LA if she was stunned and didn't have the trait anyway. So again there is no reason for having both really.
 


I think maybe we're envisaging different things here. I don't make whole heaps of monsters immune to being stunned, just more than the Monster Manual does. Constructs, basically.
Why would constructs be immune to being stunned?

Have you watched Terminator? They get Stunned (head snaps back, gets knocked over, staggered by the attack) allowing the heroes to escape all the time.

Why cant Frankensteins monster be stunned?
 

turnip_farmer

Adventurer
Why would constructs be immune to being stunned?

Have you watched Terminator? They get Stunned (head snaps back, gets knocked over, staggered by the attack) allowing the heroes to escape all the time.

Why cant Frankensteins monster be stunned?

Because it doesn't feel right to me. An animated suit of armour has no life force flowing through it, nor any brain or thought processes that can be interrupted. It's immune to stun for exactly the same reason as the helmed horror.

Frankenstein's monster would not be immune to being stunned. It's not an inanimate object moving by magical influence, it's a reanimated conscious being.

Thankfully my medieval fantasy world is devoid of advanced killer robots with artificial intelligence, so I don't need to consider that one.
 

Because it doesn't feel right to me. An animated suit of armour has no life force flowing through it,
Neither does the T-1000 but that doesnt stop it from getting Stunned from attacks.
nor any brain or thought processes that can be interrupted.
Stunning has nothing to do with 'brains'. That's concussion.

Stunning is defined in the OED as being ' so shocked that one is temporarily unable to react; astonished' and it includes being 'Dazed, Staggered, Shocked, Startled or Overwhelmed', and all of those things can happen to a robot or construct, and indeed do happen to them in movies and literature all the time.

Frankenstein's monster would not be immune to being stunned. It's not an inanimate object moving by magical influence, it's a reanimated conscious being.
Frankenstiens monster is a flesh golem dude.

Bits of other bodies, stitched together, animated by electricity and capable of going berserk.
 

turnip_farmer

Adventurer
Neither does the T-1000 but that doesnt stop it from getting Stunned from attacks.

Stunning has nothing to do with 'brains'. That's concussion.

Stunning is defined in the OED as being ' so shocked that one is temporarily unable to react; astonished' and it includes being 'Dazed, Staggered, Shocked, Startled or Overwhelmed', and all of those things can happen to a robot or construct, and indeed do happen to them in movies and literature all the time.


Frankenstiens monster is a flesh golem dude.

Bits of other bodies, stitched together, animated by electricity and capable of going berserk.

Animated suits of armour cannot be dazed, staggered, shocked, startled or overwhelmed, in my opinion. Yours can work how you like. Thinking about T-1000, I have clear imagery of it getting bullets straight to his face and still running on completely unfazed. An immunity to stunned would definitely be required if I was statting up a T-1000. It fits the feel of this relentless, unfeeling thing that just keeps on coming no matter what you throw at it. That's what you're meant to feel when he's running after you in the car.

As for Frankenstein's monster, he was a thinking, feeling being. Looking at the flesh golem as described in the MM; that should be stunnable as well; as it too is described as a thinking being. Note that the MM flesh golem is very different to Frankie, though, as it has only the intelligence of a child; while Frankenstein's monster was intelligent and erudite.
 



jgsugden

Legend
There are certain things about Ki stunning that do not make as much sense for certain targets because ki is the energy that flows through living targets, and you're disrupting the ki ... and those targets may not be alive, per se. Think of it as you putting some of your ki into their shell and disrupting the function of those unliving bodies.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
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.
You have said so over and over again. What more is there to say?
 


auburn2

Adventurer
I think maybe we're envisaging different things here. I don't make whole heaps of monsters immune to being stunned, just more than the Monster Manual does. Constructs, basically. Unless your campaign is filled with constructs that's not a major problem. You just occasionally come across things your superpower doesn't work on. The whole party finds themselves in similar situations at some point.
I don't get the logic on why constructs should not be stunned.

It seems to me this is nothing but a purposeful attempt to nerf the monk, whether it is a little bit or a lot it is simply changing the rules for no real purpose that I can see.

That said, 5E encourages changing the rules, so if there is some reason in your campaign that this is necessary or would make the game better go for it.
 
Last edited:


Gadget

Adventurer
Personally, I think the devs wanted to back off the condition overload of 3.x & 4.x, and went a little overboard in some instances. In 3.x, undead where immune to criticals, thus sneak attack was useless against them and rogues rendered much less effective. So now that restriction is gone, and you can now sneak ghosts. I could see arguments for this not being the case though.

In 5e, it seems the devs have decided that the Stunned condition should be almost the soul province of the Monk, Wizards have to wait until the 8th level Power Word Stun to gain the effect, and that spell isn't all that for its level (I guess one of the effects of Divine Word as well, but that is even more rare). I believe that is the only ability available to PCs outside Monks that bestows the stunned condition, barring some magic item I'm overlooking. I'm not sure how many Monsters inflict the condition, but I don't recall many doing so. So, its almost as if the condition was put in the game specifically for Monks, given the rarity of it outside the Monk class.

So I suppose putting immunity to Stun would be a direct setback to the Monk, as so few other classes and creatures would be affected by such a change. To me, that speaks of an over reliance on the condition by the Monk class, as I'm not sure why there cannot be other effects that impose the condition. I don't think it would be too bad if there were some rare creatures that had immunity to the Stunned condition, such as Constructs, but then again I don't see why the condition should be almost the soul province of the Monk class anyway.
 

Stunning is something as simple as a forceful blow that knocks them off balance and disorientates them briefly. An attack that staggers them.

I see no reason why pretty much anything should be immune.
Indeed. Add to this the fundamental point: Monks are magic. Their strikes essentially ignore inertia and deal damage that is irrespective of the force behind them.
The difficulty to resist being stunned isn't based on how hard the monk hits, but how spiritually enlightened they are: Its magic. (Or at least supernatural.)

Animated suits of armour cannot be dazed, staggered, shocked, startled or overwhelmed, in my opinion.
Do they have a magical animating force that a magical disruptive force could interfere with for a short while?
 

pogre

Legend
I ran into this issue a couple of campaigns ago with the monk short-circuiting a lot of encounters. I noticed there were very few monsters with stun immunity and thought about creating some custom monsters. I did not do it because it was the Monk's thing. It was super powerful in that campaign in particular because I was running 8 players. If I had four players I would worry about it a lot less.

To somewhat limit the overwhelming power of it I pushed for longer adventuring days and avoided using a lot of solo monsters.

But, in the end, I was usually OK with the Monk being the Hero of the encounter.
 

To somewhat limit the overwhelming power of it I pushed for longer adventuring days and avoided using a lot of solo monsters.
That's the way to do it.

Solo monsters, when used, should be legendries. Due to action economy issues, DnD doesnt do Solo encounters well, if the monster isnt a legendary.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top