D&D 5E No Monsters Immune to Stun?

[Andrew Bieber]

Whats the deal with stun immunity? I looked through the monster manual and almost no monsters have it. The Helmed Horror (the only construct I saw that had it) and the Revenant both have it, but no other monsters with those types seem to. Also the Demilich gets immunity but not the Lich (the other floating head undead, the flameskull, does not get stun immunity).

What makes those guys so special? Would it be reasonable to say that all/most undead and constructs have immunity to stun as a house rule? Can I pretend it should be errata-ed and call it day? Surely monk's stunning fist doesn't work on nearly every monster! Am I missing something?

 

[jaelis]

I would not have expected a lot of monsters to be immune to stun. If you feel like constructs and undead should be, then you can certainly houserule it.

Be aware though that stunning fist is one of the monk's key abilities; if you nerf it too much you might worry about monks remaining effective.

 

[jasper]

Don't do it jasper
do it jasper
Don't do it jasper
do it jasper
Don't do it jasper
do it jasper
Don't do it jasper
do it jasper
Don't do it jasper
do it jasper
...
WHAT A STUDDING REVALATION !


EDIT TO ADD DOH! Stunning. It was suppose to be stunning.

 

[Rogin]

I'd tend to agree with jailis, it would seem to me perfect acceptable to houserule that in, so long as Stun isn't something anyone of your plays is relating on to be effective.

For me I'm happy that most thing are not immune because whether your a magical construct or mindless undead if your hit harden enough your going to need time to recover.

Sent from my STV100-4 using EN World mobile app

 

[thethain]

Most concepts in DnD are applicable to a fairly broad range of effects. A miss might be a literally miss, or it might be a hit that was ineffective vs the armor.

Stunned is when a creature has been damaged so suddenly or violently that it is unable to respond for a moment, there also might be some mystical or otherwise supernatural force at work disabling the creature. I think the primary idea was to limit condition immunity unless it was absolutely obvious, and allow the saves and legendary resistances to augment those who might be naturally resistant to it.

Also, generally speaking as a player it sucks when your toys are taken away "because the DM doesn't like it". If the you are going to add blanket immunity across the board it would be a favor to discuss it with players before they decide classes and such.

 

[Colder]

Aren't there a few others that are immune to incapacitated? Since that's the main component of stunned, you might want to look into it.

 

[Quickleaf]

Aren't there a few others that are immune to incapacitated? Since that's the main component of stunned, you might want to look into it.

There are no monsters in the MM that are immune to being incapacitated. Period.

[MENTION=6875003]Andrew Bieber[/MENTION] Welcome to ENWorld! For most monsters, it's fine that Stunning Strike always can affect them if they fail their Constitution save. In the case of a monster you intend to present as a solo challenge, however, it's something you may want to tweak the monster design to account for (NOT to negate entirely).

For example, take the Hydra. Usually having more than 1 head means its has advantage vs. stunned. However, if I were to run a hydra as a solo monster (meaning it's encountered by itself, without any other monsters, and is meant to be a challenge for the PCs), then I'd tweak that slightly so that stun only affects one head, but its non-stunned heads act just fine. This allows abilities that stun, like Stunning Strike, to still be meaningful and have an impact without crippling the solo monster into being a boring punching bag.

 

[dave2008]

There are no monsters in the MM that are immune to being incapacitated. Period.

[MENTION=6875003]Andrew Bieber[/MENTION] Welcome to ENWorld! For most monsters, it's fine that Stunning Strike always can affect them if they fail their Constitution save. In the case of a monster you intend to present as a solo challenge, however, it's something you may want to tweak the monster design to account for (NOT to negate entirely).

For example, take the Hydra. Usually having more than 1 head means its has advantage vs. stunned. However, if I were to run a hydra as a solo monster (meaning it's encountered by itself, without any other monsters, and is meant to be a challenge for the PCs), then I'd tweak that slightly so that stun only affects one head, but its non-stunned heads act just fine. This allows abilities that stun, like Stunning Strike, to still be meaningful and have an impact without crippling the solo monster into being a boring punching bag.

To follow up what the good Lead said, I also give solo's some resistance to the stun condition. I usually do something like the monster's speed is reduced in half for the duration of the effect and it can't use (depending on how much resistance): multiattack, or bonus actions, or legendary action(s), or reactions, or a combination of those, until the end of its next turn.

 

[Warmaster Horus]

Not much in the game stuns other than a monk, either. Better than being paralyzed, though.

 

[futrtrubl]

Maybe they could be immune to "mundane" stuns but remember that even the monks stunning fist comes from his use and manipulation of chi and that one more level and his unarmed strikes count as magical.