D&D 5E No Monsters Immune to Stun?

[jgsugden]

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.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

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.

 

[IndigoTraveler]

Why would Tiamat make a save for an effect she is immune too?

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.

 

[dave2008]

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.

 

[IndigoTraveler]

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]

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

 

[IndigoTraveler]

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?

 

[dave2008]

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]

"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]

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.