Level Up (A5E) Thoughts on A5E classes from your table(s)?

[thuter]

It is comparable in a sense yes, but the problem here seems to be that Stunning Assault is absurdly good at reliably locking down one or two enemies. With Stunning Assault you can easily force 3+ saving throws against an arguably stronger condition (because charm immune does not work against stunned) that does not end as soon as the target takes damage. But I agree that against large groups of enemies, spells are almost impossible to beat with martial classes.

 

[Anonymous3]

It is comparable in a sense yes, but the problem here seems to be that Stunning Assault is absurdly good at reliably locking down one or two enemies. With Stunning Assault you can easily force 3+ saving throws against an arguably stronger condition (because charm immune does not work against stunned) that does not end as soon as the target takes damage. But I agree that against large groups of enemies, spells are almost impossible to beat with martial classes.

Thanks. I missed that HP is a stun wrapped in a charm so immunities negates it - that's meaningful.
How meaningful will depend on the scenario in which both abilities are used.
If players are constantly facing one or two powerful enemies then they will start to strategize (and optimize) for these scenarios. Then any ability or combination of abilities that the players find (and they will find them) to trivialize the encounter will feel broken or overpowered. However, the same strategies may fail when used for a mob scenario.

I still think SA is strong but it is easy to find situations where it doesn't shine just like HP.

Do you have any thoughts on my wording change for Stunning Assault?

 

[thuter]

Do you have any thoughts on my wording change for Stunning Assault?

Your suggestion makes SA less powerful, in the sense that you and maybe not all of your partymembers will enjoy advantage. That is certainly good, because it lowers the chance of hitting in a subsequent turn where you would want to apply the stun again. But it still locks down enemies the same way as before, forcing them to skip their turn. They may get a reaction, depending on turn order, which may or may not matter. But in fights against one or two notable enemies, it still trivialises the fight most likely. So I think I prefer my own change, which just lowers the number of attacks you can squeeze out of the maneuver, but yours is also a relatively easy nerf to apply.

EDIT: Mostly because I am not necessarily concerned about a Berserker applying two attacks with SA in a round for a sizable chunk of exertion points, but because I am concerned about an Adept or Fighter making 6 attacks with it for five rounds straight.

 

[Distracted DM]

Your suggestion makes SA less powerful, in the sense that you and maybe not all of your partymembers will enjoy advantage. That is certainly good, because it lowers the chance of hitting in a subsequent turn where you would want to apply the stun again. But it still locks down enemies the same way as before, forcing them to skip their turn. They may get a reaction, depending on turn order, which may or may not matter. But in fights against one or two notable enemies, it still trivialises the fight most likely. So I think I prefer my own change, which just lowers the number of attacks you can squeeze out of the maneuver, but yours is also a relatively easy nerf to apply.

I've been using my fix consistently (rattled -> stunned as mentioned earlier) and players keep using it even though its success rate is drastically lower- but yours is the simplest. I just like that mine adds in a teamwork possibility. Yours is probably the better option? Both are good solutions I think- but I've never had a player that tried to use SA with a dual-wield build.

 

[thuter]

Neither have I because my players are usually smart enough to not tempt me with their super-munchkins

 

[Anonymous3]

Thanks for the replies and insight guys!

Went back into the thread to find your respective takes and provided excerpts below:

@Distracted DM 's version: "Until the start of your next turn, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack it makes a Constitution saving throw or is rattled until the end of your next turn. When you hit a creature that is rattled, it makes a Constitution saving throw or is stunned until the end of your next turn."​

• I really like the team work aspect of this change.
• The only drawback would be having to track multiple conditions which does not seem hard until you're having to do it for multiple creatures and players. Then it becomes admin.

@Stalker0 's version: "I still say the simplest way to fix this, is have it only work on 1 attack."​

• This is really simple. When I read it, it felt as if SA was a "charge/buff" applied to their attack and if they hit the charge was released into the creature and they had to make a saving throw. This means that you only lose the "SA charge" on a hit and you can stun one opponent per turn.
• If you miss all attacks then you get to keep the "SA charge" and possibly use it with a reaction attack.
• I am warming up to this idea.

@thuter 's version: "When you activate this technique, you take the Attack action and make a weapon attack, as well as any additional attacks granted by Extra Attack. During the Attack action, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack it makes a Constitution saving throw or is stunned until the end of your next turn."​

• This is the fairest approach if you think SA is overpowered.
• No additional tracking.
• Applies to basically the extra attack feature only (if I understand it correctly).
• Attacks using Bonus action and reactions still benefit from the stunned condition.

Here is a repeat of my take just for ease of comparison: "Until the start of your next turn, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack it makes a Constitution saving throw or is stunned until the end of your their next turn."​

• The creature gets their movement and, with this version, will get their reaction depending on turn order.
  • Turn order now plays a role in deciding which creature to stun. Stunning a creature above you (their turn is complete) get no reaction while creatures below you do.
• Burrowing and flying creatures have the option of momentarily "escaping".

I think the DM could also give options for larger creatures to remove the stunned condition. The Shrug It Off maneuver could be given to these creatures - give them exertion equal to their CR. They can remove it now but at the cost of their reaction which is not a bad trade off.

 

[thuter]

Here is a repeat of my take just for ease of comparison: "Until the start of your next turn, when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack it makes a Constitution saving throw or is stunned until the end of your their next turn."

Oh one final edge-case with your fix: If you manage to land a hit as a reaction during an opponent's turn (say with Speed Over Strength or Polearm Savant, for example), you stop the enemy right in their tracks AND make them skip their next turn as well.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

The creature gets their movement

uhm...how? movement is part of your turn (unless you have an ability that lets you move off turn, but unless i'm mistaken that doesn't seem to be what you mean). if a creature's turn ends, that means they can't use their movement (again, unless they have an ability to let them move off their turn), since it isn't their turn anymore.

 

[thuter]

Could be confusion between Incapacitated and Stunned?

 

[Anonymous3]

uhm...how? movement is part of your turn (unless you have an ability that lets you move off turn, but unless i'm mistaken that doesn't seem to be what you mean). if a creature's turn ends, that means they can't use their movement (again, unless they have an ability to let them move off their turn), since it isn't their turn anymore.

Completely missed this in the stunned condition - "A stunned creature is incapacitated (see the condition), can’t move, and can speak only falteringly.

Movement is listed as an action so I thought it could be performed.