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

PauloR

Explorer
I haven't implemented it yet, but if you find Stunning Assault problematic I thought of a decent fix for it:

On the first fail it Rattles- and if a Rattled creature fails vs it they're stunned.

A5e has already made Rattled the mini-stun; if a creature is immune to Stun, they're immune to Rattled.

It also introduces a teamwork angle, if other characters have ways to Rattle creatures then they can set them up for a Stunning Assault

But other than that, making Elite creatures much more frequent is another way to handle it... But I don't like that personally because an Elite creature is supposed to be a Big Bad thing and counts for double the XP.
I quite like this fix. I also think constructs should be immune to stun. Undead maybe as well, but I'm not 100% on those.
Another possible fix is put damage minimum to "activate" the save vs stun, like with Knockdown Assault maneuver ( ...when you hit with a melee weapon attack against a creature and deal 8 or more damage it makes a Dexterity saving throw...). That way you cant stun enemies with resistance to your damage type for example, and two weapon Stunning (4 attacks at lvl 5) is a bit harder to achieve
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

evildmguy

Explorer
These are great ideas! Thanks!

I agree that constructs should be immune to stun. What I didn't like about 3E was a fair number of monsters being immune to sneak attack, which is a class feature. By doing that, it "nerfed" a class ability. I don't mind doing this for stun because it's not a class ability of martials, or anyone who takes Stunning Assault. I would also allow non intelligent undead and non corporeal undead to be immune to stun. Probably oozes. Maybe plants. Maybe elementals.

Another option would be bonuses for size differences. +1 or +2 per size difference between attacker and defender.

I like using the Knockdown Assault maneuver as a guide for needing minimum damage to do the stun. What if that damage was equal to CON score to stun? Then we have a new weapon property to allow certain weapons that don't need to do that but it is size dependent. I don't know. I'm seeing a few sides of this. The thought of the weapon property was to allow for a Sap, which is what that is made to do. I also didn't want a dagger attack to be able to stun a giant.

I also like the progression of Rattled and then Stun. What if Stunning Assault becomes Rattling Assault? Then a new 4th degree maneuver with Rattling Assault as a prereq to Stun? With how powerful it is, that makes more sense.
 

I like using the Knockdown Assault maneuver as a guide for needing minimum damage to do the stun. What if that damage was equal to CON score to stun? Then we have a new weapon property to allow certain weapons that don't need to do that but it is size dependent. I don't know. I'm seeing a few sides of this. The thought of the weapon property was to allow for a Sap, which is what that is made to do. I also didn't want a dagger attack to be able to stun a giant.
even with a new property to allow certain weapons to ignore it (which seems much, by the way), i think making the damage equal to CON score is too much. you're looking at 15-30 damage for a significant plurality of creatures on a single attack just to make them roll the save.

i think maybe half con score would work, though. or maybe con mod plus proficiency bonus (i'd've said con save bonus but there are monsters without con save proficiency and negative con, so...). the former maxes out at 15 damage, and the latter at 19.
I also like the progression of Rattled and then Stun. What if Stunning Assault becomes Rattling Assault? Then a new 4th degree maneuver with Rattling Assault as a prereq to Stun? With how powerful it is, that makes more sense.
making one maneuver a prereq to another is just...flat out not currently a thing to my knowledge, even with maneuvers where it'd make complete sense (e.g. you don't need whirlwind strike to get whirlpool strike). other then that, this isn't a bad idea.
 

Distracted DM

Distracted DM
Supporter
What about simply having more difficult to reach enemies? Stunning assault is only useful for melee attacks.
Characters get Stunning Assault in tier 2- that's also when magic items become more prevalent, like potions of Flight and winged boots, and spells like Fly.
Jump and Web are tier 1 spells that can help with this as well. Anything that prevents a flying creature from moving means it drops to the ground.

More importantly, once my players saw how effective Stunning Assault was they have since made sure that their Stunner could make use of it whatever the circumstance.
 

evildmguy

Explorer
even with a new property to allow certain weapons to ignore it (which seems much, by the way), i think making the damage equal to CON score is too much. you're looking at 15-30 damage for a significant plurality of creatures on a single attack just to make them roll the save.

i think maybe half con score would work, though. or maybe con mod plus proficiency bonus (i'd've said con save bonus but there are monsters without con save proficiency and negative con, so...). the former maxes out at 15 damage, and the latter at 19.

making one maneuver a prereq to another is just...flat out not currently a thing to my knowledge, even with maneuvers where it'd make complete sense (e.g. you don't need whirlwind strike to get whirlpool strike). other then that, this isn't a bad idea.
As I said, I don't know the maneuvers well. I'm just throwing ideas out there.

Fair on the weapon property. I would expect it to be rare and size limited but might be too much to do in this system, so I can drop it.

As for greater than Con score damage to stun, in my group, the bard does a battle hymn that lets them add an extra die. Then they have a maneuver to do that or maybe I gave them something I shouldn't have. ;) In any case, the fighters do 15 points average, so wouldn't have a problem stunning most creatures. I see the point that Con score is too high. What if the target doesn't have to save until they take more damage in a round than their Con score? Then it's not that one hit stuns but a series of blows meant to stun? This also stops the fighter from running around the battle, stunning enemies. Or what if the maneuver required all hits to be against one target and the save isn't until the attacks are done?

Thanks on the other idea! I'm surprised they don't have prereqs. Maybe it's assumed that if they are taking stunning assault, they have prior maneuvers in it? If not, I wonder if they should? Otherwise, don't we have a maneuver dip problem? That is to say, the fighter gets access to a new second degree maneuver at fifth level. They can just take Stunning Assault having taking no other maneuvers in Tempered Iron? Of course, as I read the earlier ones, none are like Stunning Assault. I might even argue that particular maneuver doesn't seem to fit the rest of them. Again, just talking "out loud" about this as I read them.

"Characters get Stunning Assault in tier 2- that's also when magic items become more prevalent, like potions of Flight and winged boots, and spells like Fly.
Jump and Web are tier 1 spells that can help with this as well. Anything that prevents a flying creature from moving means it drops to the ground."

I mean, that's assuming the casters have those spells or the enemies have those items. While it would be good tactics to get off the ground if they do have those things, it seems a bit metagaming that bad guys keep showing up with those things. I'm not saying you said that. I'm saying I would like to find other ways to deal with it as stunning an enemy is huge.

Is there a skill or way to tell what combat traditions a person has? Maybe by how they stand or hold a weapon? Or they don't know until the fighter stuns someone? Some way to defend against it? What if the Shield spell or a shield could be sacrificed if the save is failed to negate it?

Wow. There is no spell I can find that cures the stun condition. Nothing in the Restoration spells or even Heal. I think this makes Stunning Assault more OP for its rank. Maybe the condition itself needs to be reworked? Or the progression of Rattled -> Stunned needs to be used? The fighter can potentially shut down opponents they are near equal to their number of attacks, assuming they fail saves.

I'm also wondering if it needs to be limited to humanoids? I had suggested by size before, or larger creatures getting a bonus, but now it seems strange to me that a dragon, fiend, or aberration can be stunned by this. Having said that, I could get behind a character who has a studied target being able to stun those types.

The other reason I'm thinking about this is that the movies don't have the BBEG's with minions. The dragon should be enough of a threat on its own. The game mechanics don't support that. All bad guys should be in groups when attacking. The reason I don't like that is this mostly extends the fight rather than making it cinematic.

Again, just thinking out loud.

Thanks for the conversation!
 

What if the target doesn't have to save until they take more damage in a round than their Con score? Then it's not that one hit stuns but a series of blows meant to stun? This also stops the fighter from running around the battle, stunning enemies.
that's...an interesting idea. i kinda like that.

we should probably remember that adepts can still pick up stunning strike at level 5, though (when most full martials get 2nd degree maneuvers), so from that perspective stunning assault isn't too far out of line.
Thanks on the other idea! I'm surprised they don't have prereqs. Maybe it's assumed that if they are taking stunning assault, they have prior maneuvers in it? If not, I wonder if they should? Otherwise, don't we have a maneuver dip problem? That is to say, the fighter gets access to a new second degree maneuver at fifth level. They can just take Stunning Assault having taking no other maneuvers in Tempered Iron? Of course, as I read the earlier ones, none are like Stunning Assault. I might even argue that particular maneuver doesn't seem to fit the rest of them. Again, just talking "out loud" about this as I read them.
i think it's really just that they didn't think having other maneuvers as prerequisites was a necessary balance measure. i wouldn't want it as one, either - it's really just feat chains by another name at that point.
 

Distracted DM

Distracted DM
Supporter
that's...an interesting idea. i kinda like that.

we should probably remember that adepts can still pick up stunning strike at level 5, though (when most full martials get 2nd degree maneuvers), so from that perspective stunning assault isn't too far out of line.

i think it's really just that they didn't think having other maneuvers as prerequisites was a necessary balance measure. i wouldn't want it as one, either - it's really just feat chains by another name at that point.
Monk/Adept's stunning fist/strike is absolutely something that I considered- however Stunning Assault is available to any martial character rather than being a level-gated class-exclusive feature; you need to dedicate 5 levels to adept to get it. And as you'll see below, Stunning Assault is superior.

With Stunning Strike you choose to use it when you hit so it's not a huge loss if you miss your attacks; it has a lower cost of 1EP per stun attempt. However:

Combat maneuver DCs are set by the warriors strongest attack stat, whereas stunning strike is set by Wisdom: an important stat, but arguably the SECOND stat a monk focuses on. If they focus on wisdom, then their DC is comparable but their regular attacks aren't as good.
Warriors get to have their cake and eat it too.
A fighter can specialize in it, making it even cheaper and scarier (the adept can take a feature that makes their stun better too, but more expensive and its use is limited).
Stunning assault's cost to efficacy increases with a spell like Haste, because it works on all of their attacks until the start of their next turn. Attacks via Haste, Berserker's Relentless Attack, maneuvers like Parrying Counter, and Attacks of Opportunity will all force saves vs Stun.

Side note:
I do wonder if Maneuver DC should be set by something other than the highest between Str or Dex.

Edit: If an Adept wants to Stun, they're better off using a feat for martial scholar or, possibly better, taking a level of fighter-
and getting Stunning Assault rather than using their own Stunning Strike.
 
Last edited:

Side note:
I do wonder if Maneuver DC should be set by something other than the highest between Str or Dex.
hm...nah. i don't think we need to push martials lower then casters again.

the rest of your post is fair, though. i should note that i forgot stunning assault was 2nd degree and not 3rd.
 

evildmguy

Explorer
As I read all of this, I think the issue with the maneuver is how soon martials gain it. As no one at my table has played an Adept yet, I haven't seen Stunning Strike. (Although in my PF1 game, a player played a monk there and used Stunning Strike very well.) Stun is a devastating condition. As I think about this, though, so is Paralyzed as a condition. That's a second level Hold Person spell. In contrast, Power Word, Stun isn't available until a seventh level spell for a caster to inflict the Stun condition.

My issue is that combat is going to take longer because, with these abilities or spells, bad guys need numbers.

I think my dislike of it is because it's too much like old school save or die mentality. Maybe my issue is that it's a valid tactic, especially for the players, but when used against them, it's not fun. As a DM, I control enough creatures, and have to apparently, that one down doesn't bother me. When a player only has one character to control and they are stunned or paralyzed, all they can do is watch. Maybe that can be fun but most of the time it's probably frustrating. However, that's not Level Up's problem, nor am I saying it is. This is me talking out loud about these things and thinking about what I will do about them.

In the end, I think I need to accept that no bad guy should attack alone. It should always be a group. I'm also tempted to start adding maneuvers onto bad guys that have martial class levels.

Thanks for the discussion!
 

Glororhan

Explorer
In the end, I think I need to accept that no bad guy should attack alone. It should always be a group. I'm also tempted to start adding maneuvers onto bad guys that have martial class levels.
It's worth keeping in mind that Stunning Assault often locks down more than one opponent. A 5th level PC on a mount attacking with a shield as a bonus action can potentially lock down 2-3 enemies in a round, especially on the 2nd go since the enemies will be easier to hit as they are stunned until end of your next turn!

I like the idea of giving more monsters immunity to stun; I might just give it out to any monster immune to paralyze, as in many ways paralyze just seems like an upgraded stun. I am leaning in the direction of giving monsters maneuvers myself, as there are defensive stances (like heavy stance) and maneuvers that protect against stun, paralyze, etc. And giving some monsters resistance to combat maneuvers. Here's a template I whipped together:

Combat Maneuver Template: CR +1

Monster gains an exertion pool equal to X2 Proficiency

Gain following combat maneuvers:
-Heavy Stance (1)
-Lean Into It (2)
-Shrug it off (2)
-Any ability that gives advantage or a bonus on all saving throws vs spells applies to combat maneuvers

Any PC with combat maneuvers can tell they have this template once they enter heavy stance.
 

Remove ads

Top