D&D 5E What am I missing?

[Lanliss]

Also, in case you are not aware, there was an answer in Sage advice somewhere that mentioned a Way of the Open Hand monk can push large and huge creatures with their FoB. Crawford said "The Monk's Ki fuels all sorts of amazing abilities".

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Could a monk i a Chinese martial arts movie stun a ghost or golem with a punch?

Absolutely! ... when it serves the plot.

 

[Uchawi]

It brings up the classic example of mundane versus magical, which includes stunning, in addition to hit points, damage on a miss, etc. There is a tendency to base anything, but magic, into a semi-realistic physical world.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I think the very important point here is that a monk's strike isn't primarily stunning by virtue of being a good hit--it is primarily working by virtue of being ki-infused. If the monk can get any sort of contact with a creature, the ki (described as a form of magic in the monk description) can stun it. Mind or no mind, biology or no biology.

 

[Fleetwood C. DeVille]

Could a monk i a Chinese martial arts movie stun a ghost or golem with a punch?

Absolutely! ... when it serves the plot.

This.

I am a big fan of Wuxia martial arts movies. If strong kung-fu can let you fly, breathe fire, have impenetrable skin, or fight a zillion bad guys it can certainly let you stun a golem.

SOKATH, HIS EYES UNCOVERED!!

 

[Mercule]

Could a monk i a Chinese martial arts movie stun a ghost or golem with a punch?

Absolutely! ... when it serves the plot.

Or, at least, when they fail their saving throw.

 

[transtemporal]

During play the monk in the party decided he wanted to try to stun a construct they were battling. No way, I thought. But constructs do not list stunned as one of the conditions they are immune to.

So I kept digging and there are many more monsters where I was surprised to see you could stun them.

Isn't this just part of the simplification in 5e that saw rogues being able to sneak attack constructs and undead? I see this is a positive myself. In 3e if you had a rogue (or a monk for that matter) in the party, their fun went down a lot if you fought constructs or undead.

 

[CapnZapp]

During play the monk in the party decided he wanted to try to stun a construct they were battling. No way, I thought. But constructs do not list stunned as one of the conditions they are immune to.

So I kept digging and there are many more monsters where I was surprised to see you could stun them.

Like a ghost.

Really?

Am I missing something?

Having class abilities which monsters are immune to is unfun.

5E is not unfun.

Therefore Monks can stun everything, Rogues can sneak attack everything, etc.

 

[BryonD]

Having class abilities which monsters are immune to is unfun.

5E is not unfun.

Therefore Monks can stun everything, Rogues can sneak attack everything, etc.

I rather strongly disagree with this generalization and evaluation.
Which is not to say that I have the slightest dispute with your personal preference.

But I think using your statement as a truism puts a bad restraint on the level of fun that can be had.


"Being" the monk running around stunning things is very cool and very fun. The ghost, for example, has to opportunity to be a new challenge. If you stunned 12 kobolds yesterday and you stun 3 ghosts today, how long does that stay interesting? And I say that with full recognition that there is vastly more to the game and differences between ghosts and kobolds. But all this approach does it make the differences equal to n-1.

Running around hitting an endless series of nails with the same hammer is, imo, unfun.
Adapting and winning anyway, that is vastly more fun than "I stun the ghost".

Now, 5E is certainly vastly more symmetrical than most prior editions. For the most part every class is capable of dealing with threats one way or another. 1E through 3E/PF certainly had some elements of distinct rock/paper/scissors match-ups. Whether you love that or hate that is a matter of taste. A many times these situations just end up being the time when some other character gets to shine. And that's ok so long as a good DM keeps everyone shining. If you want this in 5E though and you go tweaking things, keep that symmetry in mind. Balance it somewhere.


But, IME, doing what your character does is "fun" and people go home saying "good game". But the time when the monk beat the ghost even though he couldn't hit him, much less stun him, those are the events that people still raise their voice when they talk about it four years later.

IMO having powers that take out monsters is very fun. Having monsters with immunity to those powers though is where the megafun lives.

 

[CapnZapp]

Oh, I wasn't expressing personal preference.

I was voicing my impression of what the customer base wants according to WotC.

That is: WotC didn't include any monster immunities to class features for a reason. That reason being, making 5E attractive to the most number of gamers.

Whether you or I find such immunities fun or unfun is, as you say, not the issue. When I say they're unfun, I mean it in the sense that they are unfun if WotC thinks the majority of their customers find them unfun!

Cheers,