Monk's stun

[zinycor]

Stunning Strike

Starting at 5th level, you can interfere with the flow of ki in an opponent's body. When you hit another creature with a melee weapon attack, you can spend 1 ki point to attempt a stunning strike. The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or be stunned until the end of your next turn.

Once a creature is stunned, on the monk's next turn, can the monk apply the stun again? Or does the fact that it is already stunned mean that one cant apply the stun again?

[ProsecutorGodot]

It's not entirely clear, I think it's a common ruling to allow it to reapply as if it were a new stun effect. I would probably rule it that way myself.

[Galithar]

When the same effect is applied more than once the most potent one takes effect. You can stun someone twice and while they don't get any more stunned you can certainly extend the duration.



The effects of different spells add together while the durations of those spells overlap. The effects of the same spell cast multiple times don't combine, however. Instead, the most potent effect—such as the highest bonus—from those castings applies while their durations overlap. For example, if two clerics cast bless on the same target, that character gains the spell’s benefit only once; he or she doesn’t get to roll two bonus dice.


There would be no difference in strength between the stuns, so it doesn't matter which takes effect. When the first stun ends at the end of your turn the second one would remain active though. It is entirely possible to stun-lock a creature in this way until you run out of Ki.

[Greywander]

Think of it like this: Let's someone buffs you with, say, Aid, which lasts for 8 hours, and after 7 hours they or someone else casts it on you again. Does the new effect replace the old, extending the duration for another 8 hours? Or does the existence of the previous buff prevent the new casting from taking effect, essentially wasting the spell slot?

Here's another one: Let's say you cast Enhance Ability on yourself to enhance your Charisma in order to bluff your way past a guard. Later on, you cast it again to buff your Dexterity so you can sneak around. Now, in this case, as soon as you recast the spell, you lose concentration on your previous casting, but pretend you don't need to concentrate on this spell for whatever reason. What happens?

It seems pretty clear that applying the same effect twice at least can replace the old effect with the new one, extending the duration. If the new effect is less potent, then it seems like you'd have the option of retaining the old effect instead if you wished. So I would say yes, you can reapply a stun to extend its duration. The creature still needs to fail the saving throw, so there's that at least.

[Segev]

"The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or be stunned until the end of your next turn."

If the target fails the save, he is stunned until the end of your next turn. The duration of a previous stun wearing off doesn't change this. It would require a mechanic actively removing the stun to change this.

Malice the Monk hits Will the Wizard with Stunning Fist. Will fails his save, and is stunned until the end of Malice's next turn. On Malice's next turn, she repeats this, and Will again fails his save. Will is now stunned until the end of Malice's next turn.

There's no rule that says she can't use it on him while he's stunned. So the operative text is that the target is "stunned until the end of your next turn" when you use this feature successfully.

[DwarfFighter]

Let's say you are fighting ghouls. On your first turn you get Paralyzed for one minute. On the next turn you get Paralyzed again.

Do you make end-of-turn saves separately to end each of the individual Paralyzed conditions?

If you get cast Lesser Restoration, does that remove one of the Paralyzed conditions or both?

-DF

[stoutstien]

Let's say you are fighting ghouls. On your first turn you get Paralyzed for one minute. On the next turn you get Paralyzed again.

Do you make end-of-turn saves separately to end each of the individual Paralyzed conditions?

If you get cast Lesser Restoration, does that remove one of the Paralyzed conditions or both?

-DF

You can't be paralyzed twice at one time so the save at end of turn stays the same regardless if they get clawed once or a dozen times.

[Segev]

Let's say you are fighting ghouls. On your first turn you get Paralyzed for one minute. On the next turn you get Paralyzed again.

Do you make end-of-turn saves separately to end each of the individual Paralyzed conditions?

If you get cast Lesser Restoration, does that remove one of the Paralyzed conditions or both?

-DF


You can't be paralyzed twice at one time so the save at end of turn stays the same regardless if they get clawed once or a dozen times.

As stoutstien says, you can't have the condition twice. You are paralyzed according to the rules of whatever it is paralyzed you. If you make the save, you cease to be paralyzed, because the rules for both causes of paralysis state they end when you succeed on that save.

[MaxWilson]

You can't be paralyzed twice at one time so the save at end of turn stays the same regardless if they get clawed once or a dozen times.

AFAIK the rule for similar effects is that while the durations overlap, only the most powerful effect applies. But that isn't the same thing as "you can't be paralyzed twice." If you're paralyzed by a Hold Person spell (DC 15 Wis) and a Yeti's gaze (DC 13 Con), you're paralyzed until you beat BOTH, although one could end before the other does.

It's a little bit more ambiguous what happens when you're hit by multiple Hold Persons at the same time (do you roll the end-of-round saves for them all separately, or just one roll against possibly-different DCs?) but at minimum what seems to be true if that five priests all have you under DC 15 Hold Person, you can break the concentration of four priests and you'll still be paralyzed until that fifth priest also stops concentrating or you make the save. Potentially if you can't break any priest's concentration you might have to make five successful saving throws, depending on how the DM rules.

[Greywander]

It's a little bit more ambiguous what happens when you're hit by multiple Hold Persons at the same time
You can't stack the same spell multiple times on the same target. You could cast both Hold Person and Hold Monster, in which case they would likely need to roll saves for each, and they'd remain paralyzed until they passed both.

You're right that it's unclear if you're hit with multiple Hold Persons, though; which one sticks, the one with the highest save DC, or the one with the longest duration remaining? We could even imagine some extreme examples. Say you're hit by an enemy's Hold Person with an outrageous DC of 30. So an ally with a save DC of 5 casts Hold Person on you and you willingly fail the initial save. If the new casting replaces the old one due to having a longer duration, then you only need to beat a DC of 5 in order to end the paralysis. That definitely seems backwards to me. On the other hand, if you cast Hold Person on someone and your DC is 17, and when it's about to expire in one round an ally casts Hold Person on the same target, but their DC is only 16, does their spell fail to take effect? With Hold Person, it's concentration, so you could just drop concentration to let the new casting take hold, but what if you did this with a non-concentration spell?

Edit: I'm a dumdum. The answer is that both castings affect you, but only the strongest, i.e. the one with the highest save DC is rolled. The other casting simply does nothing until the stronger spell expires. It's still unclear if passing the DC ends both spells or just the one.

[Sigreid]

We've been playing it that yes, you can chain stun and effectively keep an opponent stunned. And yes, it's devastating. If a monk lands that first stun, the mob is pretty much hosed.

[MaxWilson]

You can't stack the same spell multiple times on the same target. You could cast both Hold Person and Hold Monster, in which case they would likely need to roll saves for each, and they'd remain paralyzed until they passed both.

I saw your edit, but for clarity and future reference I'd better cite the rule:


Combining Magical Effects

The effects of different spells add together while the durations of those spells overlap. The effects of the same spell cast multiple times don't combine, however. Instead, the most potent effect--such as the highest bonus--from those castings applies while their durations overlap, or the most recent effect applies if the castings are equally potent and their durations overlap.

For example, if two clerics cast bless on the same target, that character gains the spell's benefit only once; he or she doesn't get to roll two bonus dice.

If I've got a Bless spell on Bob, and Lisa has a Bless spell on Bob, then both Blesses exist, and either of us can drop concentration and Bob will still be Blessed.

[Segev]

We've been playing it that yes, you can chain stun and effectively keep an opponent stunned. And yes, it's devastating. If a monk lands that first stun, the mob is pretty much hosed.

He has to keep landing it in the sense of the target not making its save each round, and it gets expensive in terms of ki.

[DwarfFighter]

You can't be paralyzed twice at one time so the save at end of turn stays the same regardless if they get clawed once or a dozen times.

I don't think that is correct. From the basic rules:



Conditions alter a creature's capabilities in a variety of ways and can arise as a result of a spell, a class feature, a monster's attack, or other effect. Most conditions, such as blinded, are impairments, but a few, such as invisible, can be advantageous.

A condition lasts either until it is countered (the prone condition is countered by standing up, for example) or for a duration specified by the effect that imposed the condition.

If multiple effects impose the same condition on a creature, each instance of the condition has its own duration, but the condition's effects don't get worse. A creature either has a condition or doesn't.

The following definitions specify what happens to a creature while it is subjected to a condition.


If you are Paralyzed twice by Ghouls, surely those are "multiple effects" and have their own duration. And the end-of-turn saves serve to cut the duration of that instance of the condition short, as opposed to having the effect of clearing all instances.

Otherwise, imagine if you were subject to an effect that poisoned you for a day at a time. So you run up to a venomous creature and get poisoned again with a low DC end-of-turn save to end the effect. You pass the save, and somehow you shake the full-day Poisoned condition too? That doesn't sound right.

-DF

[stoutstien]

I don't think that is correct. From the basic rules:



If you are Paralyzed twice by Ghouls, surely those are "multiple effects" and have their own duration. And the end-of-turn saves serve to cut the duration of that instance of the condition short, as opposed to having the effect of clearing all instances.

Otherwise, imagine if you were subject to an effect that poisoned you for a day at a time. So you run up to a venomous creature and get poisoned again with a low DC end-of-turn save to end the effect. You pass the save, and somehow you shake the full-day Poisoned condition too? That doesn't sound right.

-DF

You know RAW I'm not sure.
it's just a house rule I've been running that just avoids the issue that I've been using so long now it's ingrained.

Same effect and save DC - use longest duration
Same effect and different save DC- use highest DC.

Exception for grappling or other physical effects- can stack but one check can break multi ones at once.

[Sigreid]

He has to keep landing it in the sense of the target not making its save each round, and it gets expensive in terms of ki.

Both true. It's not a certain thing, but when it works, it's been extremely effective. And a tactic that worked all the time would b boring.

[DwarfFighter]

He has to keep landing it in the sense of the target not making its save each round, and it gets expensive in terms of ki.

Sure, just add the qualifier "when it works" and "when it it worth the cost".

-DF

[KorvinStarmast]

Stunning Strike

Starting at 5th level, you can interfere with the flow of ki in an opponent's body. When you hit another creature with a melee weapon attack, you can spend 1 ki point to attempt a stunning strike. The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or be stunned until the end of your next turn.

1. Once a creature is stunned, on the monk's next turn, can the monk apply the stun again?
2. Or does the fact that it is already stunned mean that one cant apply the stun again? I edited in numbers to reply: 1. Yes. 2. Why would you think that?

When the same effect is applied more than once the most potent one takes effect. You can stun someone twice and while they don't get any more stunned you can certainly extend the duration. FWIW, there's a term - 'stun lock' - that applies here. It is one of the unique strengths of the Monk class.
"The target must succeed on a Constitution saving throw or be stunned until the end of your next turn."

If the target fails the save, he is stunned until the end of your next turn. The duration of a previous stun wearing off doesn't change this. Segev nailed it.

Stun lock: one of the parties I am DMing is just now learning how effective that is (unless, of course, the monster makes the CON save)

[Segev]

Stun lock: one of the parties I am DMing is just now learning how effective that is (unless, of course, the monster makes the CON save)

It gets VERY expensive, but thanks to the monk's many attacks, he can force multiple saves per round, possibly, if needs be. But when I say "VERY expensive," I am not exaggerating. Doing that is likely going to make the monk want a short rest immediately thereafter.

[KorvinStarmast]

It gets VERY expensive, but thanks to the monk's many attacks, he can force multiple saves per round, possibly, if needs be. But when I say "VERY expensive," I am not exaggerating. Doing that is likely going to make the monk want a short rest immediately thereafter. Part of the way to leverage this is to ensure that the party focus fire's on the stunned opponent; the crits add up quickly in our experience. That way the Monk isn't trying to solo the creature.

But I do agree: it eats up Ki.

[Snails]

It gets VERY expensive, but thanks to the monk's many attacks, he can force multiple saves per round, possibly, if needs be. But when I say "VERY expensive," I am not exaggerating. Doing that is likely going to make the monk want a short rest immediately thereafter.

True. Stunning random toughs that probably have a positive Con save gets expensive quickly. But against a dangerous target, I do not think there is a better use for your Ki, because it is such a huge Action Economy win. Even very tough targets probably have a 25-40% chance of failing the save, so on average it is costing you ballpark 2-3 Ki to achieve the desired result. Since you spend Ki after the hit has landed, at least you are forcing the save with the expenditure.

(Tangent: IMNSHO, the mechanics around potentially huge Ki expenditures in a single round to bend/break the Action Economy is a very bad design. Just allow the Monk to make one single Stun attempt per round for free, in the same manner that a Rogue gets one single Sneak Attack, and let the Monk burn Ki for more exotic fare.)

[x3n0n]

It gets VERY expensive, but thanks to the monk's many attacks, he can force multiple saves per round, possibly, if needs be. But when I say "VERY expensive," I am not exaggerating. Doing that is likely going to make the monk want a short rest immediately thereafter.

Expected ki spent to stun depends a LOT on ki save DC vs target Con save bonus (and some on target AC vs Monk to-hit bonus, which determines how likely the stun is in the first two attacks vs needing to Flurry).

TL;DR: expected ki per round of "stunlock" is between 1.5 and 2.5 in general and varies a lot depending on target Con save bonus. Example below.

Since hitting is a lot easier once they are stunned, ki per successful stun goes down somewhat in later rounds since you don't need to Flurry as often (and probability goes up, since you are less likely to entirely miss).

Let's say a level 9 Monk, Dex 18, Wis 18: to-hit bonus is +4+4 = +8, ki save DC is 8+4+4 = 16.
Then we can start plugging in target ACs and Con save bonuses.

Beholder: AC 18, Con save +4
d20 to hit: 18 - 8 = 10; d20 to save: 16 - 4 = 12

Assuming no advantage (that is, to get an initial stun):
Given d20tohit 10, d20tosave 12, advantage? (0):
P(stun) = 0.763311668710937
ki: P(1) 0.4386, P(2) 0.1636, P(3) 0.1128, P(4) 0.0435, P(5) 0.0045
P(nostun) = 0.236688331289063
ki: P(1) 0.041, P(2) 0.0902, P(3) 0.0744, P(4) 0.0272, P(5) 0.0037
E(ki) = 1.87434564765625

To read:
* 76.33% of the time, you'll eventually stun, 23.67% of the time, you'll fail to stun.
* 43.86% of the time, you'll stun using 1 ki, 16.36% to stun using 2 ki, etc
* reading on the second row, you'll fail to stun having spent 1 ki (that is, 4 misses with flurry) 4.1% of the time, fail with 2 ki (flurry, 1 hit and fail) 9% of the time, etc

Overall, 1.87 ki spent in the first round, succeed or fail.

In each succeeding round, the Monk has advantage on every attack:
Given d20tohit 10, d20tosave 12, advantage? (1):
P(stun) = 0.900685588773301
ki: P(1) 0.5274, P(2) 0.179, P(3) 0.0831, P(4) 0.0908, P(5) 0.0202
P(nostun) = 0.0993144112266994
ki: P(1) 0.0016, P(2) 0.0119, P(3) 0.0316, P(4) 0.0374, P(5) 0.0165
E(ki) = 1.952752052031

* 90.07% of the time, you'll stun, 9.93% of the time, you'll fail.
* more than half the time (52.74%) you'll stun with a single ki, and with 2 ki another 17.9% of the time, 3 ki another 8.3%, 4 ki another 9%, 5 ki only 2%

Overall, expected ki spent goes up to 1.95, but that's because the number of hits and success rate went up even more (76% to 90%).

Note: the same Monk at level 8 (+7 to hit, DC 15) gets the initial stun 68.4% of the time and future rounds 84.7% of the time, and spends somewhat more ki to do so.

(These numbers are from an updated version of the script here: https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?626664-Stun-likelihood-script)