D&D 5E Impact of size on Monk's Stunning Blow ability

[NitesShade]

In a recent session my halfling monk landed what should have a stunning blow on a winter wolf (Large Size). However the DM ruled that as a small sized creature he could not stun a creature two sizes larger than himself. Not one to disrupt game flow with lengthy debates, we continued the session without lengthy debate.

I am now putting together thoughts for our continued discussion of the Monks Stunning ability. I wanted to get some feedback prior to revisiting this discussion. I feel his thinking that a monk cannot stun a creature more than one size larger than he is focused only of the size of the PC. By looking at this in one dimension it ignoring the fact of how a monk actually stuns an opponent. The monks stunning blows are not empowered by the size of his fist and strength but in his dexterity and skilled ability to disrupt the flow of the body's energy (at key pressure points). The amount of Ki a creature has is not determined by size alone. Clearly a 20 level fighter will have more Ki than a level 5 creature. Based on the current interpretation a 5th level monk can stun a 20 level fighter with +100 HP (failed save require) but not a level 1 creature if it happened to be large. Flipping this around a 20 level small sized monk cannot stun an ogre. Expanding this to M sized monks, they now cannot effect Giants. Mean while my rangers giant slayer as a % chance to knock them on their butt with every blow landed. Also if the size of the attacker is linked to how special abilities impact foes our halfling’s rouges sneak attack should not have worked as stated on a large sized foe.


Any thoughts on why this is not a great rule?

 

[jgsugden]

The DC of the stunning strike is not set by Dexterity or Strength - it is set by Wisdom as it is their connection between the life force of the monk and the target via the ki ability that inflicts the stun. Denying it is akin to denying a small spellcaster the ability to cast hold monster on a large creature.

 

[Mort]

Any thoughts on why this is not a great rule?

It's a completely arbitrary restriction and significantly impacts monks of smaller size - do smaller monks (in his group) get anything to offset this penalty?

Further it doesn't really make sense, you could just as easily rule that a smaller monk can more easily access pressure points that larger hands can't reach - and so at the very least offset any size issues.

Also, is your DM not a fan of Star Wars? Because Yoda would like a word! Even if your DM is hung up on "real world" size issues (and he shouldn't be) -The ability is not strictly physical, it uses Ki - size doesn't matter.

 

[Fenris-77]

There are no actual restrictions on Stunning Fist, so this is something the DM has just made up. So no, it's not a great rule or ruling, it's a terrible one. Character class abilities do not vary by race in 5E, if that was supposed to be the case it would be baked into the design of the rules and it isn't.

 

[NitesShade]

The DC of the stunning strike is not set by Dexterity or Strength - it is set by Wisdom as it is their connection between the life force of the monk and the target via the ki ability that inflicts the stun. Denying it is akin to denying a small spellcaster the ability to cast hold monster on a large creature.

I agree. I mentioned DEX because that is the ability used to land the strike in a point that disrupts the flow of Ki.

 

[SuperTD]

Your DM should not nerf your core ability without warning or discussion. Whether the nerf was justified or not based on his view of the power of the ability is irrelevant - changes to player abilities should either be made clear to players before the game or AGREED with the players if it becomes a problem during a campaign.

Me and my player also agreed a change to stunning strike - it can be used Wis mod times per short rest and doesn't cost ki, but only once per turn to avoid stun spam on bosses. But we debated it and mutually agreed it was warping the game, rather than me slamming down a mid game nerf.

 

[NitesShade]

Your DM should not nerf your core ability without warning or discussion. Whether the nerf was justified or not based on his view of the power of the ability is irrelevant - changes to player abilities should either be made clear to players before the game or AGREED with the players if it becomes a problem during a campaign.

Me and my player also agreed a change to stunning strike - it can be used Wis mod times per short rest and doesn't cost ki, but only once per turn to avoid stun spam on bosses. But we debated it and mutually agreed it was warping the game, rather than me slamming down a mid game nerf.

Honestly it was no big deal... it was not character killing and the game was still fun. I was allowed to replay and choose other alternative options for my turn but I don't want my character hampered long term and hence we are revisiting the discussion.

 

[NitesShade]

It's a completely arbitrary restriction and significantly impacts monks of smaller size - do smaller monks (in his group) get anything to offset this penalty?

Further it doesn't really make sense, you could just as easily rule that a smaller monk can more easily access pressure points that larger hands can't reach - and so at the very least offset any size issues.

Also, is your DM not a fan of Star Wars? Because Yoda would like a word! Even if your DM is hung up on "real world" size issues (and he shouldn't be) -The ability is not strictly physical, it uses Ki - size doesn't matter.

I like your line of thinking. The key is to turn his focus from physical size to Ki and the flow of Ki which is something more Metaphysical.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Honestly it was no big deal... it was not character killing and the game was still fun. I was allowed to replay and choose other alternative options for my turn but I don't want my character hampered long term and hence we are revisiting the discussion.

I think what your table did in the moment is the right way to do it...go with the GMs call and move on without getting salty about it. In between sessions you can have a discussion about the long term implications of the ruling and go from there.

From my perspective as a GM and a Player....taking away the Stunning Strike ability (which might be the Monk's best ability entirely) from Large and Larger opponents is a BIG change, not a small flavor tweak. If the GM NEEDED that change in their campaign there should be some sort of equally BIG benefit (Like all saves against the stunning strike are at disadvantage). I'd probably take that trade-off.

 

[Shiroiken]

I'd suggest that Stunning Strike, like most martial arts, is about finding weak points. In eastern beliefs (where the monk is originated), the body has lines of Chi throughout the body that can be disrupted and cause damage and severe illness. Your attack isn't hitting them in the head to stun them, but to find the right spot on the body to disrupt it.

Your logic on sneak attack works kinda the same way: it focuses on finding a weak point. In 3E, the sneak attack feature was severely limited, because the designers couldn't accept the logic of certain types of creatures having a weakness. It made the class very iffy, because most of the monster types were immune, and a campaign based around them made the character pretty worthless.