Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Xeviat-DM May 23, 2015 18:29:11	Hey everyone. I've seen a few threads about the monk's Stunning Strike. The concensus seems to be that it's balanced for it's opportunity cost; a monk won't be able to stun lock something forever, even though they can all but guarantee that something will sail it's save (at 5th level, they can drop 4 ki points, make three attacks, and make each a stun attempt if they hit).   I'm not a fan of novaing. I prefer mechanics that limit novaing; that's why I loved 4E's encounter power mechanic. While I've since accepted defeat and accepted the return of (mostly) daily spell slots, a bit of restraint seems prudent.   Stunned is clearly a potent condition. It's far more potent than anything anyone else can do by giving up an attack (push, prone, grapple). On the monk, adding stun to an attack is equivalent to making an extra attack (since the monk can always make one extra attack). Stun also "never misses", as you get to activate it after a hit.   I'd venture to guess no one would give "con save, stun 1 round" to a battlemaster as a maneuver, as stun does quite a bit more than prone, even with giving up the extra die of damage.   So, for those who are worried about stunning strike, I thought of a really simple house rule:   Stunning Strike Starting at 5th level, you can interfere with the flow of ki in an opponent's body. You can spend 1 ki point and use a bonus action to make a melee weapon attack that, in addition to dealing damage, stuns the target until the end of your next turn unless it succeeds on a Constitution save).   This house rule makes it so a monk has to choose between making 2 attacks or making 1 attack with stun (still seems like a bargain to me), and they now have the chance to waist their ki.   Thoughts? Mostly, this is seeking some symetry (as the basic ki maneuvers all use bonus actions) and as a way of limiting how often a monk can use stunning fist. If I were trying to "balance" it on a homebrewed class, I probably would remove the standard damage (make it like more of an undamaging pressure point attack). But as an option for those who worry about stunning fist spamming, what do you think?
#2 durntaur May 23, 2015 21:21:19	Correction, at L5 they can drop 5 KP, make 4 attacks, and attempt 4 stuns. However, they've just burned through their entire pool of KP until the next short rest; there is no imbalance. Consider it any other class's nova/alpha-strike.   Your houserule shifts the balance too far to the weak side, regardless of the fact it doesn't need to be shifted. Your essentiall making a blind KP expenditure without guarentee that it will you will even get to the CON save; the melee attack hit is a barrier to even getting to the part where the target must attempt a save and the KP is spent regardless.   Comparing to battlemaster manuevers is not an apples to apples comparison as fighters have other offensive benefits baked into the class's general features.
#3 reddaemon May 23, 2015 22:43:13	Seems a little too weak to me.  Instead of redesigning the entire ability, consider simply allowing Stunning Strike to be used only once per round.  I wouldn't do this though unless I really had an issue with it though.  Like if 3 people at the table decided to play Monks or something.
#4 BRJN May 24, 2015 14:52:40	Xeviat, Unlike you, I do like novas and Alpha Strikes: there are times when an enemy has to be taken out quickly.  I also see the problem if a character totally consumes his resources in the Alpha Strike and has nothing at all left for normal opponents.  I'm playing an AL Monk and enjoy the class.  So far, I haven't spent even 1 ki point, mostly because the rest of my group can keep up with me in the DPR department.  (Weapon attack + Martial Arts = "advantage" on an attack roll.  It is rare that I totally miss on my turn.)  When it becomes important to prevent somebody from fleeing, I can see the ki coming out.  (And I hope this will be a surprise to the DM like it is supposed to surprise the NPCs.)
#5 durntaur May 24, 2015 15:57:21	BRJN wrote:
#6 BRJN May 24, 2015 17:12:12	durntaur wrote: