Monk's Stunning Strike most broken ability?

[Blas_de_Lezo]

So, this question is for those of you who have ACTUALLY DM'ed campaigns. I'm not looking for theorizers...
It's Monk's stunning strike the most broken ability in 5e? In my experiencie, if a monk wants to stun an enemy, he just have to keep striking it until he fails a CON save (usually if not at the first attack, at the second, but no more later than 2nd round), just totally cancelling out any enemy. And he can do it almost at will, as Ki recharges in short rests.

If you consider it broken, do you counter it somehow?

[ad_hoc]

So, this question is for those of you who have ACTUALLY DM'ed campaigns. I'm not looking for theorizers...
It's Monk's stunning strike the most broken ability in 5e? In my experiencie, if a monk wants to stun an enemy, he just have to keep striking it until he fails a CON save (usually if not at the first attack, at the second, but no more later than 2nd round), just totally cancelling out any enemy. And he can do it almost at will, as Ki recharges in short rests.

If you consider it broken, do you counter it somehow?

The Monk excels at defeating powerful individual creatures who have low Con at 5th level. Compare to a Wizard who can wipe out a mob of enemies with a Fireball.

Ki fuels most Monk abilities and they only get 5 (at 5th) per short rest. That's 2.5 per encounter. Seems about right.

[Tiadoppler]

IMO, no, it's not that broken.
It's powerful, but not overwhelmingly so. 2 ki points is pretty close to a 3rd level spell in terms a character's resources.
A monk uses 1-2 ki points in a round to stun 1 enemy for 1 turn.
Compare that to the 3rd level spells Hypnotic Pattern, Slow, or Bestow Curse.

The monk wins in terms of absolutely locking down one opponent, but spellcasters have more options, and the ability to control the whole battlefield at once.


It all depends on encounter design. If you're up against one, physically frail boss, the monk is going to be excellent at locking the boss down. If you're up against multiple dangerous opponents, the monk may prefer to watch from the sidelines as the casters fold the fabric of reality into their preferred origami shapes.

[Caelic]

Consider that, in the same timeframe in which a monk locks down a powerful opponent (burning through most of his resources in the process,) a paladin can usually annihilate the same opponent by burning through his.

[Specter]

The main deal about having a Monk in the party is that single-monster fights will be god-awful boring, because they will eventually stun the BBEG, and then there's no action economy anymore, just guys beating up a bag of HP.

Consider that, in the same timeframe in which a monk locks down a powerful opponent (burning through most of his resources in the process,) a paladin can usually annihilate the same opponent by burning through his.

No comparison, as Paladin slots are by long rest, and Monk's Ki is by short rest.

[GlenSmash!]

The main deal about having a Monk in the party is that single-monster fights will be god-awful boring, because they will eventually stun the BBEG, and then there's no action economy anymore, just guys beating up a bag of HP

In my experience single-monster fights are pretty much always a terrible idea in 5e whether there is a Monk in the party or not.

[strangebloke]

Its awesome against a boss, yeah. It's definitely their most potent class feature.

Not even remotely broken though.

Say it takes an average of 2 ki to lock down an opponent for a single round. At fifth you can do that 7 rounds on average over the course of a day. That's about once per encounter! And if you aren't using your ki to disengage, dash, etc. You're going to be sitting wide open and taking lots of damage, due to your lackluster AC.

You have to remember their whole kit. If they could stun in an aoe or at range or they had better AC early on it'd be a lot better.

[Christian]

It really depends on how often you make short rests available. This is dependent on both the DM and the players, who may not all want to stop for an hour every time the monk burns through his ki in one fight.

If it's getting abused, you do have the ability as a DM to restrict those rest opportunities. Monks don't get enough ki to just throw that ability out there constantly unless they're confident that they'll get to replenish them easily. If they even have doubts about that, they'll hold them for when they'll be most effective.

[willdaBEAST]

It "ruined" a fun encounter I had planned with a bone devil, the monk was able to stun the devil for three straight rounds. The way I adjusted was to avoid single monster encounters and value con modifiers a bit more. It's an incredibly strong ability in the right situation, but it is also a significant resource drain, especially if you're running a series of consecutive encounters without a short rest. Bosses with legendary saves help a lot vs abilities like stunning strike or spells like banishment.

[Specter]

In my experience single-monster fights are pretty much always a terrible idea in 5e whether there is a Monk in the party or not.

They can be fun, if the enemy's got good reactions and is not made useless. Which is why I hate Hold Person/Monster.

It "ruined" a fun encounter I had planned with a bone devil, the monk was able to stun the devil for three straight rounds. The way I adjusted was to avoid single monster encounters and value con modifiers a bit more. It's an incredibly strong ability in the right situation, but it is also a significant resource drain, especially if you're running a series of consecutive encounters without a short rest. Bosses with legendary saves help a lot vs abilities like stunning strike or spells like banishment.

Then Monk can absolutely destroy Legendary Resistance in about three attacks, while casters would take turns and turns. Point for Monk.

[willdaBEAST]

Then Monk can absolutely destroy Legendary Resistance in about three attacks, while casters would take turns and turns. Point for Monk.

In three successfully landed stunning strikes, which is unlikely. At the bare minimum it's a 3 ki point cost and the monk has to be in melee with the boss. Legendary resistance doesn't solve the problem, but it at least gives you the opportunity to get that boss far away from the monk or gives you the chance to react. I wouldn't go overboard in countering the way one particular class shines.

[Naanomi]

It’s strong, perhaps even class defining... but not overpowered in my experience

[Foxhound438]

I've -played- as the monk in a game where the one time I got to use stunning strike (first fight since level 5) the BBEG failed first time every round and died before doing anything. No experience on the other end since apparently "monks are a trap class lol, barbarian GWM PAM HA DF RB RA FTW", at least according to half of my playgroup.

That being said, it was in fact a one-foe fight with an enemy that had apparently +0 on con saves.

Further in its defense, it is a pretty big resource cost early if the thing has a higher con save (taking maybe 2 or 3 attempts to land means you only get 2 turns of stun), and by the time you're getting a lot of ki the "boss fights" should probably include more than one foe anyways, and in the rare occasion where you want a boss on its own it should probably have legendary actions, which stun does not stop if I remember right.

[Nettlekid]

A lot of these responses feel theorycrafty, with people saying "compare it to X ability at the same level or Y class, and averaging encounter per short rest uses blah blah blah," and the OP specifically asked for people who have seen it used in practice. I'm DMing a game with a Monk in it and I can tell you that, if the Monk puts their mind to it, Stunning Strike can definitely feel broken. It's pretty much as you said, the Monk goes in on attacking a specific enemy and just stops them from getting a turn ever. The group can pretty easily determine which bad guy is the one that needs never to go. Monks also hit harder than you might expect, just by volume of attacks. Honestly avoiding the first stun is the biggest deal because once the target is stunned then the Monk's attacking with advantage and you have no hope of dodging all the rest of the attacks.

[Tiadoppler]

It's hard to talk about game balance without talking theory, or simply listing anecdotes.

I had a game in which the monk didn't succeed at any attacks for several encounters in a row, and ended up unconscious. I had a game in which the enemy was able to make his saves thanks to a high CON, and didn't get stunned.

It's not "if the monk puts their mind to it" it's "if the monk hits the enemy regularly, uses their resources, and the enemy fails their saving throws". All classes are impressive when their abilities work and the targets don't save.

I do agree that it's frequently way too easy for a group to determine who the biggest threat is, and then focus fire+control effects on that one enemy. It's fun to occasionally (or regularly) mix things up by having the sophisticated, intelligent, well-dressed leader be fairly ineffective in combat, but they've hired the very best bodyguards.

[S_A_M I AM]

I haven't DM'd a monk but I did play a halfing way of the open hand monk from 4th to 14th level.

Frankly: The class didn't feel hugely powerful in general and Stunning Strike was often a flat out waste of resources. Enemies very, very often made the save, I think it proc'd maybe twenty times over more than a year of weekly play.

To be fair: We generally moved between two kinds of fight. Large hard target monsters in groups of one or two where the stun would be highly valuable (Dinosaurs. Hydra's. Wyverns. Golems. Were the most memorable.) but where the stun was much more difficult to land and smaller, massed fights with no obvious, high priority target.

Also to be fair: My DPR was actually fairly high even without the stun. It's the most mobile I'd been in basically any D&D game. I dropped all by ASI's into feats because a +1 to my stun save didn't feel worth it for consistent better results.* The DM made some rulings about the other rules regarding tripping, grappling and the like that were sensible but kinda frustrating. (Four legged creatures being unable to be tripped. Creatures larger than me being more difficult to trip. Things like that.)

[Lombra]

As a monk player, I can tell you that it's only good in encounters where there's a big bad guy, I wouldn't say that it's broken, but I did stunlock a Dragon Turtle for a couple rounds at level 9, and a Behir the level before that, and it didn't felt quite right.

Monsters with two heads tend to have advantage on saving throws against the stunned condition, so they're a good way to mix up the encounters, ettins come to mind.

Also, you should really put at least 2 encounters before any short rest, managing ki is too easy if it's always on.

[BobZan]

Class defining. Monk 5 is one of the biggest power spikes in the game.

An average character from 1 to 4, it starts to shine after 5.

[Ivor_The_Mad]

I would not say broken. I would say its good in different circumstances. If you are with a party facing a single big bad you could use it so subdue the big bad while you party gets of hits. On the other hand if you are facing a hoard of enemies and stunning strike one it won't help much.

[Ellisthion]

I've DM'd for a monk from ~7th to 17th level.

• It's fun: the player really had a blast with Stunning Strike
• It's powerful, but so are other classes, particularly spellcasters
• It ignores Magic Resistance, so it provides unique value that spellcasters can't
• The players built around it: they buffed the hell out of the Monk and had him melee a Balor so the Fighters could wail on it

It's a bit of a nuisance sure, and it can burn through Legendary Resistance fast, but it's a key perk of being a Monk. I don't think it's a problem. If you have a solo monster who can be taken out with single failed save then spellcasters are going to ruin your day much faster than a Monk.

[Theodoxus]

It's hard to talk about game balance without talking theory, or simply listing anecdotes.

I had a game in which the monk didn't succeed at any attacks for several encounters in a row, and ended up unconscious. I had a game in which the enemy was able to make his saves thanks to a high CON, and didn't get stunned.

It's not "if the monk puts their mind to it" it's "if the monk hits the enemy regularly, uses their resources, and the enemy fails their saving throws". All classes are impressive when their abilities work and the targets don't save.

I do agree that it's frequently way too easy for a group to determine who the biggest threat is, and then focus fire+control effects on that one enemy. It's fun to occasionally (or regularly) mix things up by having the sophisticated, intelligent, well-dressed leader be fairly ineffective in combat, but they've hired the very best bodyguards.

Pretty much this. As a DM, I can easily manipulate each and every encounter to make my players (or any specific subset of same) feel really powerful or really weak, or anything in between. I can shut my archers down or let them shine. I can make my wizard cry in his beer or let him feel like a god.

If you're running games where the monk is stunning everything to uselessness, that's on you, not the class, and certainly not the player. It'd be like decrying that rogues are too powerful because with sneak attack, they can one shot everything you throw at them - only to find you're only throwing things that have 12 hps!

You should let your players shine as much as possible, but always let them know there's a bigger fish out there that stop them in their tracks. There are critters that are immune to stuns; there are critters that have amazing con saves; and there are certainly critters that can overwhelm through sheer numbers, making the monk beg for his life.

[mephnick]

A lot of monsters have a high Con save. I've seen it fail as many times as its shut something down. It's a great clutch ability in certain circumstances but not nearly as abusable at the table as it is theorycrafted. As usual the answer is to design good and varied encounters.

[Joe the Rat]

I would not call it broken, but it is potent. It's terrific for a lockdown on a dangerous opponent, or to set up one heck of a team hit combo. It's also strong as a defensive move - If you can stun it, everyone can run away from it.

It can shut something down for a round (plus) on a failed save - you can keep piling it on, but you will run out of juice. In a cluttered field, he may have to spend ki to get there/avoid getting chopped up on the way.

It requires you to be close - It is almost impossible for a high-level monk to not reach a target, but that may put him well away from the group if things go badly. Locking down someone close to the party is good teamwork. Fliers present a potential problem. There are also creatures that are flat out dangerous to be near.

Effective on a single target, expensive on a group. 5th level is about the time that solo boss monsters start to become a Bad Idea. Mooks, waves, co-dragons (not literal)... anything to present multiple means of harassing the party and burning resources. Legendary boss monsters are a necessity if you have to make it a solo.


For the record, there are three creatures in the Monster Manual that are immune to the stunned condition: Demilich, Revenant, and Helmed Horror. There's some potential here. A Revenant Monk with a "You Killed my Master" motivator could be a real pain to deal with.

[Easy_Lee]

I'm DMing a game with a Monk in it and I can tell you that, if the Monk puts their mind to it, Stunning Strike can definitely feel broken. It's pretty much as you said, the Monk goes in on attacking a specific enemy and just stops them from getting a turn ever.

At the same level that monks get stunning strike warlocks can pick up Hold Person and Enemies Abound. Whereas the monk must target constitution, the warlock can target either Wisdom or Intelligence. Whereas stunning strike lasts one round but can be attempted multiple times in a round, these spells only get one shot but last for multiple rounds. Additionally, paralysis and forcing a target to attack its friends are more powerful effects than stun.

Warlocks can cast two spells per short rest at that level, and monks can do up to five stunning strikes if they use their ki for nothing else. I think stunning strike is relatively balanced against similar tactics from a warlock. But I can see how someone playing a martial might see it as overpowered, particularly if that player was not very good at playing a martial.

[Mitth'raw'nuruo]

I haven't DM'd a monk but I did play a halfing way of the open hand monk from 4th to 14th level.

Frankly: The class didn't feel hugely powerful in general and Stunning Strike was often a flat out waste of resources. Enemies very, very often made the save, I think it proc'd maybe twenty times over more than a year of weekly play.

To be fair: We generally moved between two kinds of fight. Large hard target monsters in groups of one or two where the stun would be highly valuable (Dinosaurs. Hydra's. Wyverns. Golems. Were the most memorable.) but where the stun was much more difficult to land and smaller, massed fights with no obvious, high priority target.

Also to be fair: My DPR was actually fairly high even without the stun. It's the most mobile I'd been in basically any D&D game. I dropped all by ASI's into feats because a +1 to my stun save didn't feel worth it for consistent better results.* The DM made some rulings about the other rules regarding tripping, grappling and the like that were sensible but kinda frustrating. (Four legged creatures being unable to be tripped. Creatures larger than me being more difficult to trip. Things like that.)

Your DM obviously spent no time on a farm. Or ever watched a rodeo. You've got to trip cattle to hog tie them....

[Foxhound438]

At the same level that monks get stunning strike warlocks can pick up Hold Person and Enemies Abound. Whereas the monk must target constitution, the warlock can target either Wisdom or Intelligence. Whereas stunning strike lasts one round but can be attempted multiple times in a round, these spells only get one shot but last for multiple rounds. Additionally, paralysis and forcing a target to attack its friends are more powerful effects than stun.

Warlocks can cast two spells per short rest at that level, and monks can do up to five stunning strikes if they use their ki for nothing else. I think stunning strike is relatively balanced against similar tactics from a warlock. But I can see how someone playing a martial might see it as overpowered, particularly if that player was not very good at playing a martial.

Pretty much this. Yes, monk does damage while attempting to stun, but on the same coin you have to do damage to try to stun (some days your dice will not allow this).

But even worse for arguments of stunning strike's overpoweredness is AOE control:

a monk can spend all 5 of their ki to deny one creature one turn, while a warlock can spend one of their 2 spell slots to cast fear and make the boss, his faithful caster, pet dog, wife, 3 kids, and the rogue you didn't even know existed all entirely useless the entire encounter.

Granted, that's generous to the warlock and harsh to the monk as far as the value they get from their abilities, but this is a more than believable sequence of events to happen on the first round of an actual combat. Even being totally reversed where the monk gets everything and the warlock gets nothing given the same encounter, the monk only denies the boss, the caster, the dog and the wife one turn each and gets sneak attacked right before the 3 kids run up and gank the cleric, and the warlock still has half his spells (one, but still) and can go for a fireball on his next turn for guaranteed damage.

[KorvinStarmast]

Played with a monk at 10th and 11th level.
A lot of the critters we fought had high con saves.
Stun was great, when it came off.
When it didn't, well, then what?

In an adventure day with 4-6 encounters, we were glad Ki recharges on short rest. That gave the monk a shot at locking down one enemy, but we also had to deal with the rest.

To assert "overpowered" is to misunderstand this ability.
There's a power spike for a lot of classes at level 5/6.

A few levels later, that spike works its way down to a lump.

[S_A_M I AM]

Your DM obviously spent no time on a farm. Or ever watched a rodeo. You've got to trip cattle to hog tie them....

His wife was playing as well and had grown up on a farm in Tasmania: She said exactly the same thing. Didn't matter.

[ZorroGames]

His wife was playing as well and had grown up on a farm in Tasmania: She said exactly the same thing. Didn't matter.

Says a lot right there. In OD&D running a group of 20 players and massive opponents (Why, oh why?) for several months before we moved, more than a few times I have been tripped up in my ad hoc rulings from knowledge you don’t pick up from my childhood in East Los Angeles.

[Asmotherion]

It is a very good ability indeed, but you can't call something relying on resources at-will. By the level the Monk gets it, he actually uses ki points on other abilities as well (usually flurry of blows), leaving him with only a couple of uses per short rest.

In actual combat, it is the equivalent of a Hold Person spell cast by a Warlock. One deals damage but needs both a succesful attack roll and failed save to succeed. The other needs only a failed save, and has the potential to last for more turns than one. Both can target more than one target at level 5, the average being 2 targets. Both renew their spent resource after a short rest. Both target a Major Save, thus non gets an advantage on that aspect.

On higher level play, it becomes more sustainable, but from levels 5-9 it has more the feel of a nova option than that of an ability you can use without thinking. You usually reserve it for a boss fight.