The 2024 stunned condition leaves out the "can't move" statement from the 2014 stunned condition. Is this an error?
The 2024 monk stunning strike causes the creature to be stunned on a failed save and to have their speed reduced by 50% on a successful save. Using the 2024 rules this means that a creature that fails the save can move away at full speed while a creature that passes can only move at 1/2 speed.
I don't really think this makes any sense and it sounds like an error in publishing but I haven't seen any threads regarding 2024 errata.
------
Relevant rules:
------
Stunned [Condition]
While you have the Stunned condition, you experience the following effects.
Incapacitated. You have the Incapacitated condition.
Saving Throws Affected. You automatically fail Strength and Dexterity saving throws.
Attacks Affected. Attack rolls against you have Advantage.
--
Incapacitated [Condition]
While you have the Incapacitated condition, you experience the following effects.
Surprised. If you’re Incapacitated when you roll Initiative, you have Disadvantage on the roll.
--
Level 5: Stunning Strike
Once per turn when you hit a creature with a Monk weapon or an Unarmed Strike, you can expend 1 Focus Point to attempt a stunning strike. The target must make a Constitution saving throw. On a failed save, the target has the Stunned condition until the start of your next turn. On a successful save, the target’s Speed is halved until the start of your next turn, and the next attack roll made against the target before then has Advantage.
Meh, I don’t think it’s an oversight so much as an odd interaction; they don’t want Stunning Strike to be save or suck so they pick two minor but useful effects for a save, and they trimmed the movement effect on stunned because there’s already a bunch of other movement impairing conditions. It’s slightly weird when you compare the two side by side, but entirely workable and overall a step up from the ‘14 iteration of the feature.
Meh, I don’t think it’s an oversight so much as an odd interaction; they don’t want Stunning Strike to be save or suck so they pick two minor but useful effects for a save, and they trimmed the movement effect on stunned because there’s already a bunch of other movement impairing conditions. It’s slightly weird when you compare the two side by side, but entirely workable and overall a step up from the ‘14 iteration of the feature.
I agree it is workable as would be anything that imposes one effect on a pass and a different unrelated effect on a fail. It doesn't get in the way of using the rule as is ... but from my perspective as a DM, I like game effects to actually make sense in the context of the game.
In addition, just based on the effects of the stunned condition, why would a creature that can move normally automatically fail dexterity saving throws? I usually think of dexterity being related to movement, but if movement is unaffected by being stunned then why would a creature automatically fail dex saves when stunned? You can say "just because that is what the rules state" but in that case I'd argue that the rules are lacking a bit of logical consistency in this case.
As far as other conditions that impair movement go, the question is more how often those conditions come up and what causes them rather than how many can reduce or eliminate a creatures movement. It also may matter to some, whether it makes sense for the condition to also inhibit movement. It seems to me given the other effects of stun that it should be in a movement reduction category.
In terms of game design, the comparison is likely between paralysed and stunned. Paralysed sets the speed to zero and makes any attacks from within 5' that hit, critical hits. It used to be that the only difference between stunned and paralysed was the critical hit effect. Now, the stunned condition allows movement. This prevents it from being used as a crowd control measure even for one creature ... it is solely a condition that makes a creature more vulnerable and denies them their actions ... but the creature could still run off through a door and close the door behind them since free object interactions aren't affected. The stunned creature could run to the side of the room and pull a lever activating a trap (assuming only an object interaction was required to trigger it). There are quite a few things that a stunned creature can now do that they could not in the 2014 rules.
Finally, in terms of stunning strike, overall it is a major nerf of the ability - making it not useless on a failed save is nice but it doesn't make up for being limited to only one stunning strike attempt/turn. I think it was a GOOD change since the monk's ability to stun in the 2014 rules was exceptionally effective especially at higher levels and overall the changes to the monk, I think, make it better class to play.
TL;DR ... it doesn't make sense to me from a logic point of view that a successful save vs stun reduces movement by 1/2 while a failed save has no effect on movement at all. However, that in no way prevents the rule from being playable as written.
I agree it seems odd with failing allowing full movement and succeeding reducing movement but I think it’s just a trade off as having zero speed/half speed might be too powerful.
And the stunned creature lacks the coordination to help with Dex saves.
And if you take the grappler feat can hit, stunning strike, grapple on the same hit and they automatically fail the save due to the stun. So get your zero speed too.
Meh, I don’t think it’s an oversight so much as an odd interaction; they don’t want Stunning Strike to be save or suck so they pick two minor but useful effects for a save, and they trimmed the movement effect on stunned because there’s already a bunch of other movement impairing conditions. It’s slightly weird when you compare the two side by side, but entirely workable and overall a step up from the ‘14 iteration of the feature.
TL;DR ... it doesn't make sense to me from a logic point of view that a successful save vs stun reduces movement by 1/2 while a failed save has no effect on movement at all. However, that in no way prevents the rule from being playable as written.
This 1000%. What are the chances that no explicit mention of movement in the stunned condition (e.g., on a failed save for a stunning strike) was just an oversight?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Started playing AD&D in the late 70s and stopped in the mid-80s. Started immersing myself into 5e in 2023
Meh, I don’t think it’s an oversight so much as an odd interaction; they don’t want Stunning Strike to be save or suck so they pick two minor but useful effects for a save, and they trimmed the movement effect on stunned because there’s already a bunch of other movement impairing conditions. It’s slightly weird when you compare the two side by side, but entirely workable and overall a step up from the ‘14 iteration of the feature.
TL;DR ... it doesn't make sense to me from a logic point of view that a successful save vs stun reduces movement by 1/2 while a failed save has no effect on movement at all. However, that in no way prevents the rule from being playable as written.
This 1000%. What are the chances that no explicit mention of movement in the stunned condition (e.g., on a failed save for a stunning strike) was just an oversight?
More likely they wrote out the feature before the change to the stunned condition was finalized and decided it still worked well enough it didn’t need another effect tacked on.
More likely they wrote out the feature before the change to the stunned condition was finalized and decided it still worked well enough it didn’t need another effect tacked on.
Failed save = full Speed, but no actions/bonus actions/reactions due to the Stunned condition Successful save = half Speed, but you can still Dash. Which results in exactly the same amount of movement for most, only without all the other effects
I wouldn't assume it's an oversight
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
TL;DR ... it doesn't make sense to me from a logic point of view that a successful save vs stun reduces movement by 1/2 while a failed save has no effect on movement at all. However, that in no way prevents the rule from being playable as written.
I have to agree. And I looked at spells that impose stunned, no one had an additional rider that also limited movement. The 2024 version of Power Word Stun imposes Stunned if the target has < 150hp and speed=0 if the target has > 150hp, also seems like a strange interaction.
Yes. We have intentionally increased the differences between the Stunned and Paralyzed conditions, with Stunned now allowing you to move.
Yeah, it still smacks of an oversight to me. (That they are now claiming was intentional.) And, fine, whatever; if it was intentional, that only makes it worse.
Someone who is "stunned" does not strike me as someone who can move without any hindrance at normal speed and strategically to protect themselves. It's a simulation, etc., etc. Yes, yes. I still don't agree that it was a good decision to not have some kind of movement penalty for this condition.
That's the fun part: They can't move strategically to protect themselves! That's what the Disengage action represents, and if you're stunned and in melee range, you can't run away without taking extra attacks against you.
Some of y'all talking about the save and failure of stunning strike haven't taken a hit big enough to rattle you, like getting earholed in football. If you manage to shake it off and keep your composure when you get hit that hard you tend to move slower to compensate. If you do get rattled but not knocked down you can't think straight and try to move normal often stumbling in the process. Honestly the effects are a decent depiction of how people respond to hard hits.
Yes. We have intentionally increased the differences between the Stunned and Paralyzed conditions, with Stunned now allowing you to move.
Yeah, it still smacks of an oversight to me. (That they are now claiming was intentional.) And, fine, whatever; if it was intentional, that only makes it worse.
The thing that may have been intentional is exactly what they said was intentional -- which is just that they have intentionally increased the differences between the Stunned and Paralyzed conditions, with Stunned now allowing you to move. That does not necessarily mean that they properly and intentionally thought through all of the ripple effects of how this change would impact all of the other various rules throughout the game which make a reference to the Stunned condition. Many of the resulting strange interactions which have been brought up in this thread seem very unlikely to be intentional. They just didn't do a very good or thorough job when making this change. It's pretty unfortunate.
The stunned opponent still automatically fails their strength and Dexterity saves, so if you don't want the opponent to move, just grapple them, the grapple would be automatic.
I mean, with how little characters move during a typical fight, it's not like it makes a huge difference one way or the other in any case.
You must play with a team that has the frontliners basically standing still trading hits with the monsters. At my table there is a ton of movement happening all the time, plus a lot of forced movement on the enemies which causes them to reposition on their turns. At a table like this, the change to being Stunned is pretty noticeable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The 2024 stunned condition leaves out the "can't move" statement from the 2014 stunned condition. Is this an error?
The 2024 monk stunning strike causes the creature to be stunned on a failed save and to have their speed reduced by 50% on a successful save. Using the 2024 rules this means that a creature that fails the save can move away at full speed while a creature that passes can only move at 1/2 speed.
I don't really think this makes any sense and it sounds like an error in publishing but I haven't seen any threads regarding 2024 errata.
------
Relevant rules:
------
Stunned [Condition]
While you have the Stunned condition, you experience the following effects.
Incapacitated. You have the Incapacitated condition.
Saving Throws Affected. You automatically fail Strength and Dexterity saving throws.
Attacks Affected. Attack rolls against you have Advantage.
--
Incapacitated [Condition]
While you have the Incapacitated condition, you experience the following effects.
Inactive. You can’t take any action, Bonus Action, or Reaction.
No Concentration. Your Concentration is broken.
Speechless. You can’t speak.
Surprised. If you’re Incapacitated when you roll Initiative, you have Disadvantage on the roll.
--
Level 5: Stunning Strike
Once per turn when you hit a creature with a Monk weapon or an Unarmed Strike, you can expend 1 Focus Point to attempt a stunning strike. The target must make a Constitution saving throw. On a failed save, the target has the Stunned condition until the start of your next turn. On a successful save, the target’s Speed is halved until the start of your next turn, and the next attack roll made against the target before then has Advantage.
As you mentioned, under the 2024 rules, movement is allowed while Stunned. This causes a strange interaction with Stunning Strike.
This is one hell of an oversight.
Meh, I don’t think it’s an oversight so much as an odd interaction; they don’t want Stunning Strike to be save or suck so they pick two minor but useful effects for a save, and they trimmed the movement effect on stunned because there’s already a bunch of other movement impairing conditions. It’s slightly weird when you compare the two side by side, but entirely workable and overall a step up from the ‘14 iteration of the feature.
I agree it is workable as would be anything that imposes one effect on a pass and a different unrelated effect on a fail. It doesn't get in the way of using the rule as is ... but from my perspective as a DM, I like game effects to actually make sense in the context of the game.
In addition, just based on the effects of the stunned condition, why would a creature that can move normally automatically fail dexterity saving throws? I usually think of dexterity being related to movement, but if movement is unaffected by being stunned then why would a creature automatically fail dex saves when stunned? You can say "just because that is what the rules state" but in that case I'd argue that the rules are lacking a bit of logical consistency in this case.
As far as other conditions that impair movement go, the question is more how often those conditions come up and what causes them rather than how many can reduce or eliminate a creatures movement. It also may matter to some, whether it makes sense for the condition to also inhibit movement. It seems to me given the other effects of stun that it should be in a movement reduction category.
In terms of game design, the comparison is likely between paralysed and stunned. Paralysed sets the speed to zero and makes any attacks from within 5' that hit, critical hits. It used to be that the only difference between stunned and paralysed was the critical hit effect. Now, the stunned condition allows movement. This prevents it from being used as a crowd control measure even for one creature ... it is solely a condition that makes a creature more vulnerable and denies them their actions ... but the creature could still run off through a door and close the door behind them since free object interactions aren't affected. The stunned creature could run to the side of the room and pull a lever activating a trap (assuming only an object interaction was required to trigger it). There are quite a few things that a stunned creature can now do that they could not in the 2014 rules.
Finally, in terms of stunning strike, overall it is a major nerf of the ability - making it not useless on a failed save is nice but it doesn't make up for being limited to only one stunning strike attempt/turn. I think it was a GOOD change since the monk's ability to stun in the 2014 rules was exceptionally effective especially at higher levels and overall the changes to the monk, I think, make it better class to play.
TL;DR ... it doesn't make sense to me from a logic point of view that a successful save vs stun reduces movement by 1/2 while a failed save has no effect on movement at all. However, that in no way prevents the rule from being playable as written.
What, you never stumbled about in a daze?
I agree it seems odd with failing allowing full movement and succeeding reducing movement but I think it’s just a trade off as having zero speed/half speed might be too powerful.
And the stunned creature lacks the coordination to help with Dex saves.
And if you take the grappler feat can hit, stunning strike, grapple on the same hit and they automatically fail the save due to the stun. So get your zero speed too.
EZD6 by DM Scotty
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/397599/EZD6-Core-Rulebook?
This 1000%. What are the chances that no explicit mention of movement in the stunned condition (e.g., on a failed save for a stunning strike) was just an oversight?
Started playing AD&D in the late 70s and stopped in the mid-80s. Started immersing myself into 5e in 2023
More likely they wrote out the feature before the change to the stunned condition was finalized and decided it still worked well enough it didn’t need another effect tacked on.
bingo
Failed save = full Speed, but no actions/bonus actions/reactions due to the Stunned condition
Successful save = half Speed, but you can still Dash. Which results in exactly the same amount of movement for most, only without all the other effects
I wouldn't assume it's an oversight
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I have to agree. And I looked at spells that impose stunned, no one had an additional rider that also limited movement. The 2024 version of Power Word Stun imposes Stunned if the target has < 150hp and speed=0 if the target has > 150hp, also seems like a strange interaction.
Uh, it was something intentional:
Yeah, it still smacks of an oversight to me. (That they are now claiming was intentional.) And, fine, whatever; if it was intentional, that only makes it worse.
Someone who is "stunned" does not strike me as someone who can move without any hindrance at normal speed and strategically to protect themselves. It's a simulation, etc., etc. Yes, yes. I still don't agree that it was a good decision to not have some kind of movement penalty for this condition.
That's the fun part: They can't move strategically to protect themselves! That's what the Disengage action represents, and if you're stunned and in melee range, you can't run away without taking extra attacks against you.
Some of y'all talking about the save and failure of stunning strike haven't taken a hit big enough to rattle you, like getting earholed in football. If you manage to shake it off and keep your composure when you get hit that hard you tend to move slower to compensate. If you do get rattled but not knocked down you can't think straight and try to move normal often stumbling in the process. Honestly the effects are a decent depiction of how people respond to hard hits.
The thing that may have been intentional is exactly what they said was intentional -- which is just that they have intentionally increased the differences between the Stunned and Paralyzed conditions, with Stunned now allowing you to move. That does not necessarily mean that they properly and intentionally thought through all of the ripple effects of how this change would impact all of the other various rules throughout the game which make a reference to the Stunned condition. Many of the resulting strange interactions which have been brought up in this thread seem very unlikely to be intentional. They just didn't do a very good or thorough job when making this change. It's pretty unfortunate.
I mean, with how little characters move during a typical fight, it's not like it makes a huge difference one way or the other in any case.
The stunned opponent still automatically fails their strength and Dexterity saves, so if you don't want the opponent to move, just grapple them, the grapple would be automatic.
You must play with a team that has the frontliners basically standing still trading hits with the monsters. At my table there is a ton of movement happening all the time, plus a lot of forced movement on the enemies which causes them to reposition on their turns. At a table like this, the change to being Stunned is pretty noticeable.