If a monk hits another creature and declares to use Stunning Strike, but the creature dies, would the ki point be expended? Should the DM declare the creature's death before the monk uses the Stunning Strike?
This is the Stunning Strike rule (PHB, p.79):
"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."
With the proviso that I have not DMed or played a monk... I'd rule you don't have to spend the ki point, but it would depend on the DM, based on the rule you quoted. The rule does not say either that you spend the ki point before you find out the result, nor that you can spend it after you find out the result. It may also depend on how the Ki strike is being RPed. If the monk player is RPing all along that he or she puts the ki into the strike as they do the blow, then yeah, I guess RP-wise you expended the ki. On the other hand if you have been RPing that after the blow hits, you withdraw some of the enemy's ki out of him to stun him, then no, you wouldn't expend it because you'd see him drop before doing that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Unless a feature very explicitly states otherwise - hitting and dealing damage are simultaneous - which means you choose to spend your ki point after doing damage - which means it's already dead and you do not need to spend the ki point.
Since D&D is about resource management, I think it would be a rather lame call for a DM to make you burn a Ki point on a dead target. There are many abilities that key off of a successful weapon attack, some cost spell slots, superiority dice, etc.
We aren't talking about the same thing in the least. In the example being discussed, you NEED to make a weapon hit before you can use the ability at all. If the weapon hit kills the target, obviously you don't need the ability to go off.
When you hit another creature with a melee weapon attack, you can spend 1 ki point to attempt a stunning strike.
Note that this is very similar wording to the Paladin ability Divine Smite:
...when you hit a creature with a melee weapon attack, you can expend one spell slot to deal radiant damage to the target, in addition to the weapon’s damage.
The reason I mention this is because it's a standard wording used in the game.
Whether you're striking with a melee weapon, firing a weapon at range, or making an attack roll as part of a spell, an attack has a simple structure.
1. Choose a target. Pick a target within your attack's range: a creature, an object, or a location.
2. Determine modifiers. The DM determines whether the target has cover and whether you have advantage or disadvantage against the target. In addition, spells, special abilities, and other effects can apply penalties or bonuses to your attack roll.
3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you roll damage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.
If there's ever any question whether something you're doing counts as an attack, the rule is simple: if you're making an attack roll, you're making an attack.
I don't see anything in RAW that defines where in step 3 you make the decision to commit the resources for the stunning strike (or divine smite) - it's up to DM interpretation of those words.
2) Hits - declare Stunning strike (requires to spend Ki)
3) Damage (would have been enough to kill without Stunning strike, but already declared and Ki spent)
So, you declare Stunning Strike before you know the damage to do so according to Jeremy Crawford and RAW requires you to spend the Ki point when you declare it.
As mentioned, the strategy is to decide whether to spend a resource on something where there's a chance to not need to spend it and possibly waste the resource.
No takebacks.
That's Jeremy Crawford, though - the principal rules designer of Dungeons & Dragons and lead designer of the Player's Handbook. It's not in the official Sage Advice Compendium as of version 2.4. It could be eventually, though, since Jeremy Crawford is also the author of that and SA-Compendium is. It also does not appear in the current errata.
So... either go with the principal rules designer or go with RAW's ambiguity and interpret what makes sense or fun to you. As XGtE states, "Ideas, not Rules".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider. My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong. I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲 “It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
In relation to the original question, I am on the side of it being used/expended. But as a player that has had more than 1 smite spent on a monster with only 4 hp, I would recommend asking your DM to give some sort of indication of enemy health when asked. Obviously, enemies don't have health bars floating above them, but if you ask, there's no reason why the DM can't give a basic response of "It looks fine", "It looks pretty beat up", or "It looks like it's barely standing". Sure, not every monster can be identified that way, but it's a good compromise in my experience.
I'm another who says that, according to the rules, the Ki point is spent. But also if I had a monk in my players and they would kill an enemy with an attack I'd just let them keep the Ki point just for funsies.
I'd probably upgrade the stunning to automatically failing 3 death rolls as a house rule. The lost ki means less on a target who no longer drops to 0hp and starts rolling.
Death rolls are for whomever the DM determines and not just PC's. ;)
Based on what Jeremy Crawford clarified I would assume that the ki point would be spent on the Monk's Stunning Strike, even though the creature dies immediately before resolving the Stunning Strike. The same would happen to the Paladin's Dine Smite spell slot spent. The Rogue's Sneak Attack does not spend anything else so it's not an issue killing the creature before the extra damage.
I know, it's not "Rule as Written" but it indeed expands what happens in the 3rd RAW attack step (PHB p. 194) as pointed out by Stormknight
3. Resolve the attack. You make the attack roll. On a hit, you rolldamage, unless the particular attack has rules that specify otherwise. Some attacks cause special effects in addition to or instead of damage.
EricHVela, applying Jeremy's instructions, just between the phrases "On a hit" and "you roll damage" , confirms that the Monk would indeed spend the ki point:
1) Attack roll 2) Hits - declare Stunning strike (requires to spend Ki) 3) Damage (would have been enough to kill without Stunning strike, but already declared and Ki spent)
What makes more sense then, is what Sigvard_Vigridsuggests: the Monk (or the Paladin) should pay attention to the creature health state before declaring it's Stunning Strike, or its player should ask the DM before it's action.
We have to play even more attention when we roll together attack and damage rolls, specially for instance at rool20.net, and declare it conditionally: "if I hit I'll use Stunning Strike". Of course the player you declare it if it thinks the creature is not near death.
I think it's pretty lame to make the monk burn a ki point. Especially at lower levels when they come at a premium. It doesn't make monks op by any means. Rule of fun clearly says just don't worry about it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Hi,
If a monk hits another creature and declares to use Stunning Strike, but the creature dies, would the ki point be expended? Should the DM declare the creature's death before the monk uses the Stunning Strike?
This is the Stunning Strike rule (PHB, p.79):
"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."
Thank you.
With the proviso that I have not DMed or played a monk... I'd rule you don't have to spend the ki point, but it would depend on the DM, based on the rule you quoted. The rule does not say either that you spend the ki point before you find out the result, nor that you can spend it after you find out the result. It may also depend on how the Ki strike is being RPed. If the monk player is RPing all along that he or she puts the ki into the strike as they do the blow, then yeah, I guess RP-wise you expended the ki. On the other hand if you have been RPing that after the blow hits, you withdraw some of the enemy's ki out of him to stun him, then no, you wouldn't expend it because you'd see him drop before doing that.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
Unless a feature very explicitly states otherwise - hitting and dealing damage are simultaneous - which means you choose to spend your ki point after doing damage - which means it's already dead and you do not need to spend the ki point.
Mega Yahtzee Thread:
Highest 41: brocker2001 (#11,285).
Yahtzee of 2's: Emmber (#36,161).
Lowest 9: JoeltheWalrus (#312), Emmber (#12,505) and Dertinus (#20,953).
Thank you all for your comments: all of you have good points of view. I'll have to work this out with my DM indeed.
Since D&D is about resource management, I think it would be a rather lame call for a DM to make you burn a Ki point on a dead target. There are many abilities that key off of a successful weapon attack, some cost spell slots, superiority dice, etc.
We aren't talking about the same thing in the least. In the example being discussed, you NEED to make a weapon hit before you can use the ability at all. If the weapon hit kills the target, obviously you don't need the ability to go off.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D Beyond FoundersThe rules for Stunning Strike state
Note that this is very similar wording to the Paladin ability Divine Smite:
The reason I mention this is because it's a standard wording used in the game.
The Player's Handbook states how an attack is resolved:
I don't see anything in RAW that defines where in step 3 you make the decision to commit the resources for the stunning strike (or divine smite) - it's up to DM interpretation of those words.
Relevant reply from Jeremy Crawford should be considered guidance, rather than RAW, but does give a specific response:
https://www.sageadvice.eu/2017/02/14/do-you-have-to-declare-sneak-attack-or-divine-smithe-beforehand/
Pun-loving nerd | Faith Elisabeth Lilley | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
So, according to Jeremy Crawford:
1) Attack roll
2) Hits - declare Stunning strike (requires to spend Ki)
3) Damage (would have been enough to kill without Stunning strike, but already declared and Ki spent)
So, you declare Stunning Strike before you know the damage to do so according to Jeremy Crawford and RAW requires you to spend the Ki point when you declare it.
As mentioned, the strategy is to decide whether to spend a resource on something where there's a chance to not need to spend it and possibly waste the resource.
No takebacks.
That's Jeremy Crawford, though - the principal rules designer of Dungeons & Dragons and lead designer of the Player's Handbook. It's not in the official Sage Advice Compendium as of version 2.4. It could be eventually, though, since Jeremy Crawford is also the author of that and SA-Compendium is. It also does not appear in the current errata.
So... either go with the principal rules designer or go with RAW's ambiguity and interpret what makes sense or fun to you. As XGtE states, "Ideas, not Rules".
Human. Male. Possibly. Don't be a divider.
My characters' backgrounds are written like instruction manuals rather than stories. My opinion and preferences don't mean you're wrong.
I am 99.7603% convinced that the digital dice are messing with me. I roll high when nobody's looking and low when anyone else can see.🎲
“It's a bit early to be thinking about an epitaph. No?” will be my epitaph.
In relation to the original question, I am on the side of it being used/expended. But as a player that has had more than 1 smite spent on a monster with only 4 hp, I would recommend asking your DM to give some sort of indication of enemy health when asked. Obviously, enemies don't have health bars floating above them, but if you ask, there's no reason why the DM can't give a basic response of "It looks fine", "It looks pretty beat up", or "It looks like it's barely standing". Sure, not every monster can be identified that way, but it's a good compromise in my experience.
I'm another who says that, according to the rules, the Ki point is spent. But also if I had a monk in my players and they would kill an enemy with an attack I'd just let them keep the Ki point just for funsies.
Watch Crits for Breakfast, an adults-only RP-Heavy Roll20 Livestream at twitch.tv/afterdisbooty
And now you too can play with the amazing art and assets we use in Roll20 for our campaign at Hazel's Emporium
I'd probably upgrade the stunning to automatically failing 3 death rolls as a house rule. The lost ki means less on a target who no longer drops to 0hp and starts rolling.
Death rolls are for whomever the DM determines and not just PC's. ;)
Hi everyone! Thank you all for your comments.
Based on what Jeremy Crawford clarified I would assume that the ki point would be spent on the Monk's Stunning Strike, even though the creature dies immediately before resolving the Stunning Strike. The same would happen to the Paladin's Dine Smite spell slot spent. The Rogue's Sneak Attack does not spend anything else so it's not an issue killing the creature before the extra damage.
I know, it's not "Rule as Written" but it indeed expands what happens in the 3rd RAW attack step (PHB p. 194) as pointed out by Stormknight
EricHVela, applying Jeremy's instructions, just between the phrases "On a hit" and "you roll damage" , confirms that the Monk would indeed spend the ki point:
1) Attack roll
2) Hits - declare Stunning strike (requires to spend Ki)
3) Damage (would have been enough to kill without Stunning strike, but already declared and Ki spent)
What makes more sense then, is what Sigvard_Vigridsuggests: the Monk (or the Paladin) should pay attention to the creature health state before declaring it's Stunning Strike, or its player should ask the DM before it's action.
We have to play even more attention when we roll together attack and damage rolls, specially for instance at rool20.net, and declare it conditionally: "if I hit I'll use Stunning Strike". Of course the player you declare it if it thinks the creature is not near death.
That's it, folks, isn't it?
Regards,
Furia.
I think it's pretty lame to make the monk burn a ki point. Especially at lower levels when they come at a premium. It doesn't make monks op by any means. Rule of fun clearly says just don't worry about it.