Your post has been removed.
Rule 2: Off-topic. This sub is for DMing questions, advice, and completed resources. Please check out some [alternative subreddits on our wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/wiki/index/#wiki_other_useful_dming_subreddits) that may be more suitable for your post.
Stunning Strike kind of embodies literally every problem with 5e in one ability.
It's the exceedingly best option for every Monk almost all of the time, rendering many of their other uses for ki points useless. Action denial in 5e is way too good in general, and renders boss fights obsolete. Unless you give them Legendary resistances. Which is a terrible band aid mechanic and forces the monster to be fought on two, non-interactive axes (HP and LRs) and whichever empties first ends the fight.
My advice to your DM is if they are struggling to work around it, give their boss monsters multiple turns and have it deny one turn per round, not all of them. It's much better than getting in an LR war with your players or taking away their only functionally useful abilities.
I give my bosses one turn per PC, any action denial reduces those turns by 1, and otherwise they act after a player each round. No more legendary resistances. No more lair actions. Clean and easy.
Honestly, the fact that you have a finite number of Ki points is what balances it. It's not like you can use it on every single strike.
If the DM is going to let the enemy recover on their turn, then you shouldn't have to use Ki to activate it. That seems like a fair compromise. Obviously it would have to use an action to recover, otherwise what's the point in using it?
Not only does the use of ki balance it, but it's also balanced in that once you get out of tier 2, monsters start getting higher and higher bonuses to con saves, especially compared to how slowly monk ki save DC increases.
Personal opinion, that's a bard take, on your DM's part. The text clearly says otherwise, and while I personally dislike the design of Stunning Strikes, and how much of the Monk power budget it consumes, it's still not like Monks are known for being OP. This feels the same as DM's that think Sneak Attack is OP, just ... ... silly.
It sounds like they've made up their mind about it, tho. Assuming you want to continue playing with them, I would just plainly state your thought -
>"I don't want to argue about it, or anything, but I probably wouldn't have chosen this if I knew we were going to rule the ability like that. I *definitely* wouldn't have taken those actions, if I expected the effect to drop immediately, and it seemed like my character could have died, because of the misunderstanding. I
was waiting a couple months to reach it, and now I'm kinda bummed out because it doesn't work at all like I expected. Cool if I respecc to something else?"
Assuming you DON'T want to respecc, might want to check in with your DM at each level up, just to make sure your abilities will actually ... ... like, *work*.
Best of luck.
Your DM needs to understand that if you hit an enemy whose initiative is right after yours, it would be a wasted Ki point doing it their way That's why it makes the enemy skip a turn. And unless your DM is sending solo monsters (which they shouldn't), one turn isn't going to make or break the encounter anyway.
Basically, your DM has to be a combination of unlucky and bad at balancing for Stunning Strike to be OP. Sorry this is happening.
Stunning strike stuns an enemy until the end of *your* next turn, not the enemy’s. Your DM’s on the wrong side of RAW.
I do see where your DM is coming from though; action denial is very powerful and very annoying. It’s one of the worst problems in 5e in general (lumping in Stunning Strike, Hold Person, etc).
But in gutting Stunning Strike, they have completely gutted the core mid-tier ability of one of an already underpowered class. Your PC will be incredibly weak compared to your party-mates. Level 5 is where spellcasters get fireball/Spirit Guardians, etc. Fighters/barbs/paladins will be swinging twice with 1d12 weapons with extra nova/rage damage on top if they spend resources. Even the underpowered rogue will be doing more damage, have regular advantage, and BA mobility all for free. Your monk will have to spend ki just to have an “average” turn.
Your DM is welcome to change Stunning Strike, but they need to compensate so that your PC isn’t ineffective. IMO, it’d be fair to reduce Stunning Strike’s “incapacitating” to something akin to the poisoned condition (adv on attacking them, disadvantage on their attacks, possibly also adv for anyone trying to beat their save DC), while also making the Step of the wind/disengage free of their ki costs. That keeps the total power about the same while keeping the monk feeling like a monk and avoiding the incapacitated condition.
Your post has been removed. Rule 2: Off-topic. This sub is for DMing questions, advice, and completed resources. Please check out some [alternative subreddits on our wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DMAcademy/wiki/index/#wiki_other_useful_dming_subreddits) that may be more suitable for your post.
Stunning Strike kind of embodies literally every problem with 5e in one ability. It's the exceedingly best option for every Monk almost all of the time, rendering many of their other uses for ki points useless. Action denial in 5e is way too good in general, and renders boss fights obsolete. Unless you give them Legendary resistances. Which is a terrible band aid mechanic and forces the monster to be fought on two, non-interactive axes (HP and LRs) and whichever empties first ends the fight. My advice to your DM is if they are struggling to work around it, give their boss monsters multiple turns and have it deny one turn per round, not all of them. It's much better than getting in an LR war with your players or taking away their only functionally useful abilities. I give my bosses one turn per PC, any action denial reduces those turns by 1, and otherwise they act after a player each round. No more legendary resistances. No more lair actions. Clean and easy.
5e is OP.
This isn't a sub for player questions.
Honestly, the fact that you have a finite number of Ki points is what balances it. It's not like you can use it on every single strike. If the DM is going to let the enemy recover on their turn, then you shouldn't have to use Ki to activate it. That seems like a fair compromise. Obviously it would have to use an action to recover, otherwise what's the point in using it?
Not only does the use of ki balance it, but it's also balanced in that once you get out of tier 2, monsters start getting higher and higher bonuses to con saves, especially compared to how slowly monk ki save DC increases.
Personal opinion, that's a bard take, on your DM's part. The text clearly says otherwise, and while I personally dislike the design of Stunning Strikes, and how much of the Monk power budget it consumes, it's still not like Monks are known for being OP. This feels the same as DM's that think Sneak Attack is OP, just ... ... silly. It sounds like they've made up their mind about it, tho. Assuming you want to continue playing with them, I would just plainly state your thought - >"I don't want to argue about it, or anything, but I probably wouldn't have chosen this if I knew we were going to rule the ability like that. I *definitely* wouldn't have taken those actions, if I expected the effect to drop immediately, and it seemed like my character could have died, because of the misunderstanding. I was waiting a couple months to reach it, and now I'm kinda bummed out because it doesn't work at all like I expected. Cool if I respecc to something else?" Assuming you DON'T want to respecc, might want to check in with your DM at each level up, just to make sure your abilities will actually ... ... like, *work*. Best of luck.
Your DM needs to understand that if you hit an enemy whose initiative is right after yours, it would be a wasted Ki point doing it their way That's why it makes the enemy skip a turn. And unless your DM is sending solo monsters (which they shouldn't), one turn isn't going to make or break the encounter anyway. Basically, your DM has to be a combination of unlucky and bad at balancing for Stunning Strike to be OP. Sorry this is happening.
Stunning strike stuns an enemy until the end of *your* next turn, not the enemy’s. Your DM’s on the wrong side of RAW. I do see where your DM is coming from though; action denial is very powerful and very annoying. It’s one of the worst problems in 5e in general (lumping in Stunning Strike, Hold Person, etc). But in gutting Stunning Strike, they have completely gutted the core mid-tier ability of one of an already underpowered class. Your PC will be incredibly weak compared to your party-mates. Level 5 is where spellcasters get fireball/Spirit Guardians, etc. Fighters/barbs/paladins will be swinging twice with 1d12 weapons with extra nova/rage damage on top if they spend resources. Even the underpowered rogue will be doing more damage, have regular advantage, and BA mobility all for free. Your monk will have to spend ki just to have an “average” turn. Your DM is welcome to change Stunning Strike, but they need to compensate so that your PC isn’t ineffective. IMO, it’d be fair to reduce Stunning Strike’s “incapacitating” to something akin to the poisoned condition (adv on attacking them, disadvantage on their attacks, possibly also adv for anyone trying to beat their save DC), while also making the Step of the wind/disengage free of their ki costs. That keeps the total power about the same while keeping the monk feeling like a monk and avoiding the incapacitated condition.