Talk: Stunning fist

DC

Quick question: does "attacker's level" in the save DC refer to class level or character level? I would in general assume class level, but can't hurt to be explicit on that. Thanks! - Zenobia 22:30, 7 July 2006 (PDT)

• Character level Kail Pendragon 09:26, 23 July 2006 (PDT)

• With 5 monk, 15 fighter levels. The DC is 10 + 10 + Wisdom Modifier.
  It uses the total character level, not monk levels. --99.252.195.214 13 January 2009

Effects of stunning fist

I would prefer the term "paralyse" be switched to stunned, as the two are entirely different effects, and immunity to paralysis comes much more easily than immunity to stun, which is only granted via pale master, a druidic or shifter shape, or an item, and immunity to paralysis comes via red dragon disciple, pale master, and freedom of movement, which is accessable as a spell by many classes. Bottom line being theres a distinct difference :|

-Gonff Bet'ett'etinure 07:39, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Mind-spell immunity

Nowhere else does adding an immunity remove pre-existing effects. Did the anonymous edit that added "It will, however, remove the stun effect" really mean something like clarity, which removes effects as well as granting immunity? --The Krit 03:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• The stun from stunning fist is not simply EffectStunned(). Mind spell immunity (like mind blank) does, in fact, remove the stun instantly, though with clarity there is still the 1 negative energy damage. Another example of removing an effect by adding immunity is adding freedom to one with cut-scene immobility. WhiZard 21:26, October 26, 2009 (UTC)

Stunning fist immunity

As edits have appeared about stunning fist immunity, I will address this subject.

Stunning fist will only report failed versus immunity to critical hits, (stun will not be applied).

Stunning fist hits on stun immune creatures will have the stun part blocked.

Stunning fist hits on mind-affecting immune creatures will still apply stun (unless the creature is also immune to stun or critical hits).

WhiZard 02:16, April 26, 2010 (UTC)

• So then, shouldn't the sentence about removing the stun effect be deleted from Note 3 (this edit was posted well after the original stun-removal discussion occurred)? I cannot test this solo to confirm since a stunned PC cannot administer clarity or another mind-immunity inducing effect to itself while stunned. It would need to be applied by a party member. Whether the mind-affecting immunity is present when the stunning fist was initially applied or soon afterwards should not matter, as far as I can determine. Please unravel this apparent conflict of information. TIA --Iconclast (talk) 14:29, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

• The discussion on removing the effect identifies freedom, clarity, and mind blank as removing effects.  Looking at their scripts, they all remove effects in addition to providing immunity.  Stunning fist is reported by GetEffectType() as EFFECT_TYPE_STUNNED, even though other effects of this type are blocked by mind-affecting immunity.  Mind blank and clarity identify this as an effect that is to be removed, as it contains an effect type which is normally blocked.  I have just tried applying immunity by itself to a creature stunned by stunning fist, and the effect was not removed; therefore, the effect removal within clarity and mind blank is the reason for stunning fist to be removed. 76.9.104.225 15:08, November 29, 2012 (UTC)

• Ran a test with a custom skin on a grizzly bear where I added immunities to mind-affect, to paralysis, to knockdown, to death magic and to critical hits. The third & fourth properties were just thrown in to make sure there were not any hidden dynamics that may have been unexpected. Each was tested alone on the skin and then gradually added one-after-another to eventually end up with all 5 properties on the same skin, 9 tests in all. Also, for each test, I had the target creature prebuff itself with clarity, mind blank & freedom of movement spells. (I assume Immunity to Stun must be a custom property not on the palette or need to be scripted somehow.) All these tests accomplished was to confirm exactly what WhiZard already stated concisely above.

The creature got stunned in every circumstance except when the skin contained immunity to critical hits (and the combat debug echo confirmed that fact).

The most recent rewording by MrZork adequately clarifies the removal action IMO. The statement seems like minutia to me though, seeing as how the "cure" would need to be done by an ally within 3 rounds of the stun effect to serve any purpose whatsoever. I seriously doubt that this will influence how the game is played, but it doesn't hurt anything to be there, I suppose. At least, it is worded in a way that makes sense to players and scripters alike. --Iconclast (talk) 01:39, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

• I thought that sentence should have been removed over three years ago (look up one section here to #Mind-spell_immunity). General NWN mechanics dictate that adding an immunity after the fact does provide retroactive protection, but someone said this was a special case. So I put off removing/changing the note until I could test it myself. Guess I never got around to that. :oops: At least someone (MrZork) did finally put this to the test. --The Krit (talk) 21:35, December 23, 2012 (UTC)

• I have no idea what I meant by that comment, looking at the history it is unclear whether I thought clarity would remove it by the effect removal or by the immunity, further I have no idea why I backed an unknown anonymous edit. It is good that this has been tested, and my note above ought to be disregarded. WhiZard (talk) 17:38, December 24, 2012 (UTC)

Required for

This feat is also required for [Improved stunning fist] --99.248.177.242 April 30, 2010

Uses per day

What happens to the uses per day if you take it initially as a non-Monk then take Monk levels later on? Or vice-versa, start as a Monk and then take a bunch of non-Monk levels? Does it do something like:

Monk levels + (non-Monk levels / 4)

or

Monk levels + (Character Level / 4)

or

Monk levels -or- Character Level / 4 (whichever is higher)

or

Monk levels -or- Character Level / 4 (Monk if taken as Monk, CL if taken as non-Monk)

or

Monk levels (Monk just overrides the other options outright)

? --63.230.1.242 01:29, 19 May 2012

• It looks like the last case holds. If the PC has any monk levels, then he has that number of stunning fist attacks per day. So, a level 9 fighter with stunning fist will have 3 SF attacks per day. If he then takes 1 level of monk, he will drop down to 1 SF attack per day. - MrZork (talk) 23:45, February 1, 2013 (UTC)

• The "multiclass SF uses" issue may make a useful note. Something like "Total uses for a multiclass character selecting the Stunning Fist feat is determined by the character level total, with the exception of the monk class overriding (ignoring) the influence of any other class levels." ...or equivalent phrasing (not sure if this adequately captures the dynamic properly?). Ideas? --Iconclast (talk) 03:46, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

• Good point. Note added (but a less wordy version that takes advantage of the phrasing already present in the feat description). --The Krit (talk) 16:47, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

• Yah. "Wordy" is my genetic curse, so thanks for the condensation, TK. ;) The consequence of selecting one or more monk levels in a well-developed build (i.e. reduction of total uses) seems potentially too severe to me though I can suggest no remedy for the situation. The problem is: the monk class Stunning Fist is different than the non-monk class Stunning Fist even though they use the same feat description. So unless they (the penalized version and the monk version) would appear as discrete attacks on the radial menu, there's really no way to merge uses and versions... not that I see, anyway. A very sticky wicket IMO. --Iconclast (talk) 22:00, February 2, 2013 (UTC)

• I can suggest a remedy. Don't do monk cheese. :) --The Krit (talk) 04:45, February 3, 2013 (UTC)

Undead/construct note

While we are at it, is it the undead/construct immunity note needed? The descriptions says "Constructs and undead are immune to this attack, as are any creatures that are immune to 'critical hits'." Both racial types are inherently immune to the critical hits and what is important is that they should be immune to the stunning effect as well. They aren't most probably because there is no such itemproperty rather that they wouldn't be immune by intent. Except stunning fist, all stunning effects in game are automatically blocked by the mind spell immunity, so it wouldn't be wrong that they are also immune to the stun effect. 77.92.213.119 18:58, November 30, 2012 (UTC)

• "Inherent" in the notes probably doesn't indicate anything on the skin (a construct or undead without the critical hit immunity is still succeptible to critical hits); scripts that check for the construct or undead race (such as for the spell drown) would treat these races as having an inherent immunity as the race by itself is what grants the immunity.   The note in queston is useful to builders who might make a construct or undead without immunity to critical hits or for those working with the Shelgarn's summon or even player characters that shift into zombie form through polymorph self.  There are probably several other occurences that I have not mentioned, but the point the note is likely making is for builders to ensure that the constructs and undead they make have the critical hit immunity so that they can be immune to critical hits, stunning fist, sneak attack, and the like; and for player characters to understand that some things, like the zombie polymorph, only give partial consideration for being regarded as undead.  76.9.104.225 21:48, November 30, 2012 (UTC)

• Thinking of it in this way, you could same as well write that undead/constructs aren't inherently immune to the paralysis, death magic, diseases, poisons, level drains, and almost all mind spells (think there is only one using GetIsMindless function -> Tasha's laughter). 77.92.213.119 22:58, November 30, 2012 (UTC)

• Articles in the NWN wiki convey default information for vanilla v1.69 (though it sometimes provides some legacy data as well), unless otherwise noted. By default, all constructs and undead have immunity to critical hits on their skins and therefore immune to stunning fist effects (the article's topic) according to the core game dynamics. There are other creatures on the default palette that are also immune to crits (like elementals and oozes), so the constructs and undead were only selected as a few well-recognized examples of races that typically exhibit the immunity to the effects of stunning fist rather than listing every creature on the palette that uses it. Any creature blueprint can be customized as a designer sees fit, but then it is no longer the default game anymore.--Iconclast (talk) 01:59, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

• What could be noted on the other hand is that since there is no stunning immunity itemproperty, to make a creature immune to stunning fist and not to the critical hits, builder would have to give the creature Tough as bone feat or immunity to stunning via script. 77.92.213.119 07:23, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

• That appears to already be noted by the note below the one discussed.  Whatever is stated with the construct/undead note, is best to be reflected in the sneak attack article's note (which it seems to be, only intrinsicly is used instead of inherently).  The in game description describes undead + constructs + those immune to critical hits (implying constructs and undead without the immunity are safe) while, as the sneak attack article's note states, a default creature (the wraith spider) is undead without critical hit immunity and is not immune to sneak attacks (and this also extends to stunning fist).   There are very few guidlines you can make about creatures that are without exception.  For example, the gelatenous cube has none of the expected immunities for an ooze, and the standard "ooze" skin is not possessed by any of the ooze creatures. 76.9.104.225 15:39, December 1, 2012 (UTC)

• I see, forget about phase spider. So if there is a default undead creature without immunity to critical hit, then the note makes sense. Thanks for clarification. As for my second proposal, my main point is the non-existence of stunning immunity as a itemproperty in Immunity miscelanious. But builder can always use the Tough as bone feat to make creature immune to this without scripts. This is imo worth noting, but probably in custom content notes? 77.92.213.119 17:58, December 1, 2012 (UTC)