Why does Stunning Fist not have the Incapacitate Tag?

[BastionofthePants]

"The focused power of your flurry threatens to overwhelm your opponent. When you target the same creature with two Strikes from your Flurry of Blows, you can try to stun the creature. If either Strike hits and deals damage, the target must succeed at a Fortitude save against your class DC or be stunned 1 (or stunned 3 on a critical failure). This is an incapacitation effect."

Is there a reason that the ability doesn't just have the incapacitate tag?

(For Reference: The Incapacitate Tag means that creatures with a CR above your level (or above twice the spell level) automatically get a save one tier better than what they actually roll. It is meant to prevent you from incapacitating especially challenging enemies with a single save-or-suck effect)

[TheDoomBug]

I assume it's because of two reasons: one, it only stuns, a lost action (or turn on crit) unlike Rogue's Master Strike which can drop someone on crit, and two, it's point-blank; compared to spellcasters, failure for the monk means an express seat on the pain train.

Or they just forgot the tag.

[HammerJack]

It may be because they were trying to make clear that the fortitude save is an Incapacitation, as written up in the text, without having anyone mistakenly think that the Strikes in the Flurry of Blows gain the Incapacitate trait.

[HumbleGamer]

I guess it's simply because its dc.

If it were a caster, it would have been the maximum dc possible for that level. But since we talk about a monk, a class which needs const, dex and str ( like the champion ) as well as its own dc class, it might be reasonable not to also give the unneeded incapacitation trait.

[HammerJack]

HumbleGamer wrote:

I guess it's simply because its dc.

If it were a caster, it would have been the maximum dc possible for that level. But since we talk about a monk, a class which needs const, dex and str ( like the champion ) as well as its own dc class, it might be reasonable not to also give the unneeded incapacitation trait.

It's definitely not that, since the stun IS an Incapacitation effect, but the text of the feat. There's just no tag at the top of the feat entry.

[HumbleGamer]

HammerJack wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

I guess it's simply because its dc.

If it were a caster, it would have been the maximum dc possible for that level. But since we talk about a monk, a class which needs const, dex and str ( like the champion ) as well as its own dc class, it might be reasonable not to also give the unneeded incapacitation trait.

It's definitely not that, since the stun IS an Incapacitation effect, but the text of the feat. There's just no tag at the top of the feat entry.

Are all stuns incapacitation effects?

If so, there won't be room for a discussion.

[Squiggit]

The incapacitation trait goes on activities, which Stunning Fist isn't, it's just a feat.

However, the Stunning Fist ability itself is subject to incapacitation rules, because the feat says it's an incapacitation effect.

HumbleGamer wrote:

Are all stuns incapacitation effects?

No. Power Word Stun, Daze's crit effect, animus mine, etc.

Quote:

If so, there won't be room for a discussion.

There isn't one anyways. The last sentence tells you outright that it's an incapacitation effect.

[HumbleGamer]

Squiggit wrote:

The incapacitation trait goes on activities, which Stunning Fist isn't, it's just a feat.

However, the Stunning Fist ability itself is subject to incapacitation rules, because the feat says it's an incapacitation effect.

HumbleGamer wrote:

Are all stuns incapacitation effects?

No. Power Word Stun, Daze's crit effect, animus mine, etc.

Quote:

If so, there won't be room for a discussion.

There isn't one anyways. The last sentence tells you outright that it's an incapacitation effect.

Then it might be either "they added it to the description and forget to add the trait" or "they added it to the descritption, then decided to remove the trait but forget about the description".

Reading HammerJack seemed like that any stun was an incapacitation effect.

[HammerJack]

No, I was definitely not talking about stuns in general, just trying to draw the distinction between the Flurry of Blows activity, the Strike subordinate actions, and the stunning bonus effect from Stunning Fist. Because only the last is an Incapacitate effect, because the feat specifically says it is.

[Squiggit]

HumbleGamer wrote:

Then it might be either "they added it to the description and forget to add the trait" or "they added it to the descritption, then decided to remove the trait but forget about the description".

Or it just means the ability does what it says it does.

[HumbleGamer]

Squiggit wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

Then it might be either "they added it to the description and forget to add the trait" or "they added it to the descritption, then decided to remove the trait but forget about the description".

Or it just means the ability does what it says it does.

That would be the former, if you read properly.

[Cordell Kintner]

HumbleGamer wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

Then it might be either "they added it to the description and forget to add the trait" or "they added it to the descritption, then decided to remove the trait but forget about the description".

Or it just means the ability does what it says it does.

That would be the former, if you read properly.

No it wouldn't. They didn't forget to add the trait, it's explicitly not added. The Incapacitate trait is only added on activities, not feats that modify actions. The only feats that include it are action in themselves (Except the rogue one which adds a specific Debilitate option). Adding it to this feat wouldn't make sense in the system, which is why they specified that it's an incapacitation effect later in the feat.

[HumbleGamer]

Cordell Kintner wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

HumbleGamer wrote:

Then it might be either "they added it to the description and forget to add the trait" or "they added it to the descritption, then decided to remove the trait but forget about the description".

Or it just means the ability does what it says it does.

That would be the former, if you read properly.

No it wouldn't. They didn't forget to add the trait, it's explicitly not added. The Incapacitate trait is only added on activities, not feats. Adding it to the feat wouldn't make sense in the system, which is why they specified that it's an incapacitation effect later in the feat.

Then I am not following.

I see it in different feats.

https://2e.aonprd.com/Traits.aspx?ID=93

Please try to explain your point of view in another way if I misundertood it.

[Cordell Kintner]

I modified my post to reflect feats that are new actions. Basically, Stunning Fist modifies an existing activity, it is not a new action or activity so adding the Incapacitation trait wouldn't make sense. If it was added to the feat, it would apply to the activity that it is modifying, meaning you would almost always miss with your attacks that have stunning fist attached to it.

[HumbleGamer]

Cordell Kintner wrote:

I modified my post to reflect feats that are new actions. Basically, Stunning Fist modifies an existing activity, it is not a new action or activity so adding the Incapacitation trait wouldn't make sense. If it was added to the feat, it would apply to the activity that it is modifying, meaning you would almost always miss with your attacks that have stunning fist attached to it.

I see.

It makes perfectly sense now.
Thanks for the provided example.

[Kennethray]

Similar to the spell phantasmal killer only has one part that is subject to incapacitation and not the whole spell/ability there is just the text and not the tag.

[CorvusMask]

Kennethray wrote:

Similar to the spell phantasmal killer only has one part that is subject to incapacitation and not the whole spell/ability there is just the text and not the tag.

Yeah that was my first guess as well