Question involving a Rogue Monk

presto

Distinguished
May 30, 2002
34
0
18,530
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

I looked in the FAQ for an answer to this, but was unsuccessful, so now I
come here.

Say we have a Rog9/Mnk4 with Stunning Fist. Could this character make a
flurry of blows and declare a Stunning Fist attack with his first attack?

Then, if he successfully stuns his opponent (A stunned character can't act,
loses any Dexterity bonus to AC, and takes a -2 penalty to AC ) would the
remaining attacks be subject to sneak attack damage?

I don't see any reason why not, but I just thought I'd put this forth.

--
==========
Are you a RPG Player?
Visit my website: http://www.morvia.tk

"It's not my fault."
- Gene Snitsky
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Presto wrote:

> Then, if he successfully stuns his opponent (A stunned character
can't act,
> loses any Dexterity bonus to AC, and takes a -2 penalty to AC ) would
the
> remaining attacks be subject to sneak attack damage?

I don't see anything that says otherwise.

Note that the desc ription of sneak attack specifically states, though,
that an unarmed attack deals nonlethal damage only.

the unarmed strike ability of the monk class says that the unarmed
attacks of a onk deal lethal damage. I have seen no errata (though i
suspect this has been answered at some point in time).

My personal preferance would be to let him use it as a lethal weapon
(it is a lethal weapon) assuming that the rogue description of sneak
attack is using sap and unarmed strike as examples of nonlethal
weapons, but YMMV.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Presto wrote:
> I looked in the FAQ for an answer to this, but was unsuccessful, so now I
> come here.
>
> Say we have a Rog9/Mnk4 with Stunning Fist. Could this character make a
> flurry of blows and declare a Stunning Fist attack with his first attack?
>
> Then, if he successfully stuns his opponent (A stunned character can't act,
> loses any Dexterity bonus to AC, and takes a -2 penalty to AC ) would the
> remaining attacks be subject to sneak attack damage?
>
> I don't see any reason why not, but I just thought I'd put this forth.
>

Sure, why not? In like manner, a sorceror/monk can cast a touch spell &
hold the charge, then
in the next round) move and attack with Stunning Fist. If that first
attack hits, it does the usual
damage, plus activates the spell, plus forces a Fort. save versus the
stun. If that's legal, why
not just sneak attack damage on the other attacks?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In news:1109795451.122797.39550@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com,
Anivair <anivair@gmail.com> typed:
> Note that the desc ription of sneak attack specifically states,
> though, that an unarmed attack deals nonlethal damage only.

Actually,
"With a sap (blackjack) or an unarmed strike, a rogue can make a sneak
attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage." The wording
doesn't mandate that the rogue has to do nonlethal, it just mentions the
possibility and two weapon choices for it.

--
T. Koivula
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 20:13:19 GMT, "Presto" <donotuse@thisaddress.no>
scribed into the ether:

>I looked in the FAQ for an answer to this, but was unsuccessful, so now I
>come here.
>
>Say we have a Rog9/Mnk4 with Stunning Fist. Could this character make a
>flurry of blows and declare a Stunning Fist attack with his first attack?

Could do it without the flurry of blows, too.

>Then, if he successfully stuns his opponent (A stunned character can't act,
>loses any Dexterity bonus to AC, and takes a -2 penalty to AC ) would the
>remaining attacks be subject to sneak attack damage?

Yes. Rogue/Monk with a lot of wisdom to give big DC checks to stunning fist
can do some really impressive damage.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

T. Koivula wrote:
> In news:1109795451.122797.39550@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com,
> Anivair <anivair@gmail.com> typed:
> > Note that the desc ription of sneak attack specifically states,
> > though, that an unarmed attack deals nonlethal damage only.
>
> Actually,
> "With a sap (blackjack) or an unarmed strike, a rogue can make a
sneak
> attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage." The
wording
> doesn't mandate that the rogue has to do nonlethal, it just mentions
the
> possibility and two weapon choices for it.

Right, but a rogue doesn't have the option to do lethal damage with a
sap because it only does nonlethal damage. I suspect that the idea was
that these are examples of ways that a rogue can deal nonlewthal damage
(ie with a weapon that already does nonlethal damage). I would still
allow a monk-rogue to do nonlethal damage unarmed as well. One of the
big benefits of hte monk class is that they can opt to do nonlethal
damage at will.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In news:1109857500.835072.275270@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com,
Anivair <anivair@gmail.com> typed:
> I suspect that the idea was that these are examples of ways that a rogue
can deal nonlewthal
> damage (ie with a weapon that already does nonlethal damage).

My point exactly.

> I would still allow a monk-rogue to do nonlethal damage unarmed as
> well. One of the big benefits of hte monk class is that they can opt to
do nonlethal
> damage at will.

It's not really a question of allowing since it's how the rules say it goes.
Using SA doesn't affect a Monks unarmed strike benefits.

--
T. Koivula
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

In article <1109795451.122797.39550@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
anivair@gmail.com wrote:
>Presto wrote:

>> Then, if he successfully stuns his opponent (A stunned character
>> can't act, loses any Dexterity bonus to AC, and takes a -2 penalty
>> to AC ) would the remaining attacks be subject to sneak attack damage?
>
>I don't see anything that says otherwise.
>
>Note that the desc ription of sneak attack specifically states, though,
>that an unarmed attack deals nonlethal damage only.

Actually, the damage from a sneak attack matches that of the attack, in
this case it is real, not subdual damage.

--
======================================================================
ISLAM: Winning the hearts and minds of the world, one bomb at a time.
 

TRENDING THREADS