monk and Imp. unarmed strike

[Luigiana]

Hi guys

i was reading at some optimized character builds for monks. And it said that its essential to pick the improved unarmed strike feat. But the monk already gets it at level 1.

So my question is: Does a monk get any bonus from selecting the Improved unarmed strike feat?

Also another question: Acrobatic Strike allows you to make a tumble DC 15 to get on the opposit site of ur opponent to catch him flat footed and hence subject for SA.

Can i still, without Acrobatic Strike, make a dc 25 tumble, to get on the opposite site of my opponent, and attack him once with SA?

 

[Dandu]

i was reading at some optimized character builds for monks. And it said that its essential to pick the improved unarmed strike feat. But the monk already gets it at level 1.

So my question is: Does a monk get any bonus from selecting the Improved unarmed strike feat?

No. What you want is Superior Unarmed Strike. And then Improved Natural Attack. And then Snap Kick.

And I hate to burst your bubble, but monks are weak. Really weak. I will help you build the best monk that I can, but please keep in mind that it is an uphill struggle.

Also another question: Acrobatic Strike allows you to make a tumble DC 15 to get on the opposit site of ur opponent to catch him flat footed and hence subject for SA.

Can i still, without Acrobatic Strike, make a dc 25 tumble, to get on the opposite site of my opponent, and attack him once with SA?

No.

 

[Luigiana]

Quote:
Also another question: Acrobatic Strike allows you to make a tumble DC 15 to get on the opposit site of ur opponent to catch him flat footed and hence subject for SA.

Can i still, without Acrobatic Strike, make a dc 25 tumble, to get on the opposite site of my opponent, and attack him once with SA?

No.

Why can i not do that? Use my move action to tumble onto the opposite square of my opponent, and then attack him from behind flat footed?

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Tumbling through an occupied square does not normally make the occupant flat-footed. Acrobatic Strike is the exception. If you wanted to do SA you'd have to be flanking with someone or the defender would have to already be flat-footed.

And be warned, some of the feats can get lost in translation.

 

[Luigiana]

Tumbling through an occupied square does not normally make the occupant flat-footed. Acrobatic Strike is the exception. If you wanted to do SA you'd have to be flanking with someone or the defender would have to already be flat-footed.

And be warned, some of the feats can get lost in translation.

attacking an enemy from behind makes him flatfooted.. so if i stand face-to-face with him and tumbles around him so im behind him, then he is flat-footed and i have still a standard action

 

[Jackinthegreen]

attacking an enemy from behind makes him flatfooted.. so if i stand face-to-face with him and tumbles around him so im behind him, then he is flat-footed and i have still a standard action

What rule set are you using? In standard 3.5, attacking from behind has no bearing on whether the character is flat-footed. Nowhere in the flat-footed condition does it mention attacking from behind, nor do any abilities except Acrobatic Strike make a character flat-footed in that way.

 

[Dandu]

attacking an enemy from behind makes him flatfooted.. so if i stand face-to-face with him and tumbles around him so im behind him, then he is flat-footed and i have still a standard action

Or maybe you've tumbled past him and are now facing the wrong direction with your back towards his because your waterskin was slung across your chest incorrectly.

 

[Luigiana]

Or maybe you've tumbled past him and are now facing the wrong direction with your back towards his because your waterskin was slung across your chest incorrectly.

While hidden from opponent, treat that opponent as flat-footed. (Rules Compendium, p. 92)
so standing behind him and attacking him in the back should be considered as being hidden and hence treating him flatfooted.
or am i wrong?

also u can tumble forward while turning 180 degreese on a +2 to the dc..

 

[emoplato]

You can attack them, but they won't be flatfooted. The feat highlights a technique which assumes you don't know fully how to execute it without the feat. Also, if you want sneak attack you should look at dipping into a thug(a fighter who has sneak attack as a rogue without bonus feats at every odd level). Then take craven giving bonus damage equal to your character level on the sneak attack and then maybe martial study(Shadow Garrote) martial stance(Assasins Stance).

 

[Dandu]

While hidden from opponent, treat that opponent as flat-footed. (Rules Compendium, p. 92)
so standing behind him and attacking him in the back should be considered as being hidden and hence treating him flatfooted.
or am i wrong?

Except you aren't hidden if you're behind him due to the fact that in 3.5e, the facing rules were discarded for being a PITA.

also u can tumble forward while turning 180 degreese on a +2 to the dc..

Where are you getting this from? It not in the SRD from what I can tell.

Look, let's think about this. If you walked from the front of someone to his behind during your round, do you think that would qualify you for a sneak attack by virtue of having moved around him?