Stunning attack vs Stunning Fist feat

[Lord Pendragon]

You know, there's no real reason to infer that creatures are automatically proficient with unarmed strikes.

You're right. There's no real reason to infer it. I believe it's actually been spelled out somewhere officially, though I can't think of where at the moment. Perhaps 3.5e will include it somewhere prominent where it belongs. Perhaps under the description of Proficiency?

Edit: Stupid Sage, ruining my fun.

 

[ksignorini]

So back to my original question:

I guess what I'm wondering is, in order to take feats that require Stunning Fist as a prerequisite, does a monk have to actually expend a feat slot to take Stunning Fist even though their Stunning Attack ability is _almost_ exactly the same as Stunning Fist?

I would think not, but I wanted some confirmation.

Thanks again!

 

[Ranger REG]

One is a supernatural ability, the other is a non-magical feat...

* snipped for brevity *

Yup, that's the rules lawyer speaking.

While I agree the monk class is poorly written that the most literal-minded would find a lot of ambiguities, even for a rulebook format that goes above and beyond to make it sound like a legal textbook (even I would not use the D&D Third Edition Core Rulebook as an example of professional book writing, even for a 3rd grade English class, no offense), a lot of us got past the literal description by our own mindset of what a monk is, at least for D&D and AD&D.

While unarmed strike is not listed in the Weapon and Armor Proficienies, it is listed as a separate entry for the monk class.

But I digress. While technically, a monk's stunning attack and Stunning Fist feat are two separate attributes, despite the similar game mechanics, many of us consider the monk's stunning attack as a "virtual feat" or a substitute to the Stunning Fist feat prereqs.

Let's hope that 3.5e would be more rules-lawyer proof, or be easy on the literal-minded readers.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

So back to my original question:

I guess what I'm wondering is, in order to take feats that require Stunning Fist as a prerequisite, does a monk have to actually expend a feat slot to take Stunning Fist even though their Stunning Attack ability is _almost_ exactly the same as Stunning Fist?

I would think not, but I wanted some confirmation.

Thanks again!

Check out Majoru Oakheart's post. The Official D&D FAQ spells it out. A monk's Stunning Attack (Su) is considered a "virtual" Stunning Fist for purposes of feat progression. You can use it as a prerequisite as if you had the feat Stunning Fist.

 

[ksignorini]

OK, great. That's good news.

So, while I'm here, how about the Unarmed Strike/Improved Unarmed Strike while not wearing armor--does the monk automatically count as having Improved Unarmed Strike for the same purposes (feat progression pre-requisites)?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

OK, great. That's good news.

So, while I'm here, how about the Unarmed Strike/Improved Unarmed Strike while not wearing armor--does the monk automatically count as having Improved Unarmed Strike for the same purposes (feat progression pre-requisites)?

Yes.

 

[Darklone]

Hmm. The feat seems to be a lot stronger than the monk ability for multiclass dudes.