Stunning Fist = InstaGrapple?

wolfen

First Post
Assume Flurry of Blows or Full Round Attack... an 8th level monk lands a successful stunning fist with his 1st attack. The stunned target has no Dex bonus to AC, -2 to AC for being stunned, and Not Allowed to Act. No attack of opportunity, right? Would the target be able to resist (oppose the melee attack) at all?


Case #2 -- the target is holding a Wand of Lightning Bolt. The same monk (as above) wishes to Disarm and take the wand (instead of grapple). Wouldn't he, again, roll to Disarm and take the wand unopposed? Or am I taking "unable to act" too literally? I'm thinking the DM shouldn't be able to roll any opposed attacks at all for an NPC who is unable to act and, therefore, unable to oppose.

I suspect this has been covered, and appreciate your patience in my quest to find the answers.


Thanks,
wolfen
 

log in or register to remove this ad

You might want take a look at this thread http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=75625.
Here is a Quote by Hypersmurf from the thread.
Hypersmurf said:
The answer is exactly right. But beware the loophole that the answer, in a way, confirms:

Both the dazed condition and the stunned condition state that the affected creature "can't take any actions".

But, as the Sage has just noted, an AoO is not an action.

I have seen it argued that, with these points in mind, neither the dazed nor stunned conditions prevent a creature from taking an AoO. (Assuming the stunned creature still threatens an area after dropping everything he is holding.)

As a DM, I'd simply say "Um, no."

But just be aware that the interpretation exists.

-Hyp.

Also, I do not think that being unable to act means that one does not get to resist opposed checks.
 
Last edited:


Case #2 is a moot point.

Stunned: A stunned creature drops everything held, can’t take actions, takes a –2 penalty to AC, and loses his Dexterity
bonus to AC (if any).

If you want the wand you don't disarm him you just pick it up :D
 

Pets & Sidekicks

Remove ads

Top