The Unarmed Rogue

[Caelic]

The point is to get back sneak attack from assassin's stance (gives you +2d6 sneak attack) and qualify with that for ascetic stalker. As i have said earlier, you need to use the table description of the ascetic stalker feat, which says that those two stack for sneak attack damage.

I still can't buy it as RAW, Dictum.  If the DM is willing to allow it, go for it, but there are just too many flaws and questionable assumptions here for me to see it as on solid rules ground.  First off, as you acknowledge, you have to explicitly ignore "Text trumps table"; second, you're assuming that "Monk and Rogue levels stack for purposes of sneak attack damage" somehow means that you'll get a sneak attack progression from two class variants that HAVE no sneak attack progression.  I fail to see how gaining sneak attack from Assassin's Stance mitigates the fact that you're stacking two classes with no sneak attack.

[Oshi]

Yeah, There is no "purpose" for the class levels to stack for...

Also, even if that did work, fighter 20 feats would be wrong, I doubt it says anywhere that monk levels stack for the purposes of fighter feats...

edit: Unless ofcourse we're calling the monk bonus feats fighter feats now

[Risada]

Yeah, There is no "purpose" for the class levels to stack for...

Also, even if that did work, fighter 20 feats would be wrong, I doubt it says anywhere that monk levels stack for the purposes of fighter feats...

edit: Unless ofcourse we're calling the monk bonus feats fighter feats now

DM is using the UA Feat Rogue Variant...

Since Ascetic Rogue doesn't specify from where you get the sneak attack, you could go with some class that grants it and then go Feat Rogue/Monk madnes (UA Fighter variant for example), and later grabbing Superior Unarmed Strike to make up for the multiclassed levels...