# Monks & the Improved Natural Attack Feat



## Hrothgar Rannúlfr (Jan 25, 2008)

I'm working on understanding how damage types increase.  In my research, I ran across the idea that the following text may interact with a particular feat in an interesting way.


			
				d20srd.org said:
			
		

> A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.



Comparing that with this feat:







			
				d20srd.org said:
			
		

> Improved Natural Attack [General]
> *Prerequisite:*  Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4.
> 
> *Benefit:*  Choose one of the creature’s natural attack forms. The damage for this natural weapon increases by one step, as if the creature’s size had increased by one category: 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6.
> ...



It was suggested, elsewhere, that this feat would stack with a monk's unarmed damage.  Is that true?


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 25, 2008)

Again?! 

For the love of any gods you may or may not love, _why_.

 j/k. proceed. . .


----------



## Hrothgar Rannúlfr (Jan 25, 2008)

Sorry, Aus... I didn't realize that this was a commonly asked topic... I usually hang out in house rules and in general.

My apologies.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Jan 25, 2008)

There were a few threads, but this was the biggest:

Human Monks Can Take Improved Natural Attack?

Happy reading!


----------



## Hrothgar Rannúlfr (Jan 25, 2008)

Thanks, Cheiromancer!


----------



## Drowbane (Jan 25, 2008)

My group allows it (no, we don't give a damn whether or not its "RAW") cause "monks suck anyways".


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 25, 2008)

Hrothgar Rannúlfr said:
			
		

> Sorry, Aus... I didn't realize that this was a commonly asked topic... I usually hang out in house rules and in general.
> 
> My apologies.



Hey, I was only kidding. I wasn't meaning to come across the way I probably did. My bad. 

Yeah, it's a common enough debate, but then that's true of many of them.


----------



## Hrothgar Rannúlfr (Jan 25, 2008)

No problem, Aus.

Our group is trying to "fix" the more martial classes' damage outputs in a non-magical way.  The Improved Natural Attack feat seems like a good basis for some house ruled feats that would affect manufactured weapons in the same way.  And, monks really wouldn't "suck" (as bad) if they could apply both sets of feats to improving their unarmed damage by two or three die steps.

I'm finding that a lot of the stuff we've been trying to do is already in the rules, but there are so many rules that it's sometimes difficult to sort through them.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Jan 25, 2008)

IMO, you'd be much better off by house ruling monks to be a martial class, i.e. give them a full BAB like every single other martial class.  I guarantee that if you ask a monk whether he'd be happier if treated like a fighter or have bigger hands and feet, he'll say the former.

Once you up the BAB, you'll see how absurd allowing INA would be (for example, try allowing it for the fighter's weapon and see if anyone takes _that_ feat).

In short, fix the cause of the problem (monk's suck), don't add to it.


----------



## DungeonMaester (Jan 25, 2008)

No, according the Monster Manual pg 312, RAW says no.

It says 'A Natural Weapon is a physical part of the creature.' 

How ever in the second paragraph: Creatures can not receive extra attacks from a high base attack bonus.  

Monks get bonus attacks from a higher attack bonus, so they don't. However, I'd houserule it in.

---Rusty


----------



## DungeonMaester (Jan 25, 2008)

On that token, would some one do a write up on a monk's unarmed damage for creates small to colossal. 

---Rusty


----------



## Aus_Snow (Jan 25, 2008)

Hm. Another option is to use the feat from the Book of Nine Swords. . . Superior Unarmed Strike? I think that's it. Basically, if you're a Monk, your unarmed damage is calculated as if you had 4 more levels (of Monk.) Otherwise, it improves the damage (up from IUS) according to a table.

There might be a BAB prereq. . . +3? So anyway, it's not going to help a very low level monk, at all. :\ But for mid levels, it's not a bad choice, IMO. You could always remove the second prereq., leaving just IUS for that. Shouldn't break anything, really.


----------



## eamon (Jan 25, 2008)

DungeonMaester said:
			
		

> No, according the Monster Manual pg 312, RAW says no.
> 
> It says 'A Natural Weapon is a physical part of the creature.'
> 
> ...




The question isn't whether a monk's unarmed strikes _are_ a natural weapon.  The monk class specifies that they're _treated_ as such for spells or effects which "enhance or improve" them.

Improved Natural Weapon is an effect which improves a natural weapon; hence for the purpose of the feat a monk's unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon - and the feat applies.


----------



## glass (Jan 25, 2008)

eamon said:
			
		

> The question isn't whether a monk's unarmed strikes _are_ a natural weapon.  The monk class specifies that they're _treated_ as such for spells or effects which "enhance or improve" them.
> 
> Improved Natural Weapon is an effect which improves a natural weapon; hence for the purpose of the feat a monk's unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon - and the feat applies.



That is one side of the many page debate, as linked above (and several others). The other side is 'it says spells and effects, not prerequisites, so that ability has no bearing on whether the monk meets prerequisites'.

I am very strongly in the 'no' camp, FWIW.


glass.


----------



## eamon (Jan 25, 2008)

glass said:
			
		

> That is one side of the many page debate, as linked above (and several others). The other side is 'it says spells and effects, not prerequisites, so that ability has no bearing on whether the monk meets prerequisites'.




So, a monk could improve his unarmed strike using "Improved Natural Attack" (INA), but can't satisfy the prerequisites?  By a similar logic, any spell targeting natural weapons which improves them, could theoretically improve a monk's unarmed strike, but simply can't target them.  Worse, it might mean that you _can_ improve a monk's unarmed strike, so long as you fulfill the prerequisites - i.e. a warforged monk, who has a natural weapon, can take the feat because he has a slam attack, but then choose to use the feat to _improve_ his unarmed strike.  That's doesn't make any sense.

Think of it this way:
1. Improved Natural Attack improves or enhances natural weapons.
2. The monk's unarmed strike is considered a natural weapon for effects which enhance or improve natural weapons.
3. Ergo, the monk's unarmed strike is considered a natural weapon for Improved Natural Attack.
4. A monk satisfies INA's prerequisite that the creature _have_ a natural weapon.  If the monk also has +4 BAB, he can take the feat.

Fortunately, wizards gives us concrete examples:  The PHB2, for instance gives the recommendation that monks take Improved Natural Attack.  It's not an accident "error" either, since in the errata, they mentioned that you can't take it at first level (because of the BAB prerequisite) and should take it only at 6th.  In the errata making process they obviously considered the prerequisites for INA, since that's what the errata fixes!

The "rules of the game" column also suggests a monk can take INA.  The D&D 3.5 FAQ does too.

You can take INA to improve your monk's unarmed strike.  The alternative makes little sense (what else would the rules-text mean otherwise?), and wizards has repeatedly made use of the fact.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Jan 25, 2008)

eamon said:
			
		

> By a similar logic, any spell targeting natural weapons which improves them, could theoretically improve a monk's unarmed strike, but simply can't target them.



No, because IUS counts as a natural weapon for the purpose of spells.  So spells that target natural weapons can target a monk's unarmed strike.  If the wording was that that a monk's IUS counted as a natural weapon for the purpose of feats, then we wouldn't need this discussion.  

But it doesn't say "feats", it says "effects".  And while a feat has one or more effects, it is not an effect.  Some feats, including INA, also have prerequisites.  Prerequisites are not effects. Satisfying the target requirement of an effect is different from satisfying the prerequisites of a feat. IUS satisfies the target requirements of INA but not the prerequisites. And if the FAQ says otherwise, the FAQ is wrong.

The claim is not that it is unbalanced or unfun or broken to allow a monk to take INA, but that they do not satisfy its prerequisites.

But all this was debated _ad nauseam_ in the thread.


----------



## Artoomis (Jan 25, 2008)

Let's not redo that whole debate again.  The case for both sides has already been succinctly stated in this thread.  Can we drop it and leave it alone?


----------



## glass (Jan 25, 2008)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Let's not redo that whole debate again.  The case for both sides has already been succinctly stated in this thread.  Can we drop it and leave it alone?



I agree with Artoomis (and I didn't used to say that very often when we were still debating these things ).


glass.


----------



## DungeonMaester (Jan 25, 2008)

eamon said:
			
		

> The question isn't whether a monk's unarmed strikes _are_ a natural weapon.  The monk class specifies that they're _treated_ as such for spells or effects which "enhance or improve" them.
> 
> Improved Natural Weapon is an effect which improves a natural weapon; hence for the purpose of the feat a monk's unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon - and the feat applies.




I found no eveidence that a feat is a spell or effect. Thus, saying this mechanic applies to a Monks Unarmed strike is arbitrary. And because it does not apply to the definition of a Unarmed weapon in the MM, then the answer still is no, BTB.

---Rusty


----------



## Artoomis (Jan 25, 2008)

DungeonMaester said:
			
		

> I found no eveidence that a feat is a spell or effect. Thus, saying this mechanic applies to a Monks Unarmed strike is arbitrary. And because it does not apply to the definition of a Unarmed weapon in the MM, then the answer still is no, BTB.
> 
> ---Rusty




Good Lord, man, let it go... There is nothing new to say, it's all been said before and summarized nicely in this thread already.

You do *not* want to get me started...


----------



## Deset Gled (Jan 25, 2008)

Actually, I would be very interested to hear from someone that owns the Rules Compendium to find out if any of the wording about this has been changed there.  We're about due for this topic to come up again, anyway (it happens about once a year).

Just to round up the various points that have been discussed on this issue in other threads, here's a list of the most prominent opinions I have seen:

*Rules POV:*

1.  Monks can take INA.  Their unarmed strike counts as a natural weapons for spells and effects, and feats are effects.

2.  Monks cannot take INA.  Their unarmed strike counts as a natural weapons for spells and effects, and feats are not effects.  (Many secondary sources are incorrect per the Primary Source rule.)

3.  Monks cannot take INA.  Their unarmed strike counts as a natural weapons for spells and effects.  Feats are effects, but their prerequisites are not.  (Many secondary sources are incorrect per the Primary Source rule.)

4.  Monks can take INA.  The primary source is ambiguous, and other sources clarify that they can.

*Balance POV:*

A.  Monks can take INA.  The monk is underpowered, and this feat helps balance them.

B.  Monks cannot take INA.  INA is too powerful for a feat.  Other sources provide better alternatives.

*Intent POV:*

I.  Monks cannot take INA.  INA was intended for monsters only.  (Many secondary sources were written by authors that did not follow the original intent.)

II.  Monks can take INA.  INA was intended to improve any attack made without weapons.

Of course, there are always fringe theories, but I think this covers most of the bases.

If anyone objects to people discussing this issue, or feels that they cannot remain civil in the discussion, I would humbly request that you simply not participate in the thread.


----------



## Artoomis (Jan 25, 2008)

Well, if we *have* to go there could we at least restrict this discussion to how the Rules Compendium may have put a different spin on this??

At least that would be something new.


----------



## mvincent (Jan 25, 2008)

Best to ask your DM. The 3.5 FAQ (if desired) says:
_"*Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack (Monster
Manual, page 304) to improve his unarmed strike?*
Yes. As stated on page 41 of the Player’s Handbook, a
monk’s unarmed strike “is treated as both a manufactured
weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and
effects that enhance or improve either” which includes feats
such as Improved Natural Attack.
Barring multiclassing, the earliest a monk could take this
feat would be at 6th level (due to the base attack bonus
prerequisite), at which point her unarmed strike damage would
improve from 1d8 to 2d6 (which represents an average increase
of +2.5 points of damage). The same monk at 20th level would
deal 4d8 points of damage with her unarmed strike."_

Based on the poll results provided earlier, the majority of players seem to agree with this. Also, it would certainly be allowed in an RPGA game (since the RPGA follows the FAQ).

Still, best to ask your DM.


----------



## UltimaGabe (Jan 25, 2008)

DungeonMaester said:
			
		

> I found no eveidence that a feat is a spell or effect.




Except that, in the FAQ, this exact question is raised, and the FAQ specifically states that a Feat IS an effect.

Honestly, this entire debate wouldn't exist if people just read the FAQ. It's right there, plain and simple. You can choose to not allow it, which is fine- just be aware that you're making a House Rule.


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 25, 2008)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Well, if we *have* to go there could we at least restrict this discussion to how the Rules Compendium may have put a different spin on this??
> 
> At least that would be something new.



Artoomis, clearly this isn't the thread for you. Finding a thread you think is more interesting is always preferable to a blatant threadcrap... or, really, any threadcrap.

Seriously, folks. If a thread doesn't excite you, just head off to find one that does. Thank you.


----------



## akbearfoot (Jan 25, 2008)

Mmmm.....

Improved natural attack at 6th level....Superior Unarmed Strike at 9th level and a monks belt and you're sitting at doing 16th level monk damage PLUS its a higher size category at 9th level.

Pretty beefy....It's just too bad monks suck compared to swordsages, lol.


----------



## DungeonMaester (Jan 25, 2008)

UltimaGabe said:
			
		

> Except that, in the FAQ, this exact question is raised, and the FAQ specifically states that a Feat IS an effect.
> 
> Honestly, this entire debate wouldn't exist if people just read the FAQ. It's right there, plain and simple. You can choose to not allow it, which is fine- just be aware that you're making a House Rule.




Source please.

---Rusty


----------



## mvincent (Jan 25, 2008)

DungeonMaester said:
			
		

> Source please.



It was given earlier. The 3.5 FAQ says:
_"a monk’s unarmed strike “is treated as both a manufactured
weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and
effects that enhance or improve either” which includes feats
such as Improved Natural Attack."_


----------



## Squire James (Jan 26, 2008)

I see no particular balance problem with letting a monk take the feat... though I agree it is pretty much a no-brainer for that class.  Natural Spell seems to set a certain precedent for feats that are must-haves for one class and almost totally useless to everyone else.  As always, ask the DM for "his" opinion, and abide by "his" decision even if you don't agree with "him".

By the way, if talking about something that's been talked about before was somehow forbidden, there would be little point to reading books or playing D&D at all!  Yeah, most of it's been done before, but not necessarily for the people involved.  It's fairly easy to click that Back button and select another topic if this one's a bit boring for you.  I happen to think that most Rules threads are mind-numbingly boring, so I'm talking from a position of experience here!


----------



## DungeonMaester (Jan 26, 2008)

mvincent said:
			
		

> It was given earlier. The 3.5 FAQ says:
> _"a monk’s unarmed strike “is treated as both a manufactured
> weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and
> effects that enhance or improve either” which includes feats
> such as Improved Natural Attack."_





And by the same vain of logic, it says in complete Adventure that monks can not take INA. What I am getting at is when a sources it is asked for, post where the said information can be found  so it can be reviewed rather then expecting people to believe it is true because you said it.

---Rusty


----------



## glass (Jan 26, 2008)

UltimaGabe said:
			
		

> Except that, in the FAQ, this exact question is raised, and the FAQ specifically states that a Feat IS an effect.
> 
> Honestly, this entire debate wouldn't exist if people just read the FAQ. It's right there, plain and simple. You can choose to not allow it, which is fine- just be aware that you're making a House Rule.



Of course the debate would exist if people read the FAQ. Indeed most of the debates in the Rules forum over the years have been kicked off by people reading the FAQ. Because the FAQ is often (as in this case, IMO) wrong.


glass.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Jan 27, 2008)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Actually, I would be very interested to hear from someone that owns the Rules Compendium to find out if any of the wording about this has been changed there.  We're about due for this topic to come up again, anyway (it happens about once a year).
> 
> Just to round up the various points that have been discussed on this issue in other threads, here's a list of the most prominent opinions I have seen:
> 
> ...




That's a masterful summary there, Deset Gled!  With the possible exception of what (if anything) the Rules Compendium introduces, I think you've covered everything.  And in an even-handed and non-prejudicial way.


----------



## Piratecat (Jan 27, 2008)

UltimaGabe said:
			
		

> Honestly, this entire debate wouldn't exist if people just read the FAQ. It's right there, plain and simple. You can choose to not allow it, which is fine- just be aware that you're making a House Rule.



Whoops, missed this!

It's been a while, but we'd rather not have people calling "house rule!" at folks. Morrus mentions this here in post 3...

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=155143

and it's best avoided.

Thanks.

Incidentally, Deset Gled -- best summary of this topic I've ever seen!


----------



## Christian (Jan 27, 2008)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> That's a masterful summary there, Deset Gled!  With the possible exception of what (if anything) the Rules Compendium introduces, I think you've covered everything.  And in an even-handed and non-prejudicial way.



 I haven't found anything relevant to this in RC ... The monk special unarmed abilities are 'rules exceptions', so I'm thinking that's why there's nothing about them in that book.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Jan 27, 2008)

DungeonMaester said:
			
		

> And by the same vain of logic, it says in complete Adventure that monks can not take INA. What I am getting at is when a sources it is asked for, post where the said information can be found  so it can be reviewed rather then expecting people to believe it is true because you said it.
> 
> ---Rusty




Didn't he clearly say (in the post you quoted from him) that is was from the FAQ???  And several posts above him had the actual quote from the FAQ and labelled it as such.  All it takes is a little bit of reading.  No need to jump down someone's throat because YOU neglected to read.


----------



## DungeonMaester (Jan 27, 2008)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Didn't he clearly say (in the post you quoted from him) that is was from the FAQ???  And several posts above him had the actual quote from the FAQ and labelled it as such.  All it takes is a little bit of reading.  No need to jump down someone's throat because YOU neglected to read.






			
				DungeonMaester said:
			
		

> And by the same vain of logic, it says in complete Adventure that monks can not take INA. *What I am getting at is when a sources it is asked for, post where the said information can be found so it can be reviewed rather then expecting people to believe it is true because you said it.*





Like How I posted page numbers from the MM in my first post. If you are posting that information is somewhere, make the information readily available. 

---Rusty


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 28, 2008)

Again, thanks to Deset Gled for the summary!


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jan 28, 2008)

DungeonMaester said:
			
		

> And by the same vain of logic, it says in complete Adventure that monks can not take INA.




Do you have a page number on that, by the way?

-Hyp.


----------



## eamon (Jan 28, 2008)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> No, because IUS counts as a natural weapon for the purpose of spells.  So spells that target natural weapons can target a monk's unarmed strike.  If the wording was that that a monk's IUS counted as a natural weapon for the purpose of feats, then we wouldn't need this discussion.
> 
> But it doesn't say "feats", it says "effects".  And while a feat has one or more effects, it is not an effect.  Some feats, including INA, also have prerequisites.  Prerequisites are not effects. Satisfying the target requirement of an effect is different from satisfying the prerequisites of a feat. IUS satisfies the target requirements of INA but not the prerequisites. And if the FAQ says otherwise, the FAQ is wrong.




There is no in-game definition of "effect".  That term is used extremely frequently in D&D, and with various meanings derived from the plain english dictionary definition.  There's no meaningful distinction I can find between supernatural abilities, spells, skills, skill tricks and feats from the perspective of an "effect" - they all have some game-mechanical "consequence" after all.

Traps - you "receive a saving throw to mitigate its effects" (DMG 67)
Aging - "Aging Effects" (PHB index)
Poison/Diseases - "Poisons, Diseases, and other effects can temporarily" (PHB10)
Races - Half-Elf, PHB18 - "For Effects related to race, a half-elf is considered an elf" and "can use magic items that are only usable by elves" (prerequisites?)
Class Abilities - Smite Evil - "...that is not evil, smite has no effect..."

In plain English, the feat _Improved Natural Attack_ simply "improves" natural attacks.  That's its effect.  How then, could a monk's unarmed strike fail to benefit - since it's considered a natural weapon for such purposes?

A spell, just like a feat, is not by itself a single effect.  It can have prerequisites (i.e. a "Target:" line), and it can have multiple consequences.  The difference between an instantaneous spell _effect_ and a feat is slim-to-nonexistent.  Is a supernatural ability an "effect"?  An extraordinary ability?  Assuming these abilities actually have consequences - *yes*.

Effects which specifically improve natural weapons are those which the monk gains access to. If they weren't specific to natural weapons, the monk's exception would have no effect.  Any effect which is _specific_ to natural weapons, and thus limited to effecting natural weapons (as opposed to everything else), clearly requires a natural weapon to have any consequence, and thus has a natural weapon as _prerequisite_.  So, the monk's exceptional ability to benefit from effects which apply to natural weapons is equivalent to saying that a monk's unarmed fist is considered a natural weapon if the consequence ("effect") is beneficial.

The monk's rules ask the reader to interpret an effect and judge whether it is an improvement or not. The rules are only relevant for those effects which apply only to natural weapons.  In these relevant cases, the effect is permitted if and only if you judge it beneficial. It's disingenuous to distinguish between the prerequisite and the effect, for that would mean that no prerequisites would be waived, since any effect deemed beneficial would nevertheless have the separate requirement that it applies solely to natural weapons.  Specifically, Magic Fang (which can be cast on any living creature) would _not_ apply, since although the rule would allow the Magic Fang's beneficial _effect_, it would not allow you to choose the unarmed strike to apply it to, since the unarmed strike would be considered a natural weapon only for purposes of the _effect_ (the +1 enhancement bonus), and not for purposes of choosing which weapon to apply it to.  This interpretation of the rule applied to Magic Fang comes down to absolutely nothing, and is in direct contradiction with the PHB - and yet, you're proposing to apply exactly that logic to Improved Natural Attack!

The only way the monk's unarmed strike rule can ever have effect is by waiving the requirement for a natural weapon.  The rule doesn't limit the requirement nor the effect in any way other than that the effect must be an improvement to the natural weapon, and that the requirement to be waived must be a requirement for a natural weapon.


Any effect of limited applicability has a prerequisite by definition.
There's no basis to assume that a feat is not an effect.
The PHB2 (RAW), its errata, the FAQ (potentially RAI), and the RotG support the notion that INA is applicable to a monk's unarmed strike.

Probably you'll agree that _some_ prerequisites (namely those in some way "part of the effect") should be addressed by the rule, but perhaps that other, more external prerequisites should not be.  This distinction would allow Magic Fang (whose "more external" Target: line only mentions a living creature), but disallow Improved Natural Attack (whose "more external" prerequisites section does mention natural attacks).  There's no basis for choosing which prerequisites can so be waived an which cannot, however, so that makes this interpretation problematic.  Furthermore, beyond being ill-defined, such an interpretation leads to odd results:  consider a warforged or any other creature with a natural attack and +3 bab (which thus clearly satisfies the prereq. of INA).  Assuming your interpretation that a feat is not an effect but can have several effects, this would then perversely imply that a warforged can take the feat because of his slam, but then apply the feat's beneficial effect to his unarmed strike (assuming he is a monk)!

My take: there's plenty of evidence that INA should be applicable to a monk's unarmed strike.  There's an extremely short rules blurb which indicates a monk can benefit from "stuff" that improves natural weapons, and it's possible to simply apply that to all parts of the game without difficult distinctions.  In other words, there's a straightforward interpretation, and a number of explicit examples, and all these work fine.  Alternatively, there's a considerably less straightforward interpretation which requires a very specific literal reading - without any examples supporting it, and without any argument as to why this reading of "effect" should be more valid than any other, and without any precision as to what kind of prerequisites can be waived and which cannot.

In the face of that choice, my choice isn't formed so much by the fact that the rules distinguish clearly between these two options - but by the preference for the simpler, less complex (since it doesn't require implying specific rules-meaning to common words such as effect, and since it doesn't require distinguishing between prerequisites) and less controversial (since WotC has multiple publications using it) interpretation.


----------



## Artoomis (Jan 28, 2008)

I am still reading this looking for something new.  I do not own the Rules Compendium.

Can anyone answer the following question:

Is there anything in the Rules Compendium that puts any new twist on the argument on either side?  I am very curious.


----------



## DungeonMaester (Jan 28, 2008)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Do you have a page number on that, by the way?
> 
> -Hyp.





It is untrue. I was using it as a facetious example. Sorry for any confusion. 

---Rusty


----------



## eamon (Jan 28, 2008)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Is there anything in the Rules Compendium that puts any new twist on the argument on either side?  I am very curious.




Judging by the absence of posts on that topic to your indeed interesting question, I'd say it's _unlikely_.  In any case, the Rules Compendium seems to be an overview of mostly basic rules, not detailed class reinterpretations (though I haven't seen it).

In any case, your post seems to suggest there's nothing new to add.  The old thread(s), as far as I can tell, did not address the recent "rules of the game", nor the PHB2 nor it's errata.

I included these three new items in the post just preceding yours.  Of course, it's not much, but every little bit helps, hopefully .


----------



## Deset Gled (Jan 28, 2008)

eamon said:
			
		

> It's disingenuous to distinguish between the prerequisite and the effect, for that would mean that no prerequisites would be waived, since any effect deemed beneficial would nevertheless have the separate requirement that it applies solely to natural weapons.  Specifically, Magic Fang (which can be cast on any living creature) would _not_ apply, since ...




Obviously, some people (myself included) disagree that a prerequisite should be treated the same as the effect it is a requirement for.  However, your Magic Fang example does not help prove your point here for two reasons.  First, monk strikes are explicitly treated as natural attacks for "spells and effects", so this would fall under the category of spells, not effects, and wouldn't be an issue.  Second, note that the target of Magic Fang is one "living creature touched" not a natural weapon; a monk is a living creature, and thus fulfills the prerequisite of the spell.

I could have sworn there was a Sage article that specifically addressed the issue of whether a prerequisite counts as an effect, but I haven't been able to find it now.  IIRC, it gave an example that changed my mind for awhile, but then someone else found text that contradicted it.  



			
				eamon said:
			
		

> The old thread(s), as far as I can tell, did not address the recent "rules of the game", nor the PHB2 nor it's *errata*.




The PHB2 has been brought up many times in other threads, but was always thrown out as being a meaningless point because it gave INA to a monk at first level; knowing that the authors forgot about one prerequisite makes it pretty easy to assume they forgot the second.  

The PHB2 errata, however, is a new point that I haven't thought about before.  It is very significant to me, as it is the first errata document that we have addressing the issue (in a very roundabout way).  It's a pretty odd case, and I'm not 100% sure how it meshes with the Primary Source rule.  It's obviously official errata, giving it power over _a_ primary source, but it's not addressing _the _ primary source in question.  I'll have to mull this over for a bit and get back to you with an opinion.

For reference, the PHB2 errata says: 

Page 212 –Monk Destroyer Build Table
[Substitution]
Improved Natural Attack cannot be attained until 6th level for a monk. An alternative is to take Power Attack at 1st level, Improved Bull Rush at 3rd level in place of Power Attack, and Improved Natural Attack in place of Improved Bull Rush.



			
				Dannyalcatraz and others said:
			
		

> Again, thanks to Deset Gled for the summary!



You're quite welcome.  I'm glad it was helpful.


----------



## Christian (Jan 28, 2008)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I am still reading this looking for something new.  I do not own the Rules Compendium.
> 
> Can anyone answer the following question:
> 
> Is there anything in the Rules Compendium that puts any new twist on the argument on either side?  I am very curious.




I didn't find anything. Although I can't say I read every word on every page, I didn't find a likely spot for it to fit.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 28, 2008)

> Although I can't say I read every word on every page, I didn't find a likely spot for it to fit.



One of the reasons I didn't buy that one...


----------



## mvincent (Jan 28, 2008)

DungeonMaester said:
			
		

> What I am getting at is when a sources it is asked for, post where the said information can be found  so it can be reviewed rather then expecting people to believe it is true because you said it.



The name of the source was provided in his post. The actual text itself was provided here also: once when you asked for it, and once before that. How was this not to your liking?


----------



## Cheiromancer (Jan 29, 2008)

@eamon:  the "effect" question has been discussed quite thoroughly in the big thread.  Posts 55 and following - it goes on for quite a while.  I posted in the thread under the alt of  "Borlon".  Hypersmurf said he thought that one of my posts (#86) summed up the situation fairly well. 

glass, in post 123, raises the issue of "effect" not being a defined D&D term.  

...I don't think I'm going to reread the whole thing.  It's a long thread. But very thought provoking- IIRC I changed my mind at least twice during the course of the discussion.


----------



## eamon (Jan 29, 2008)

Musing about effects:  Although effects are the consequences of some cause, when you use the word effect, you're generally referring to the result, consequence, or _effect_ and not the cause.  The word _effect_ is particularly attractive when speaking of some specific consequence in cases when the cause may vary or is unknown.  In D&D, where the same effect might be brought about by any number of means, it's a frequently used term - probably precisely because it focuses attention on the consequences, and not the cause.  The way I read it, _effect_ is a neutral way of saying "crunch" in the terms of rules.  Whether it comes from an aura, spell, race or feat, it's the effect/crunch that matters.

@Desert Gled:  Magic Fang is a very weak example, admittedly.  Magic fang can be cast on any creature, even those without natural weapons.  The key issue is the first sentence: "Magic fang gives one natural weapon of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls."  The effect (+1 enhancement bonus) is beneficial and can thus be applied to the monk's unarmed strike.  However, you need to choose one natural weapon!  That choice, taken separately, is not beneficial, and the monk's text does not trigger for it.  The obvious counter argument is that the spell as a whole is beneficial, and the monk's text thus applies (specifically to spells).  But if you're willing to view a spell holistically, then why not a feat?

@Cheiromancer: thanks for the pointers to specific posts, that way the thread is less overwhelming.

It's unfortunate that there are so few core "effects" which apply to natural weapons, to give us better examples. Nevertheless, I'm convinced that essentially every other non-spell effect follows the same principles:  if it's limited somehow to natural weapons, then you can _always_ argue that the limitation is itself an effect which isn't satisfied by the monk.  That argument basically means that you can only apply spells, and no other effects, despite the rules text.  Since it conflicts in that way, I don't think it's intended - the over-arching word "effect" means that it's a general ability applying to more than just spells, so any reasoning to the contrary must be faulty.  

Also, don't forget that the text's calling for a judgment call - is an effect an improvement or not?  Who better to make that judgment call than the monk himself.  And no monk would ever consider Improved Natural Attack anything but an improvement.

Further, there's no reason that multiple effects can't be combined into a larger effect.  I doubt a prerequisite is an effect without the rest of the feat (it's not a consequence or result in and of itself, after all), but even if it is, then you could still take the two separate effects and combine them into a larger effect.

So... the real problem is that there aren't any better examples in core, and specifically no real counter-examples.

And I sure hope nobodies punishing themselves by rereading that thread.  It's insanely long.  I've skimmed it, but, probably largely because there aren't any good examples, most arguments are rehashed frequently, and even the most obscure indirect evidence is analyzed to hopefully provide some clue.  Sometimes that's insightful, but often it's just frustrating.

But there aren't really any; an effect remains a catch-all undefined term in D&D, and as such, if you want to make it more precise (at least for the monk) and prevent INA from applying to the unarmed strike of monks without other natural weapons, you can, but there's no real reason to, and you can just as well allow it - as WotC consistently seems to do.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 1, 2008)

> The way I read it, effect is a neutral way of saying "crunch" in the terms of rules. Whether it comes from an aura, spell, race or feat, it's the effect/crunch that matters.




Agreed, and that's the response I've gotten from WizCustServ.



> The key issue is the first sentence: "Magic fang gives one natural weapon of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls." The effect (+1 enhancement bonus) is beneficial and can thus be applied to the monk's unarmed strike. However, you need to choose one natural weapon! That choice, taken separately, is not beneficial, and the monk's text does not trigger for it.




The text is explicit here- Magic Fang works according to the last parenthetical in the discussed paragraph:


> 3.5Ed PHB p41
> A monk's unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactrued weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons (such as the _magic fang_ or _magic weapon_ spells).




OTOH, spells like Align Weapon, Bless Weapon, or Holy Sword target weapons, not creatures.  Some say "weapon touched" or "melee" or "ranged" as limitations, but few say "natural."

IMHO, though, its telling that the language of the relevant spells & effects changed from 3Ed to 3.5Ed.


----------



## Thurbane (Feb 2, 2008)

Drowbane said:
			
		

> My group allows it (no, we don't give a damn whether or not its "RAW") cause "monks suck anyways".



Seconded.


----------

