# Try again <sigh>  Monks and Improve Natural Attack



## Artoomis (Sep 20, 2006)

Okay, one more time.  Using PHB, DMG, MM and errata ONLY, may monks take INA?

*By 100% certain I really mean it - no room whatsoever for an opposing view.*

If this is not clear enough, then someone else can take over because a fourth attempt will have ceased to be fun.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 20, 2006)

I can always be swayed by a good debate. I don't think I will ever be pursueded that monks can take INA, however I'm sure there's a possibility out there somewhere that something may persuade me somehow. I just highly doubt it.

I mean RC persuaded me into slightly changing my viewpoint on Rule 0, which I never thought would happen. So, weirder things have happened!


----------



## Sejs (Sep 20, 2006)

Depends on what your definition of "is" is.

And by "is", I mean "effect".

(Personally, using the listed criteria, no, unless the monk in question has actual natural weapons, he does not qualify for the feat.)


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 20, 2006)

I voted that using just PHB, DMG, MM and errata, the Monk can not take INA.

Of course when you incorporate the FAQ into the equation, and use the new rule the FAQ made up, you can.  But I firmly believe the FAQ is not supposed to make up new rules like this, only the errata can.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 20, 2006)

Well (and I'll use the SRD, since it's easily handy and quotable to me right now)...when I read



			
				SRD 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.




And then I also read



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Natural Weapons
> 
> Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature. A creature making a melee attack with a natural weapon is considered armed and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Likewise, it threatens any space it can reach. Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons. The number of attacks a creature can make with its natural weapons depends on the type of the attack—generally, a creature can make one bite attack, one attack per claw or tentacle, one gore attack, one sting attack, or one slam attack (although Large creatures with arms or arm-like limbs can make a slam attack with each arm). Refer to the individual monster descriptions.
> 
> ...




It just seems crystal clear to me that the Monk's Unarmed Strike is a "Slap or Slam" Natural Weapon and that the first statement about enhancing or improving it is meant to be a blanket statement that applies to all manner of effects (spells, abilities, feats, etc). 

So I voted 100% yes, allowed.

I would also add that text like:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Magic Weapon
> Transmutation
> Level: 	Clr 1, Pal 1, Sor/Wiz 1, War 1
> Components: 	V, S, DF
> ...




Helped reinforce my belief that this was a broad range categorization of Monk's unarmed strikes as being "different" and that I was not meant to apply unnecessary limitations to it based on particular verbage.


----------



## Sejs (Sep 20, 2006)

_A creature making a melee attack with a natural weapon is considered armed and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Likewise, it threatens any space it can reach. Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons._ 

None of which is true for an unarmed strike.  Normally an unarmed strike does provoke, does not threaten, and does benefit from iterative attacks from a high BAB.

Likewise, a creature with a Slam attack (a vampire, say) can multiattack interspersing unarmed attacks and slams.  If an unarmed attack -was- a slam they could not do this.

In the grappling section, under attack your opponent: "You can make an attack with an unarmed strike, natural weapon, or light weapon against another character you are grappling".  There are several other instances in the same section that state you deal damage as an unarmed strike normally when grappling, not that you deal damage via natural weapons unless you want to take the standard -4 penalty to hit.  It does also specify that monks deal more damage than normal with their unarmed strikes.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 20, 2006)

There is nothing (that I have found) in the PHB, DMG, MM or errata that states a feat is considered an effect, the benefit of a feat is an effect, or the prerequisite of a feat is an effect.  Until that is defined within those Core products, I think assuming a feat (or a part of a feat) is an effect is just speculation.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 20, 2006)

Sejs said:
			
		

> _A creature making a melee attack with a natural weapon is considered armed and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Likewise, it threatens any space it can reach. Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons._
> 
> None of which is true for an unarmed strike.  Normally an unarmed strike does provoke, does not threaten, and does benefit from iterative attacks from a high BAB.
> 
> ...




From Magic Weapon

_You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang). A monk’s unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell._

This tells me that an unarmed strike is a form of natural weapon, it just has some special rules associated with it, most of which don't apply to a Monk's unarmed strike.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 20, 2006)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> There is nothing (that I have found) in the PHB, DMG, MM or errata that states a feat is considered an effect, the benefit of a feat is an effect, or the prerequisite of a fear is an effect.  Until that is defined within those Core products, I think assuming a feat (or a part of a feat) is an effect is just speculation.




*nods* I understand that point of view, but there's also nothing to say a feat is not an effect. And as I said before, the rules are clear (to me) that the monk's unarmed strike is broadly defined to be affected by as many "things" as possible.


----------



## Slaved (Sep 20, 2006)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> There is nothing (that I have found) in the PHB, DMG, MM or errata that states a feat is considered an effect, the benefit of a feat is an effect, or the prerequisite of a fear is an effect.  Until that is defined within those Core products, I think assuming a feat (or a part of a feat) is an effect is just speculation.




Didn't I just find one for you in the last thread about this? I believe that the part I quoted, which is in the SRD, was in the 3.5 DMG as well.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 20, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> From Magic Weapon




Of course, there are a few spells in the Spell Compendium that refer to a 'natural weapon or unarmed strike', just like several places in the PHB.

This tells me that a natural weapon is _not_ an unarmed strike.

-Hyp.


----------



## gabrion (Sep 20, 2006)

I voted yes.  Although I must admit that I had to go outside the sources listed in the poll.  I used Core+Errata+basic English.


----------



## IcyCool (Sep 20, 2006)

gabrion said:
			
		

> I voted yes.  Although I must admit that I had to go outside the sources listed in the poll.  I used Core+Errata+basic English.




I did the same thing.  But we have different answers.


----------



## Stalker0 (Sep 20, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Of course, there are a few spells in the Spell Compendium that refer to a 'natural weapon or unarmed strike', just like several places in the PHB.
> 
> This tells me that a natural weapon is _not_ an unarmed strike.
> 
> -Hyp.




Agreed, but is the unarmed strike of a monk (with its special clause) a natural weapon for most purposes?


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 20, 2006)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Didn't I just find one for you in the last thread about this? I believe that the part I quoted, which is in the SRD, was in the 3.5 DMG as well.




Just read it now....  I'm not sure...

This is only a single example of a feat specifically mentioning that it has (or is) an effect.  Not all feats refer to themselves has having effects.  I would say in this particular example, this specific feat is an effect and stacks with itself.  But can we take this as a "hidden" rule and make a blanket statement out of it, that all feats are effects?  I don't know...


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 20, 2006)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Agreed, but is the unarmed strike of a monk (with its special clause) a natural weapon for most purposes?




No; only for the purpose of spell and effects that improve or enhance natural weapons.

-Hyp.


----------



## gabrion (Sep 20, 2006)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> I did the same thing.  But we have different answers.




How strange.  It would seem that one of us needs to brush up on our vocabulary.


----------



## frankthedm (Sep 20, 2006)

I say nope on the core 3+E due to prerequirment of a natural weapon and the feat has to apply to *a *natural weapon. If that prerequirment was not there and the feat normally applied to _all_ natural weapons the being has, the effect of the feat would work on the the monk psuedo-slams.

Now _if _I am asked if they really need the feat to be less behind the power curve, that i might agree to. As it happen I allow a feat for monks to raise thier unarmed strike damage die by one die step on the monk chart, which some might not feel is enough.


----------



## seans23 (Sep 21, 2006)

I say no because there's a feat in the Book of Nine Swords, which provides a similar effect anyway.

Superior Unarmed Strike +4 class level when determining damage.

Not sure if this stacks with the monk's belt.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Of course, there are a few spells in the Spell Compendium that refer to a 'natural weapon or unarmed strike', just like several places in the PHB.
> 
> This tells me that a natural weapon is _not_ an unarmed strike.
> 
> -Hyp.




I guess the difference to me is that one is exclusionary, one is not. For instance, it would be somewhat strange, but I could say, I like fruit or apples for breakfast. Or, I could change it up and say I like fruit or bread for breakfast. 

In the first case, apples is a subsection of fruit. In the second case, they are unrelated. 

However, I could not say, I like fruit, such as bread, for breakfast. However, I could say, I like fruit such as apples for breakfast. 

So when the description for Magic Weapon says *You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike* it is absolutely including "unarmed strike" into the overall category of "what is" a natural weapon. 

However, as a subsection of natural weapons it does have some of its very own rules that govern its use. 

Back to my example Apples do not share all of the same traits as other fruit, however, they are still considered a fruit.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 21, 2006)

seans23 said:
			
		

> I say no because there's a feat in the Book of Nine Swords, which provides a similar effect anyway.
> 
> Superior Unarmed Strike +4 class level when determining damage.
> 
> Not sure if this stacks with the monk's belt.




Per the question posed by the Poll...



> Per the PHB, DMG and MM plus errata ONLY, is a monk qualified to take INA?




The Book of Nine Swords would not be valid for determining the allowability of Improved Natural Attack for Monks in this poll. I'm sorry if that seems nitpicky, however after days of refining the question this particular thread is discussing the intent of those books alone and disregards other material, including the FAQ, PHB2, Book of Nine Swords, etc.


----------



## gabrion (Sep 21, 2006)

seans23 said:
			
		

> I say no because there's a feat in the Book of Nine Swords...






			
				OP said:
			
		

> Okay, one more time. Using PHB, DMG, MM and errata ONLY, may monks take INA?




Perhaps you missed the point of the question?  Maybe the OP didn't empahsize the word "only" enough?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 21, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> So when the description for Magic Weapon says *You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike* it is absolutely including "unarmed strike" into the overall category of "what is" a natural weapon.
> 
> However, as a subsection of natural weapons it does have some of its very own rules that govern its use.




_*Unarmed Strike Damage:* An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). _

As normal?  But wait... if unarmed strike were my only natural weapon, 'as normal' would be to add 1.5x my Str modifier!

If it were a natural weapon with special rules, it could deal only Str bonus to damage.  But special rules are the opposite of 'as normal'...

If backed into a corner, could a Locathah make an unarmed strike?

-Hyp.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But wait... if unarmed strike were my only natural weapon, 'as normal' would be to add 1.5x my Str modifier!




I'm not familiar with that rule, where could I read about it?


----------



## Sejs (Sep 21, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> However, as a subsection of natural weapons it does have some of its very own rules that govern its use.




Or in actuality, a completely different set of rules.  Frankly, the only similarity between the two is that they use the body in some way, and for every example that can be listed, bold and italic or not, there're just as many that say Manufactured Weapons = X, Unarmed Strikes = Y, Natural Weapons = Z.


----------



## Sejs (Sep 21, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> I'm not familiar with that rule, where could I read about it?




Half way down the page, under "Full Attack" 

_"A creature’s primary attack damage includes its full Strength modifier (1-1/2 times its Strength bonus if the attack is with the creature’s sole natural weapon)..."_


----------



## Cedric (Sep 21, 2006)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Or in actuality, a completely different set of rules.  Frankly, the only similarity between the two is that they use the body in some way, and for every example that can be listed, bold and italic or not, there're just as many that say Manufactured Weapons = X, Unarmed Strikes = Y, Natural Weapons = Z.




Ah ha, and you have landed PRECISELY on why I do NOT think the "natural weapon" prerequisite excludes Monks. The terms are used interchangeably in so many places, AND, there is text in place to specifically guide the reader to apply a broad array of end results to a Monk's Unarmed Strikes (spells and effects).


----------



## Sejs (Sep 21, 2006)

Right, but is qualifying for a feat a 'spell or effect'?

My own opinion as stated above is that a monk can take INA if they're of a race that has natural weapons, because the benefit of the feat is a spell or effect.  However, if they're not a race with natural weapons, they don't meet the pre-reqs, and thus can't take the feat as an unarmed strike (monkly or not) is not itself a natural weapon.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 21, 2006)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Half way down the page, under "Full Attack"
> 
> _"A creature’s primary attack damage includes its full Strength modifier (1-1/2 times its Strength bonus if the attack is with the creature’s sole natural weapon)..."_




Thanks, I've missed that for a long time.

However, it doesn't apply here since an Unarmed Strike is also considered a light weapon and light weapons cannot deal 1-1/2 strength damage.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 21, 2006)

Okay, those who are voting 100% certainty either way - I suspect something less than 100%.

Do you guys REALLY feel there is ABSOLUTELY NO validity to the opposing argument.  If so I am truly amazed at the number of folks who feel that way - on both sides.

Did everyone miss *"By 100% certain I really mean it - no room whatsoever for an opposing view."*

Or are folks really that entrenched into their own positions?  I am very surprised.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 21, 2006)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Right, but is qualifying for a feat a 'spell or effect'?




Irrelevant, since I have established, by my own understanding of the rules cited with example, that I feel that a Monk's Unarmed Strike fits within the subsection of "Natural Weapon". 

However, even if I did not feel that way, nothing about the reading of "spells and effects" leads me to believe that I should exclude things based on that terminology, rather it seems very clearly worded to allow more things. So, I'm allowing more things, in this case, INA.


----------



## Sejs (Sep 21, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> Thanks, I've missed that for a long time.



 Glad to be of assistance.    



> However, it doesn't apply here since an Unarmed Strike is also considered a light weapon and light weapons cannot deal 1-1/2 strength damage.



  At the risk of being hoist by my own petard again, I think they fall in a gray area.  They're light, but you can power attack with them.  Similar in function to how many natural weapons are used with weapon finesse.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 21, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Okay, those who are voting 100% certainty either way - I suspect something less than 100%.
> 
> Do you guys REALLY feel there is ABSOLUTELY NO validity to the opposing argument.  If so I am truly amazed at the number of folks who feel that way - on both sides.




I can understand why and how someone would read the rule in such a manner as to disallow INA for Monk's. At the same time that I can understand it though, I absolutely believe they are wrong.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 21, 2006)

Sejs said:
			
		

> At the risk of being hoist by my own petard again, I think they fall in a gray area.  They're light, but you can power attack with them.  Similar in function to how many natural weapons are used with weapon finesse.




I will agree 100% that they fall into a grey area. However, I do not feel that the same grey area should be used to disallow something when the wording of the attack pays specific attention to intentionally "allowing" extra things (spells, feats, effects, enhancements, combat abilities, special attacks, etc., etc.).


----------



## Vurt (Sep 21, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Do you guys REALLY feel there is ABSOLUTELY NO validity to the opposing argument.  If so I am truly amazed at the number of folks who feel that way - on both sides.
> 
> Did everyone miss *"By 100% certain I really mean it - no room whatsoever for an opposing view."*
> 
> Or are folks really that entrenched into their own positions?  I am very surprised.




I've always understood the bit about "spells and effects" to refer to spells and other sundry things similar to them that hadn't been explicitly enumerated yet, such as spell-like abilities, psionic powers, invocations, auras, etc.  In short, temporary magical buffs.

At the time of the original printing, I don't think the authors really thought about whether or not monks should qualify for the feat.

Cheers,
Vurt


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 21, 2006)

I guess folks realy do feel 100% certain of their positions are the only ones that can be correct.  Wow!  What a surprise.  Truly.

I personally think they are allowed, but I see it as the much, much stronger of two arguments, the other being a real stretch that requires assigning a precise definition to "effects" - a rather imprecise term, especially in this context.

I am amazed that folks cannot see ANY validity to the opposing argument.


----------



## boolean (Sep 21, 2006)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> But I firmly believe the FAQ is not supposed to make up new rules like this, only the errata can.




 It seems that WotC does not share this belief.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> No; only for the purpose of spell and effects that improve or enhance natural weapons.
> 
> -Hyp.




Hyp - you're cheating.    Chiming in but not voting.

Do you see zero validity to the opposing argument?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 21, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> However, it doesn't apply here since an Unarmed Strike is also considered a light weapon and light weapons cannot deal 1-1/2 strength damage.




All natural weapons are considered light weapons.

From the text of Weapon Finesse: "Natural weapons are always considered light weapons."
From the text of Power Attack: "You can’t add the bonus from Power Attack to the damage dealt with a light weapon (except with unarmed strikes or natural weapon attacks)..."

-Hyp.


----------



## seans23 (Sep 21, 2006)

gabrion said:
			
		

> Perhaps you missed the point of the question?  Maybe the OP didn't empahsize the word "only" enough?




I suppose I did, but there was no "This debate is pointless" option and I didn't want to be left out of the fun


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 21, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Hyp - you're cheating.    Chiming in but not voting.
> 
> Do you see zero validity to the opposing argument?




I'll vote if you like.  Based on a position that "feats have effects" (as opposed to "feats are effects"), I'm content that "Monks with no natural weapons qualify for the 'One or more natural weapons' prerequisite of INA" has zero validity.

-Hyp.


----------



## frankthedm (Sep 21, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Do you guys REALLY feel there is ABSOLUTELY NO validity to the opposing argument.  If so I am truly amazed at the number of folks who feel that way - on both sides.
> 
> Did everyone miss *"By 100% certain I really mean it - no room whatsoever for an opposing view."*
> 
> Or are folks really that entrenched into their own positions?  I am very surprised.



Yes, very entrenched that monks do not quality for INA. 

Whether it would help them be less weak is a seperate issue. Progress wise, it is like being ahead 6 monk levels in unarmed strike damage when first taken, then at 8th level the character's damage is of a 16th level monk. 

6th-1d8 becomes 2d6-
7th-1d8 becomes 2d6-
8th-1d10 becomes 2d8-
9th-1d10 becomes 2d8-
10th-1d10 becomes 2d8-
11th-1d10 becomes 2d8-
12th-2d6 becomes 3d6-
13th-2d6 becomes 3d6-
14th-2d6 becomes 3d6-
15th-2d6 becomes 3d6-
16th-2d8 becomes 3d8-
17th-2d8 becomes 3d8-
18th-2d8 becomes 3d8-
19th-2d8 becomes 3d8-
20th-2d10 becomes 3d10 or 4d8-


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I'll vote if you like...
> 
> -Hyp.





Thanks for playing...


----------



## Slaved (Sep 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I'll vote if you like.  Based on a position that "feats have effects" (as opposed to "feats are effects"), I'm content that "Monks with no natural weapons qualify for the 'One or more natural weapons' prerequisite of INA" has zero validity.
> 
> -Hyp.




If you dont mind me asking, why do you use feats as a rule source in the thread and yet ignore another feat which provides a rules source? Using one while ignoring the other confuses my mind.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 21, 2006)

I would allow it in my campaign.

I could understand that it might not fit all campaigns.

I voted for #3.

 -- N


----------



## Xarls Taunzund (Sep 21, 2006)

I voted for it going either way.  While I'm inclined to say that a Monk (as a opposed to a character of another class taking the Improved Unarmed Strike feat) would qualify on a technicality, I personally would disallow it anyways.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I'll vote if you like.  Based on a position that "feats have effects" (as opposed to "feats are effects"), I'm content that "Monks with no natural weapons qualify for the 'One or more natural weapons' prerequisite of INA" has zero validity.
> 
> -Hyp.



Feats are not effects.
But qualifying to gain new feat is an effect of gaining an appropriate level.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 21, 2006)

Slaved said:
			
		

> If you dont mind me asking, why do you use feats as a rule source in the thread and yet ignore another feat which provides a rules source? Using one while ignoring the other confuses my mind.




A feat from the ELH?  That's not within the scope of the poll (Core 3.5 only).

As far as I can tell, the Epic feats in the 3.5 DMG go Improved Sneak Attack, Improved Spell Capacity, Improved Stunning Fist... Improved Spell Resistance doesn't appear on p210.  Am I looking in the wrong place?

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 21, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> But qualifying to gain new feat is an effect of gaining an appropriate level.




I don't agree, which leaves me back at "No" 

-Hyp.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 21, 2006)

IMHO, as per the OP's question, monks may take INA by the Core rules, a position reinforced by sections of the Complete Warrior, PHB2, and other sources.  However, I do concede that the other viewpoint has definite merit.  As I have posted elsewhere, I consider the current Core rules to be a mess on this particular subject- the designers got a little cute with some of their language, leaving both interpretations open.  Thus, I voted in the third category.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 21, 2006)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Depends on what your definition of "is" is.




Hey, are you getting political? 

Don't worry, I'm only joking!


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 21, 2006)

BTW, is this poll assuming that INA will improve the monks damage at every level, or just improve the 1d3 unarmed damage that a human fist might benefit from (for instance)?


----------



## BryonD (Sep 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I don't agree, which leaves me back at "No"
> 
> -Hyp.



And that is fair enough.
I really don't think the specific matter at hand is really a big deal at all.

The point is more a matter of parsing language to the point that there is no hint of fun left to be found anywhere.

To me it is much better to get past contorting every single word and look at the overall rules with a bit of "blur" to allow understanding of what was meant.
Whether they said it perfectly or not, I am completely confident that the intent of the statement was that any time you are looking at a monk's unarmed attack you can consider it to be a natural weapon or not.  The intent was not to create a killjoy logic trap over the meaning of the word "effect".


----------



## Pinotage (Sep 21, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> To me it is much better to get past contorting every single word and look at the overall rules with a bit of "blur" to allow understanding of what was meant.
> Whether they said it perfectly or not, I am completely confident that the intent of the statement was that any time you are looking at a monk's unarmed attack you can consider it to be a natural weapon or not.  The intent was not to create a killjoy logic trap over the meaning of the word "effect".




Well said. I seem to recall from the previous debate on this topic that there were some quotes in other sources that feats were considered effects. The counter-argument was that feats may be considered effects, but their prerequisites weren't. I can see the arguments both ways, so I'm not voting 100% certainty. I know how I would rule, but that doesn't matter for this debate, nor does anything from another non-core source.

Pinotage


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 21, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> BTW, is this poll assuming that INA will improve the monks damage at every level, or just improve the 1d3 unarmed damage that a human fist might benefit from (for instance)?




The first.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 21, 2006)

As of this writing, 80 votes are in (a large number for this board in well under 24 hours):

34 100% sure allowed
25 100% sure disallowed
21 At least some level of ambiguity exists.


This is a VERY big surprise to me.  I assumed (wrongly) that most folks would see some validity, however small, to the opposing view.  The fact that so many are 100% certain of opposite view does itself indicate *some* ambiguity, hoever small an amount, and yet 74% of the responders don't see that.  Amazing.

*I wonder how many folks now see at least some level of ambiguity based upon these survey results?* 

I am very curious - please post if you've softened your "100% certain" response and now see at least some level of ambiguity or uncertainty.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 21, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> ...To me it is much better to get past contorting every single word and look at the overall rules with a bit of "blur" to allow understanding of what was meant.
> Whether they said it perfectly or not, I am completely confident that the intent of the statement was that any time you are looking at a monk's unarmed attack you can consider it to be a natural weapon or not.  The intent was not to create a killjoy logic trap over the meaning of the word "effect".




The trick is to know when to look an "intent" and when to look only at a strict construction of what the words say.  It's tricky - that's why often we have courts of law disgreeing over statutes.  It's a very close parallel.  Sometimes the courts use intent as overiding the strict language, sometimes the language can override what everyone *knew* was the intent.

BTW, I agree with you,.  This set of rules simply does not have the level of precision that Hyp (and others) would like to put on it.  Attempting to put a precise defintion on "effects" is a great exemple of this; it's an ill-defined game term and we have little evidence (from the PHB/DMG/MM) that indicates whether the intent here was for "effects" to include feats or not.

We do have after-the-fact evidence in terms of the FAQ and later-published material, but that does not really tell us what the intent was at the time of the original writing.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 21, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> As of this writing, 80 votes are in (a large number for this board in well under 24 hours):
> 
> 34 100% sure allowed
> 25 100% sure disallowed
> ...




I can absolutely understand how someone could read it differently than me and disallow INA for Monks. However, I also believe that they are completely mistaken. 

I only state that because there is a difference between:

1. Believing an opposing argument has no validity

and

2. Understanding how someone could reasonably come to the conclusion they have. 

So please don't take my "yes" vote as a complete dismissal of other people's viewpoint. I understand their viewpoint and the logic they took in arriving at it. I simply feel that they are still wrong. 

I am confident that many of those people on the "no" side of this discussion feel largely the same way about my position on the "yes" side of this.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 21, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> I can absolutely understand how someone could read it differently than me and disallow INA for Monks. However, I also believe that they are completely mistaken.
> 
> I only state that because there is a difference between:
> 
> ...




Oh, well, I guess, despite best efforts, the survey was not well-written enough.  <sigh>.  In your case I would have preferred a vote for the not 100% certain category.  My fault - it's just the nature of these completely unscientific surveys.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 21, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Oh, well, I guess, despite best efforts, the survey was not well-written enough.  <sigh>.  In your case I would have preferred a vote for the not 100% certain category.  My fault - it's just the nature of these completely unscientific surveys.




I know what you're going for, and unfortunately I just don't think there is an acceptable way to word that poll and achieve the results your thinking of...

It would almost have to be as blatant as ...

1. Yes, anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot who can't read

2. No, don't be a moron, stop reading more into it because you want to help out underpowered monks.

3. Any reasonably intelligent person should be able to see that there are at least two legitimate ways of applying these rules. 

Now, I'm not advocating that wording...but to get the results you want, you'd almost have to word it that way. 

But like I've said, I believe that someone can have a reasonable counter argument that was arrived at after intelligent thought and discourse...and I can still consider them to be completely wrong.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 21, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> I know what you're going for, and unfortunately I just don't think there is an acceptable way to word that poll and achieve the results your thinking of...
> 
> It would almost have to be as blatant as ...
> 
> ...




You're right - that's probably what it would take.  Oh well, this is a good as it is going to get, I guess. <shrug>  While your proposed language might get the correct survey results, it would likey (and rightly) get shut down about 10 minutes after posting, I think.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 21, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> The trick is to know when to look an "intent" and when to look only at a strict construction of what the words say.  It's tricky - that's why often we have courts of law disgreeing over statutes.  It's a very close parallel.  Sometimes the courts use intent as overiding the strict language, sometimes the language can override what everyone *knew* was the intent.



Except I don't see this as nearly so important and therefore not worthy of the level of details.  (Not saying you do by any stretch)
I'd rather agree to DM judgement on a sentence than have a 400 page Code of Regulations for INA.  Trying to detail everything out to a perfect degree would be a total mess, would take a ton of word count away from other topics, and wouldn't actually achieve the goal of ending debate.  Lose - Lose - Lose.



> BTW, I agree with you,.  This set of rules simply does not have the level of precision that Hyp (and others) would like to put on it.  Attempting to put a precise defintion on "effects" is a great exemple of this; it's an ill-defined game term and we have little evidence (from the PHB/DMG/MM) that indicates whether the intent here was for "effects" to include feats or not.



I think actually trying to reach that level of precision would be highly harmful to the quality of the game.  In the end it is a game for relatively intelligent people.  And intellegence includes the ability to make reasonable inferences.



> We do have after-the-fact evidence in terms of the FAQ and later-published material, but that does not really tell us what the intent was at the time of the original writing.



IMO, at the end of the day it is WoTC's intent moreso than Monte's intent or Skip's intent.

But even with that, the point is not that you need to agree with WotC.  
WotC seems to think the Warbalde is balanced.  I think that is insane.
But me disagreeing with them is completely different than me saying their position is not meaningful or official.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 21, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> ...I think actually trying to reach that level of precision would be highly harmful to the quality of the game.  In the end it is a game for relatively intelligent people.  And intellegence includes the ability to make reasonable inferences....




Well, there is *some*value in a very high level of precision - mostly in applying these rules in a automated way for character generators, computer games, etc.

However, all that is needed is something like the FAQ to clear up areas of contention.


----------



## gabrion (Sep 21, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> As of this writing, 80 votes are in (a large number for this board in well under 24 hours):
> 
> 34 100% sure allowed
> 25 100% sure disallowed
> ...




Are you really that surprised?  It seems fairly predictable that most people believe in their viewpoint with absolute certainty on this issue.  You can tell by how often arguments about it come up on the boards.  Issues that do have some ambiguity tend to get discussed once (or twice) and then people set them aside with an "agree to disagree" type attitude.  It seems like this issue gets discussed so much because the two sides do really believe there is only one possible answer.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 21, 2006)

gabrion said:
			
		

> Are you really that surprised?  It seems fairly predictable that most people believe in their viewpoint with absolute certainty on this issue.  You can tell by how often arguments about it come up on the boards.  Issues that do have some ambiguity tend to get discussed once (or twice) and then people set them aside with an "agree to disagree" type attitude.  It seems like this issue gets discussed so much because the two sides do really believe there is only one possible answer.




What I am surpised at is not the inflexibility of thinking one is correct (heck, I think *I* am right and I am certain of that fact ), it's the inability to appreciate that the other side has ANY validity to their argument at all - even if they are mistaken.

But then, perhaps this is reflective of my law school training where one learns that there are very, very few absolutes in life and there is almost always as opposing argument that has at least *some* merit, however small.


----------



## Tiberius (Sep 21, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> What I am surpised at is not the inflexibility of thinking one is correct (heck, I think *I* am right and I am certain of that fact ), it's the inability to appreciate that the other side has ANY validity to their argument at all - even if they are mistaken.




Ah, I think this is your problem right here. I suspect most readers wouldn't think of the other side as having any validity, by definition. As Cedric pointed out, it is possible to understand where the other side is coming from and why they decided as they did; this does not mean that their argument is valid. They have come to a wrong conclusion and thus an invalid conclusion. After all, if one follows a series of valid arguments, how could a person not come to the "correct" conclusion? 

Also, the fact that one's opponents are clearly soulless apes incapable of higher brain function tends to cloud discourse.


----------



## Arnwyn (Sep 21, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> What I am surpised at is not the inflexibility of thinking one is correct (heck, I think *I* am right and I am certain of that fact ), it's the inability to appreciate that the other side has ANY validity to their argument at all - even if they are mistaken.
> 
> But then, perhaps this is reflective of my law school training where one learns that there are very, very few absolutes in life and there is almost always as opposing argument that has at least *some* merit, however small.



You are correct, of course - but that's not how people operate on an _internet messageboard_.

There's much more to it than the inability to appreciate the other side's argument... instead, there's also some psychology and "strategic voting" going on, too (moreso, I submit).


----------



## BryonD (Sep 21, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Well, there is *some*value in a very high level of precision - mostly in applying these rules in a automated way for character generators, computer games, etc.
> 
> However, all that is needed is something like the FAQ to clear up areas of contention.



Sure.

WotC says it is ok, so for computer games or official character generators the problem is solved.

Of course I'm not advocating a low level of precision, but, IMO, the level of precision currently provided is very much high enough.


----------



## Nail (Sep 21, 2006)

Tiberius said:
			
		

> .... it is possible to understand where the other side is coming from and why they decided as they did; this does not mean that their argument is valid. They have come to a wrong conclusion and thus an invalid conclusion.



Exactly.

You can answer "yes" to both of the following questions without creating a paradox:

"Is there debate about the meaning of the core rules wrt INA?"

"Is there a clear answer, once all of the core rule facts are examined?"


----------



## glass (Sep 21, 2006)

Assuming I am OK to post in this thread... Mods let me know if I am not and I'll delete this.


			
				Tiberius said:
			
		

> Ah, I think this is your problem right here. I suspect most readers wouldn't think of the other side as having any validity, by definition. As Cedric pointed out, it is possible to understand where the other side is coming from and why they decided as they did; this does not mean that their argument is valid. They have come to a wrong conclusion and thus an invalid conclusion. After all, if one follows a series of valid arguments, how could a person not come to the "correct" conclusion?



My thoughts exactly. If I thought there was any validity to another's argument, I would have to concede. If I haven't conceded it means I don't see any validity in the opposing argument. This is not unreasonable. 

Not conceding in the face of a valid argument; _that_ would be unreasonable, IMO.

_EDIT: I'm assuming that you are not using 'valid' in the plain English sense rather than the technical argument theory sense. Technically, you could describe the 'Yes' argument as valid but based on a (IMO) incorrect premise, but I don't think you were making that distinction and I'm not sure where you draw the line between an argument and premises anyway._


glass.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 21, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> ..._EDIT: I'm assuming that you are not using 'valid' in the plain English sense rather than the technical argument theory sense. Technically, you could describe the 'Yes' argument as valid but based on a (IMO) incorrect premise, but I don't think you were making that distinction and I'm not sure where you draw the line between an argument and premises anyway._
> glass.




Thanks for chiming in.

Actually, I am using "valid" in the techincal argument theory sense.  If the other side (which ever side you happened to be on) presents an argument that has *any* merit whatsoever than you should concede that the point is debatable and therefore a FAQ entry to clear it up is warranted. 

On the other hand, if you feel that the other side has absolutely no merit whatsoever to their arguments (that is, they have been smoking those funny cigarettes again), then the FAQ entry is really unjustified and all those with an opposing view are somehow 100% completely and utterly wrong without question or doubt.  What you would be saying than is that the matter is so clear that it is not even debatable.

I certainly don't think this one fits the latter category.  Things that would fit into the not-even-debatable category would be things like a "natural 1" always misses and a "natural 20" always hits for normal attack rolls.

Note that saying it is debatable is FAR different form saying you are right or wrong.  

In this case, I would personally say it is debatable but those saying a monk does NOT qualify for INA per the core rules are wrong because they are looking at the rules the wrong way and drawing the wrong conclusions - starting form the wrong premise, if you will.   

My opinion of being right in no way lessons the fact that this is debatable, though.

I think this may be the most hotly contested topic in this forum, plus this may be the most responded-to poll, but I cannot be certain.  

What fun, eh?


----------



## Deset Gled (Sep 21, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> BTW, I agree with you,.  This set of rules simply does not have the level of precision that Hyp (and others) would like to put on it.  Attempting to put a precise defintion on "effects" is a great exemple of this; it's an ill-defined game term and we have little evidence (from the PHB/DMG/MM) that indicates whether the intent here was for "effects" to include feats or not.




Every time you say that the rules are imprecise in regards to a RAW discussion, I get the feeling that you are having a different discussion than the one I'm having.  The words of the rules themselves are very precise.  They are always written in the same form, spelled the same way, and are completely, 100% repeatable.  The meaning behind the words, including interpretation and intent, is what's imprecise.  But that imprecision is on the part of the readers and writers, not the rules.  Discussing that imprecision is perfectly fine (and well within the purpose of this board), but I would consider that to be the Spirit of the Rules, not the Letter of the Rules.  To be honest, I don't even like the term Rules as Written, as the act of writing implies intent to begin with, but the terminology has become so commonplace here that I often find myself using it.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 21, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Every time you say that the rules are imprecise in regards to a RAW discussion, I get the feeling that you are having a different discussion than the one I'm having.  The words of the rules themselves are very precise.  They are always written in the same form, spelled the same way, and are completely, 100% repeatable.  The meaning behind the words, including interpretation and intent, is what's imprecise.  But that imprecision is on the part of the readers and writers, not the rules.  Discussing that imprecision is perfectly fine (and well within the purpose of this board), but I would consider that to be the Spirit of the Rules, not the Letter of the Rules.  To be honest, I don't even like the term Rules as Written, as the act of writing implies intent to begin with, but the terminology has become so commonplace here that I often find myself using it.




What, precisely, does "effects" mean in the Monk description?  That is the imprecision of which I write - for example.

If "effects" was defined clearly in the glossary to indicate what it ALWAYS did and did not inlcude, then it would be "precise."


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 21, 2006)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> There is nothing (that I have found) in the PHB, DMG, MM or errata that states a feat is considered an effect, the benefit of a feat is an effect, or the prerequisite of a feat is an effect.  Until that is defined within those Core products, I think assuming a feat (or a part of a feat) is an effect is just speculation.




Actions in Combat Table. Both SRD and PHB:



> 8 The description of a feat defines its effect.




Course, this has semantic problems of its own, but there you go.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 21, 2006)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> There is nothing (that I have found) in the PHB, DMG, MM or errata that states a feat is considered an effect, the benefit of a feat is an effect, or the prerequisite of a feat is an effect. Until that is defined within those Core products, I think assuming a feat (or a part of a feat) is an effect is just speculation.




In addition to what KarinsDad pointed out, which at least lays the foundation for a legitimate counter-argument,  we do not know whether "effects" was meant to be read narrowly or broadly.

Narrowly read has many problems because of the lack of a clear definition of "effects."  At a minimum, it requires a lengthy argument on "effects" and how that applies to feats and, potenially, prerequisites for feats.

On the other hand, a broad reading is simplicity itself.  Pretty much, if it enhances or improves natural weapons than a monk's unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon.  No tough argument, no worrying about picky word defintions. 

Finally, since there are these two views and both are firmly grounded in the rules, there is legitimate debate and legitimate need for a FAQ entry.

I continue to be astounded that there is even debate that a FAQ entry in this is value-added and appropriate - though, of couse, anyone might think the FAQ chose the wrong answer.  The point is, though, that the FAQ stepped up and chose ONE answer, settling the matter - "officially," at least.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 21, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Narrowly read has many problems because of the lack of a clear definition of "effects."  At a minimum, it requires a lengthy argument on "effects" and how that applies to feats and, potenially, prerequisites for feats.
> 
> On the other hand, a broad reading is simplicity itself.  Pretty much, if it enhances or improves natural weapons than a monk's unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon.  No tough argument, no worrying about picky word defintions.




The narrow reading is one based off of the usage of the word "effect" used throughout the books. There is no general usage of feats being or having effects (i.e. something external that affects a creature, object, or other effect), although there are a few obscure exceptions. 

The broad reading would mean that BAB is an effect, base saves are effects, alignment is an effect, etc. Once we open up Pandora's box on definition this way, there is no way to close it and other issues could arise.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 21, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The narrow reading is one based off of the usage of the word "effect" used throughout the books. There is no general usage of feats being or having effects (i.e. something external that affects a creature, object, or other effect), although there are a few obscure exceptions.
> 
> The broad reading would mean that BAB is an effect, base saves are effects, alignment is an effect, etc. Once we open up Pandora's box on definition this way, there is no way to close it and other issues could arise.




What you point out is why a FAQ entry was really needed.  Your second paragraph is really not such an issue though, for example, does BAB improve or enhance natural weapons?  I don't think so - not except by a really, really strained interpretation


----------



## Falling Icicle (Sep 21, 2006)

Sejs said:
			
		

> Half way down the page, under "Full Attack"
> 
> _"A creature’s primary attack damage includes its full Strength modifier (1-1/2 times its Strength bonus if the attack is with the creature’s sole natural weapon)..."_




An unarmed strike is not a Humanoid's sole natural weapon. Last I checked, most people are equipped with two arms and two legs.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 21, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> This is a VERY big surprise to me.  I assumed (wrongly) that most folks would see some validity, however small, to the opposing view.  The fact that so many are 100% certain of opposite view does itself indicate *some* ambiguity, hoever small an amount, and yet 74% of the responders don't see that.  Amazing.




Perhaps this reflects people who reject the premise upon which the other side is making their argument. In this kind of situation, person A thinks that the premise of person B is flawed, so the validity of their argument is irrelevant because it is based on a flawed premise.

I wouldn't be surprised if that was behind some of the results here.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 21, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Actions in Combat Table. Both SRD and PHB:
> 
> 8 The description of a feat defines its effect.




Note the possessive.  The description defines "its effect".  The effect _of the feat_.

'The feat has an effect', not 'the feat is an effect'.



			
				Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> Ah, but that's the thing. An unarmed strike is not a Humanoid's sole natural weapon. Last I checked, most people are equipped with two arms and two legs.




But only one unarmed strike.

Or would you allow a 1st level fighter to attack with his longsword, and then once with his left hand, once with his right foot, and once with his left foot, per the rules for mixing manufactured and natural weapons?  What about elbows, knees, head butt?

The weapon is 'unarmed strike'; it happens that that weapon might at any given time be delivered by one arm, or one leg, or your forehead... but it's all the same weapon.

Given that any creature can make an unarmed strike (with the possible exception of a locathah), doesn't defining unarmed strike as a natural weapon mean that no creature will ever qualify for the "sole natural weapon" benefit?

"This hyena only has a bite attack, so it adds 1.5x St... oops, no, it has an unarmed strike as well."

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Note the possessive.  The description defines "its effect".  The effect _of the feat_.
> 
> 'The feat has an effect', not 'the feat is an effect'...
> 
> ...




Even were I to grant you this point, for the sake of argument, who's to say that if the feat's effect would apply (INA) that the monk's "natural weapon" for "spells and effects" was NOT meant to apply here?

As a better example with more clarity (perhaps): If a character somehow had a Su ability to grant Magic Fang to another PC, would a monk qualify to recieve the "Magic Fang" benefit?

Well, under your logic, not really, because the Su ability grants an effect and is not a "spell" or an "effect' in and of itself.   Much like INA.

I'd say that's the wrong appraoch and that "effects" should be read broadly enough so that if you would benefit form the effect, then for that effect (whatever it is) you have a natural weapon for qualifying for that effect.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 21, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> What you point out is why a FAQ entry was really needed.  Your second paragraph is really not such an issue though, for example, does BAB improve or enhance natural weapons?  I don't think so - not except by a really, really strained interpretation




You misinterpret my intent for that sentence.

If you use the broad definition of the word effects, every game element (and game rule) is an effect since they affect the game. BAB does, saves do, etc.

If you use the narrow definition of the word effects, it is an external to the creature Effect. The creature could instigate the effect (e.g. cast a spell), but the Effect is the magic itself. It is outside the creature. Properties of the creature (e.g. BAB, saves, feats, etc.) are not effects since they are not external from the creature.

In this narrow definition, Effects are things like Acid, Fire, the results of Spells, the results of Supernatural abilities, etc. Casting a spell is not an Effect, it is an ability. The cast spell produces an Effect.


Once every game element becomes an effect, there could be issues on how the rules work. 

For example:



> 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.




Player 1: "Mr. DM, I would like the PC Wizard to use his Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat to make my Unarmed Strike permanently magical."
DM: "That cannot be done."
Player 1: "Au contraire. We are using the broad definition of the word "effects" as per your house rules and hence, unarmed strikes are considered manufactured weapons for all purposes."
DM: "Err, ahh, well, we are changing the house rules."


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Note the possessive.  The description defines "its effect".  The effect _of the feat_.
> 
> 'The feat has an effect', not 'the feat is an effect'.




Note the fact that in that same post, I stated that this sentence has semantical issues. No need to school me on something I already know.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 21, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> ...In this narrow definition, Effects are things like Acid, Fire, the results of Spells, the results of Supernatural abilities, etc. Casting a spell is not an Effect, it is an ability. The cast spell produces an Effect.




And a feat produces/grants/has an effect.  




			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> ...Player 1: "Mr. DM, I would like the PC Wizard to use his Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat to make my Unarmed Strike permanently magical."
> DM: "That cannot be done."
> Player 1: "Au contraire. We are using the broad definition of the word "effects" as per your house rules and hence, unarmed strikes are considered manufactured weapons for all purposes."
> DM: "Err, ahh, well, we are changing the house rules."




Good luck with that one.  How do you improve the unarmed strike to make it masterwork, also a requirement to improve it.  The tiniest, smallest amount of common sense can go a very, very long way.  

I do kind of like the image of the monk being taken to the forge to re-work his unarmed strike.  I don't think he'd survive the modifications that are required, even if he did qualify.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 21, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Note the fact that in that same post, I stated that this sentence has semantical issues. No need to school me on something I already know.




No, just making the important point that Artoomis missed anyway 

If a feat has an effect, and that effect improves or enhances a natural weapon, the monk's unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for purposes _of that effect_.  Not for purposes of that feat; for purposes of the effect of the feat.

The feat's effect can only apply to a character who has the feat, though... and you can't take a feat for which you don't meet the prerequisites.  And since the monk's unarmed strike does not count as a natural weapon for purposes of the feat (just the effect of the feat), he can't take the feat in the first place.

Which is why the minotaur monk (who has a natural weapon) can take the feat, and apply its effect to his unarmed strike... but the human monk can't.

Because feats have effects, rather than being effects.

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> No, just making the important point that Artoomis missed anyway
> 
> -Hyp.




And what makes you think I missed the point?  I most certainly have not.  Look back five posts.

"As a better example with more clarity (perhaps): If a character somehow had a Su ability to grant Magic Fang to another PC, would a monk qualify to recieve the "Magic Fang" benefit?"


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 21, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Good luck with that one.  How do you improve the unarmed strike to make it masterwork, also a requirement to improve it.  The tiniest, smallest amount of common sense can go a very, very long way.




Again, you missed the point. If it is a manufactured weapon for *all effects* using a broad definition, making it masterwork would be *an effect* of using the Craft skill. Hence, no problem making it masterwork first and magical second.

The tiniest, smallest amount of common sense can go a very, very long way. One cannot have a "broad definition" work broadly sometimes and narrowly at others based on a whim and still be considered RAW.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 21, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> "As a better example with more clarity (perhaps): If a character somehow had a Su ability to grant Magic Fang to another PC, would a monk qualify to recieve the "Magic Fang" benefit?"




Well, yes, but that's because of the weird "such as a fist" wording in Magic Fang.

You can cast Magic Fang on a commoner and enhance his unarmed strike, whether it's a spell or a Su ability.

But even if the wording didn't mention unarmed strikes, it would still work; the target of Magic Fang is 'living creature touched', so the monk is a valid target.  Once the spell (or Su ability) is cast on the monk, the effect of the spell is to improve or enhance a natural weapon, so he's fine.

If the target of the spell were "one natural weapon", then the spell would work, but the Su version might not.

-Hyp.


----------



## DanMcS (Sep 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Because feats have effects, rather than being effects.




In the chapter on feats, feats have benefits, not effects.  A benefit is probably a subclass of an effect, but it's yet another term that doesn't have a strict definition.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 21, 2006)

DanMcS said:
			
		

> In the chapter on feats, feats have benefits, not effects.  A benefit is probably a subclass of an effect, but it's yet another term that doesn't have a strict definition.



Which all leads back to it is much better to use sense to judge what was meant in a couple sentences rather than try to expect 10,000 word regulations that waste space in an futile effort to avoid reader imposed logic traps.


----------



## takyris (Sep 21, 2006)

I think it's legal, but I think it violates the intended spirit, and I wouldn't allow it in one of my games without a lot of thought beforehand.

My reasoning for thinking it violates the intended spirit is that it approaches the 3.0 Haste level of "You're either foolish or reaching hard for some other build if you don't take this"-dom.

I think most fighters would benefit from Power Attack, but they don't all absolutely need it -- maybe they're duelists who go with Expertise or fast guys who are gunning for Spring Attack or specialists taking the Focus/Specialization/Improved Critical path.

But the only monk for whom Improved Natural Attack isn't a no-brainer as soon as the monk qualifies for it is a monk who isn't focused on melee combat of any kind -- which is an awfully big reach for a monk.

Hence my "Maybe". It seems like a clear-cut "Yes" by the rules, but I wouldn't allow it in my game.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 21, 2006)

110 poll votes in 24 hours.  Is that a forum record?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 21, 2006)

DanMcS said:
			
		

> In the chapter on feats, feats have benefits, not effects.




Yup, but there are references to a feat's effect, so we know they can have them 

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Yup, but there are references to a feat's effect, so we know they can have them
> 
> -Hyp.




There is also at least one reference to a feat as an effect, right?  Maybe, indeed, only one, but that should be enough.



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Keen Edge
> ...Multiple *effects* that increase a weapon’s threat range (such as the keen edge spell and *the Improved Critical feat*) don’t stack. You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as a claw.






			
				srd said:
			
		

> Spiritual Weapon... Your feats or combat actions do not affect the weapon


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 21, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> There is also at least one reference to a feat as an effect, right?




Improved Spell Resistance?  AFAIK, that's only in the ELH, and you specifically restricted this thread to considering only Core plus errata...

-Hyp.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 21, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> There is also at least one reference to a feat as an effect, right?  Maybe, indeed, only one, but that should be enough.




Sloppy writing for one feat out of literally several hundred feats is hardly enough to qualify as rule defining.


I noticed you ignored my Craft Effect to make a Monk's Unarmed Attack masterwork example. If feats can be used as effects, cannot skills be used as effects?


----------



## Cedric (Sep 21, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Sloppy writing for one feat out of literally several hundred feats is hardly enough to qualify as rule defining.
> 
> 
> I noticed you ignored my Craft Effect to make a Monk's Unarmed Attack masterwork example. If feats can be used as effects, cannot skills be used as effects?




Actually, I was going to reply to that, but was busy at work. I have a few minutes now, so I'll sound off on it. 

And my thoughts...sure, I'd allow it. In fact, I think it might eliminate a lot of the aspects of a monk that make many people consider them to be 'underpowered'. Though, I would require "Craft Natural Weapon" to be taken as the skill, instead of Weaponsmithing. But that's largely because I think it is just a different skill.

Perhaps time spent toughing fists, building callous, working on grip and positioning...but as it relates to one natural weapon (fist in my example)...basically something that goes somewhat  beyond the scope of the normal training a monk does. 

And of course, the monk would have to be present for the entirety of the crafting process. (I would also recommend against certain abilities, like Flaming Burst, etc).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 21, 2006)

> Perhaps time spent toughing fists, building callous, working on grip and positioning...but as it relates to one natural weapon (fist in my example)...basically something that goes somewhat beyond the scope of the normal training a monk does.




I recently watched a broadcast on one of the cable science channels in which (among other things) the researchers were using the same kind of equipment used to measure forces in auto impact testing to measure the power in martial arts strikes.  They pointed out the "hard body" training creates microfractures in the bones, which then heal, heavier than before.  Repeat the process, and eventually the Martial Artists' bones can endure forces that would normally shatter them...as was evidenced in their force tests.

They recorded the force required to break a typical human skull...and a martial artist did a break with his head that registered 3x that amount at the point of impact.



> And of course, the monk would have to be present for the entirety of the crafting process. (I would also recommend against certain abilities, like Flaming Burst, etc).




Why?  The flame doesn't hurt the wielder, after all.

Or are you talking about the process itself?


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Improved Spell Resistance?  AFAIK, that's only in the ELH, and you specifically restricted this thread to considering only Core plus errata...
> 
> -Hyp.




Form the PHB spells:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Keen Edge
> ...Multiple *effects* that increase a weapon’s threat range (such as the keen edge spell and *the Improved Critical feat*) don’t stack. You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as a claw.






			
				srd said:
			
		

> Spiritual Weapon... Your feats or combat actions do not affect the weapon




That's two instances. The second is a little shakey, but the first is solid.  If a feat is an effect for Keen Edge, who's to say it is not one for the Monk?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 21, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> The second is a little shakey...




I'm not quite sure how it's at all relevant... let alone 'shakey'...



> ... but the first is solid.  If a feat is an effect for Keen Edge, who's to say it is not one for the Monk?




I'd assume that it's a shorthand for "the effect bestowed by the Keen Edge spell and the effect bestowed by the Improved Critical feat", much as someone might write "multiple enhancement bonuses (such as the Magic Weapon and Shillelagh spells) do not stack" as a shorthand for "such as the enhancement bonus bestowed by the Magic Weapon spell and the enhancement bonus bestowed by the Shillelagh spell".

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 21, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I'm not quite sure how it's at all relevant... let alone 'shakey'...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And *I* assume that "effects" in the Monk's description includes feats since *I* assume that they knew what they were doing when they wrote this spell.  I prefer in all cases to assume that the authors made no error uinless it's very clear that an error exists.  Since *both* your arguments and mine are based upon are possibly flawed assumptions, there is no *certainty* and thus the FAQ entry is required for clarity.  

Even if we assume this spell is sloppily written and that's not what they meant, how can we also assume, at the same time, that the monk's description was carefully crafted to exclude feats.  Is it not better to either assume some looseness in both cases or assume both are carefully written?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 22, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> And *I* assume that "effects" in the Monk's description includes feats since *I* assume that they knew what they were doing when they wrote this spell.




But the Monk description refers to 'spells and effects'.  If "effects (such as the Keen Edge spell or the Improved Critical feat)" is read to mean "spells are effects and feats are effects", then the phrase "spells and effects" is nonsensical - it's like saying "longswords and weapons" or "Magic Missile and Evocations".

Hence my contention that the 'such as' is referring to the effects _of_ the Keen Edge spell and the Improved Critical feat.

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 22, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But the Monk description refers to 'spells and effects'.  If "effects (such as the Keen Edge spell or the Improved Critical feat)" is read to mean "spells are effects and feats are effects", then the phrase "spells and effects" is nonsensical - it's like saying "longswords and weapons" or "Magic Missile and Evocations".
> 
> Hence my contention that the 'such as' is referring to the effects _of_ the Keen Edge spell and the Improved Critical feat.
> 
> -Hyp.




And once again you are looking for too much precision in the language.

"Effects" is simply a very imprecisely used term.  It simply may or may not truly include "feats," and may or may not be meant to include feats in the monk desrciption.  There is simply no conclusive way to determine if "effects" in the monk description really, truly includes "feats" or not.

Unless, we of course, we defer to WotC to settle the matter and declare which way it should be read (thus asking them for a FAQ entry).

Which of course they have done.


----------



## Cheiromancer (Sep 22, 2006)

I admire your persistence, Artoomis, but threads like this remind me of this comic strip:

http://www.badgods.com/keyboard.html


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 22, 2006)

Cheiromancer said:
			
		

> I admire your persistence, Artoomis...




*My* persistence?  From my view it is others who persist in hanging on to the view that monks may not take INA.


----------



## Vurt (Sep 22, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> *My* persistence?  From my view it is others who persist in hanging on to the view that monks may not take INA.




There, there... It'll be OK...   

Cheers,
Vurt


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 22, 2006)

Vurt said:
			
		

> There, there... It'll be OK...
> 
> Cheers,
> Vurt




My comment *did* come across a bit testy, didn't it?  It was not meant that way.  Honestly.


----------



## Legildur (Sep 22, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> My comment *did* come across a bit testy, didn't it?  It was not meant that way.  Honestly.



LOL! It did a bit, but given the topic, I ignored it.  And I admire not only your persistence, but your patience!  And you still haven't managed to sway me.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 22, 2006)

Legildur said:
			
		

> ... And you still haven't managed to sway me.




Not *yet*!


----------



## 3d6 (Sep 22, 2006)

I vote "maybe". I don't think it is clear what constitutes an "effect" in the D&D rules. I tend to lean towards the FAQ view, simply because the rule is ambiguous and the question is often asked, and providing an offical answer to such a question is the intended purpose of the FAQ.


----------



## Thurbane (Sep 22, 2006)

The amount of deabte on this particular subject, both here and elsewhere, just staggers my mind. Considering the other munchkinville feat/race/class combos I've seen get the green light, this has to be the most innocuous bone of contention ever.

For the record, I'm in the "100% Monk can have INA" camp...


----------



## Zimri (Sep 22, 2006)

SRD said:
			
		

> 1) A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon
> 
> 2) Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature
> 
> ...





1) Check Monks unarmed strike = natural weapon
2) Check my monk's fists, elbows, legs, feet, etcetera all parts of her body
3) Check a monk is considered armed when using unarmed strikes and does not provoke attacks of oppurtunity as normal humanoids would
4)And check a Monk's unarmed strike crits on a 20

Therefore I have to vote yes seeing as how it is a natural weapon it qualifies. Saying a part of my body is "un-natural" strikes me as more than a tad bizarre


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 22, 2006)

Zimri said:
			
		

> 1) Check Monks unarmed strike = natural weapon
> 2) Check my monk's fists, elbows, legs, feet, etcetera all parts of her body
> 3) Check a monk is considered armed when using unarmed strikes and does not provoke attacks of oppurtunity as normal humanoids would
> 4)And check a Monk's unarmed strike crits on a 20




_Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons._

A monk receives additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using unarmed strikes.

_A creature’s primary attack damage includes its full Strength modifier (1-1/2 times its Strength bonus if the attack is with the creature’s sole natural weapon)._

A monk doesn't add 1-1/2 times his Strength bonus to unarmed strikes.



> 1) A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon




You missed a bit.

_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._  Not for all purposes.

-Hyp.


----------



## Slaved (Sep 22, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But the Monk description refers to 'spells and effects'.  If "effects (such as the Keen Edge spell or the Improved Critical feat)" is read to mean "spells are effects and feats are effects", then the phrase "spells and effects" is nonsensical - it's like saying "longswords and weapons" or "Magic Missile and Evocations".




Nonsensical? Not even close.

Redundant? Sure, but there isn't anything wrong with redundancy in a rule book such as this.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 22, 2006)

Slaved, it's redundant as in "unnecessary repetition" and not redundant as in a failsafe backup device.  One of the definitions of nonsensical is "things of no importance or value."  IMO, unnecessary repetition fits that bill so the two words are synonomous.



			
				Thurbane said:
			
		

> Considering the other munchkinville feat/race/class combos I've seen get the green light, this has to be the most innocuous bone of contention ever.



 Actually, INA is an extremely powerful feat.  It's much stronger than anything a fighter could take.  Combine that fact with it being a non-tier, low-prerequisite feat and it's absurdly powerful.  Allowing it because you think monks are a weak class is just bad game design.  I would only accept an opinion that INA for monks is not overly powerful if you allow Improved Manufactured Weapon Attack as a feat.  And even then, you need to justify it because a normal manufactured weapon does not get much more powerful at higher levels.


----------



## Slaved (Sep 22, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Slaved, it's redundant




Glad you agree. The rest of your post was unneccisarrily redundant after that   

Still though, if you are actually not agreeing then I could go through and point out the hundreds/thousands of redundancies in the books. In this case however I think it is acceptable to just say it is a turn of phrase, redundant, and basically how english works.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 22, 2006)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Still though, if you are actually not agreeing then I could go through and point out the hundreds/thousands of redundancies in the books. In this case however I think it is acceptable to just say it is a turn of phrase, redundant, and basically how english works.



 Just pick one other instance of unnecessary repetition.

True, it _could _ be just non-legalized wording in a rulebook (i.e. careless rule-writing), but then again it _might not be_.  My point of commenting was merely to support Hyp's view that in this case it is not necessarily redundant, whereas the opposing view *requires it to be redundant*.


----------



## Kem (Sep 22, 2006)

I voted yes

To me, The Natural Weapon Clause for the monks attack allows it to take INA.

Saying a minotaur can take it and benefit his Monk attacks seems counter-productive.  Especially with "Choose one of the creature’s natural attack forms."

How can it choose that natural attack form if it is not in fact, a natural attack form?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 22, 2006)

Kem said:
			
		

> How can it choose that natural attack form if it is not in fact, a natural attack form?




Because it's considered a natural attack form for the purposes of effects that improve natural weapons, and "treat a natural weapon as one size larger" is an effect that improves a natural weapon.

-Hyp.


----------



## Zimri (Sep 22, 2006)

Sorry Hype, it's my contention that you and your ilk are splitting hairs. A monk's unarmed strike is considered both manufactured and natural weapons. You would have a far easier time convincing me they are not manufactured weapons (and erego not valid recipients for "magic weapon" or the kensai's weapon improvements)  than that they are not "natural". But hey if you want to continue to claim part of my (and your) body is not a part of nature feel free.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 22, 2006)

Zimri said:
			
		

> Sorry Hype, it's my contention that you and your ilk are splitting hairs. A monk's unarmed strike is considered both manufactured and natural weapons.




What do you consider the rest of the sentence to mean, then?



> But hey if you want to continue to claim part of my (and your) body is not a part of nature feel free.




I'm not claiming it's not a part of nature; just that it doesn't fit the mechanics of the game concept 'natural weapon'.

-Hyp.


----------



## Zimri (Sep 22, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> What do you consider the rest of the sentence to mean, then?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I consider it clarification to remove ambiguity not add to it.

My fist is part of my natural body, my fist is being used as a weapon. It is therefore both natural and a weapon.

As a side note I am quite certain that this debate will not reach a conclusion til Wizards, and/or the author of said feat make a coherent ruling ........ Oh wait nope that didn't help anything at all did it.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Sep 22, 2006)

To those who think that an unarmed strike is a natural weapon, I haven't seen this mentioned yet in this thread (though I may have missed it), but here's another bit that shows that either it is not, or we've added more redundancy:



			
				SRD Grappling said:
			
		

> Attack Your Opponent
> You can make an attack with an unarmed strike, natural weapon, or light weapon against another character you are grappling. You take a -4 penalty on such attacks.


----------



## brendan candries (Sep 22, 2006)

could someone clarify why a monk would qualify for INA and not, say, every humanoid of whatever class?


----------



## Rystil Arden (Sep 22, 2006)

Zimri said:
			
		

> I consider it clarification to remove ambiguity not add to it.
> 
> My fist is part of my natural body, my fist is being used as a weapon. It is therefore both natural and a weapon.
> 
> As a side note I am quite certain that this debate will not reach a conclusion til Wizards, and/or the author of said feat make a coherent ruling ........ Oh wait nope that didn't help anything at all did it.



 So, would you contend, then, that a fist is thus a natural weapon for nonmonks as well.  It is a natural part of their bodies too, right?


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 22, 2006)

brendan candries said:
			
		

> could someone clarify why a monk would qualify for INA and not, say, every humanoid of whatever class?




I am not necessarily advocating that position, but why not?  It would make little difference.

The biggest rules problem that letting an unarmed striuke always be considered a natural weapon would be that it woudl have to be a different type of natural weapon since it does allow intertainv attacks (and something else that escapes me at the moment), but that's really not so very different from certain weapons that have their own rules.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Sep 22, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I am not necessarily advocating that position, but why not?  It woudl make little difference.
> 
> The biggest rules problem that letting an unarmed striuke always be considered a natural weapon would be that it woudl have to be a different type of natural weapon since it does allow intertainv attacks (and something else that escapes me at the moment), but that's really not so very different from certain weapons that have their own rules.



 If everything would qualify for that clause under that unusual logic, then why bother making the prereq at all?  As well add "BAB +0" as a prereq to every feat or "Base Fort +0" to Great Fortitude.


----------



## Zimri (Sep 22, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> So, would you contend, then, that a fist is thus a natural weapon for nonmonks as well.  It is a natural part of their bodies too, right?




Sure telling a regular untrained humanoid that their body is either un-natural, or that they can not hit stuff with parts of it seems silly. A monk can merely do so better because of training (ie improved unarmed strike et al)

I suppose then that begs the question "Do the effects of improved unarmed strike and improved natural attack stack ?"


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 22, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> If everything would qualify for that clause under that unusual logic, then why bother making the prereq at all?  As well add "BAB +0" as a prereq to every feat or "Base Fort +0" to Great Fortitude.




True.  I did NOT say I was advocating that position, only that it would not break the game to do so.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 22, 2006)

Zimri said:
			
		

> Sure telling a regular untrained humanoid that their body is either un-natural, or that they can not hit stuff with parts of it seems silly. A monk can merely do so better because of training (ie improved unarmed strike et al)
> 
> I suppose then that begs the question "Do the effects of improved unarmed strike and improved natural attack stack ?"




No.  That's just too good to allow, and logic can be applied to prevent that from happening though, strictly rules-speaking, probably yes.

Of course, even at that what really bad things would happen?  The monk would use up two very valuable feats to get a two-step increase in damage, right?  Hardly game-breaking.  It might actually make them more-or-less effective in offensive combat.  (ooohhh - scary stuff  )


----------



## Nail (Sep 22, 2006)

Making monks better isn't the issue, IMHO.  THere are other (and better!) ways to do that.  Blurring the distinction between natural attacks and unarmed strikes don't make monks better.


----------



## Umbran (Sep 22, 2006)

It is 100% clear to me that the wording of the rules _requires_ interpretation to answer the question.  The answer depends on the weight one gives to each of the disparate references, which are not consistently written.

There is no objective source for that weighting - ergo, both sides have validity.


----------



## Zimri (Sep 22, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> No.  That's just too good to allow, and logic can be applied to prevent that from happening thoug, strictly rules-speaking, probably yes.
> 
> Of course, even at that what really bad things would happen?  The monk would use up two very valuable feats to get a two-step increase in damage, right?  Hardly game-breaking.  It might actually make them more-or-less effective in offensive combat.  (ooohhh - scary stuff  )





But then the exchange of viewpoints being held currently is settled unless I missed something of course.

1) Allowing that all bodies save that of the warforged are more or less natural and can be used to hit stuff most creatures have a natural attack that can be used as a weapon to hit stuff.

2) That said, those attacks (all other pre-reqs being met) can be improved by "improved natural attack"

3) All monks start with "improved unarmed strike" which improves their unarmed (natural) attack 

4) If IUS and INA can not stack then there is no reason to have this debate at all as IUS is mandatory for monks.


If you wanna talk scary I am looking at a changeling monk/ascetic rogue/warshaper. Sure it's not completely minmaxed and certainly not "optimized" but fun as heck.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 22, 2006)

Nail said:
			
		

> Making monks better isn't the issue, IMHO.  THere are other (and better!) ways to do that.  Blurring the distinction between natural attacks and unarmed strikes don't make monks better.




The class itself blurs the distinction between and monks unarmed attacks and natural AND manufactured weapons.

And blurring that distinction DOES make monks better since it allows them to qualify for "spells and effects" as if they had both manufactured weapons and natural weapons with their unarmed strikes.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 22, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> It is 100% clear to me that the wording of the rules _requires_ interpretation to answer the question.  The answer depends on the weight one gives to each of the disparate references, which are not consistently written.
> 
> There is no objective source for that weighting - ergo, both sides have validity.




I agree, and am astounded that most folks don't agree with this.


----------



## DungeonMaester (Sep 22, 2006)

Umbran said:
			
		

> It is 100% clear to me that the wording of the rules _requires_ interpretation to answer the question.  The answer depends on the weight one gives to each of the disparate references, which are not consistently written.
> 
> There is no objective source for that weighting - ergo, both sides have validity.




Exactly.  DM1 says you can use Wish to gain Regeneration 20/- 
             DM2 says "Hellz no n00b, that chara iz sux0rs."


Rules are better left open ended for Dms to mold into there world. Which is why I always Disregaurd the FAQ/Errata, They always end up making it worse then it allready is. Like making wild shape no long like polymorph. 

*Rolls up newspaper*  Bad WotC.

Sorry for any typos in advance.

---Rusty


----------



## Sidekick (Sep 22, 2006)

artoomis said:
			
		

> The class itself blurs the distinction between and monks unarmed attacks and natural AND manufactured weapons.
> 
> And blurring that distinction DOES make monks better since it allows them to qualify for "spells and effects" as if they had both manufactured weapons and natural weapons with their unarmed strikes.




Well, yeah – that’s what that rules addition is for. Monks can’t boost their unarmed strike through picking up a new set of +1 flaming keen limbs, so WotC have allowed them to benefit from natural attack boosting feats, spells that affect weapons & natural attacks (magic weapns & magic fangs) and so forth.

Honestly I don’t really see what the problem is, sure someone can ‘abuse it’, bet its not like someone who’d do that in an ACTUAL game wouldn’t do that with every other rules ambiguity. And frankly I find that people who are trying to 'abuse the rules' and 'win D&D' are wankers anyway. Nothing we agree upon here is going to change that.

I think that here at Enworld we have a great group of talented, experienced DMs and players. You’re all going to have to agree to disagree.



			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> It is 100% clear to me that the wording of the rules requires interpretation to answer the question. The answer depends on the weight one gives to each of the disparate references, which are not consistently written.
> 
> There is no objective source for that weighting - ergo, both sides have validity.



QFT. 

It’s a GAME guys. So what if the rules are a bit ambiguous. There’s no such thing as a 100% totally clear rule or law in the world, nor is there in this game. After 4 pages on this thread, another 5 or so on the last one and gods knows how many on the one’s before that I think it should now be clear that there is no consensus...


----------



## Nail (Sep 22, 2006)

Sidekick said:
			
		

> It’s a GAME guys.



Fortunately, no one is debating that point.


----------



## Zimri (Sep 22, 2006)

Nail said:
			
		

> Fortunately, no one is debating that point.




Given my real life I'ld gladly switch...... asuming I could bring my gaming group with me. 8)


----------



## Kem (Sep 22, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Because it's considered a natural attack form for the purposes of effects that improve natural weapons, and "treat a natural weapon as one size larger" is an effect that improves a natural weapon.
> 
> -Hyp.




But you can't choose it.


----------



## Nail (Sep 22, 2006)

Zimri said:
			
		

> Given my real life Id gladly switch...... assuming I could bring my gaming group with me. 8)



I hear ya, bud.    


Seriously: Saying "it's only a game" doesn't settle an argument.  And (if that last statement didn't miff you) this forum is all about discussion and _argument_ about how the rules work.  It's a "given" for this forum.

In comparison to other on-line gaming forums, this one generates better points, more thought, and fewer ruffled feathers when it comes to "arguments".  Why squelch a good thing?


----------



## SteveC (Sep 22, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Of course, there are a few spells in the Spell Compendium that refer to a 'natural weapon or unarmed strike', just like several places in the PHB.
> 
> This tells me that a natural weapon is _not_ an unarmed strike.
> 
> -Hyp.



But that's having it both ways: the PHBII *suggests* the feat for monk characters, but the response to that has been "it's not core." Well, neither is the Spell Compendium. By *core* references only, I'd say it's pretty clear that it is acceptable at this point. Of course, YMMV. There isn't a definition for "effect" in the glossary of either the PHB or DMG, so I'd have to say it is intended to mean what it does as an English language word. Again, YMMV.

--Steve


----------



## Nail (Sep 22, 2006)

SteveC said:
			
		

> There isn't a definition for "effect" in the glossary..



But we can agree that "effect" is different than "prerequisite", right?  No ambiguity there.


----------



## Zimri (Sep 22, 2006)

Nail said:
			
		

> I hear ya, bud.
> 
> 
> Seriously: Saying "it's only a game" doesn't settle an argument.  And (if that last statement didn't miff you) this forum is all about discussion and _argument_ about how the rules work.  It's a "given" for this forum.
> ...




I whole heartedly agree. I come here (though rarely) exactly for that reason. I love the level of actual DEBATE and exchange of ideas that exists here. I am of the group that (in this instance) can completely see Hypersmurf's point. I think it breaks the "keep it simple silly" mantra that I enjoy both in life and in game. If he wants to run a game where thats the ruling, fine I could probably enjoy it. Espescially since it is completely logical that IUS and INA shouldn't stack and well I am not giving up IUS.

I loved the 41 ish page "would a paladin lose his abilities for this" thread that had every "luminary" and "not so luminary" debating morality, ethics, and what lawful and good really meant.

Them were the days


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 22, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> To those who think that an unarmed strike is a natural weapon, I haven't seen this mentioned yet in this thread (though I may have missed it), but here's another bit that shows that either it is not, or we've added more redundancy:




There are a few places in the rules that refer to an 'unarmed strike or natural weapon'.  When I brought that up before, it was suggested that someone could say "I like apples or fruit for breakfast" without excluding apples from being fruit.



> If everything* would qualify for that clause under that unusual logic, then why bother making the prereq at all?  As well add "BAB +0" as a prereq to every feat or "Base Fort +0" to Great Fortitude.




* except Locathah!



			
				SteveC said:
			
		

> But that's having it both ways: the PHBII suggests the feat for monk characters...




The PHBII suggests the feat for monk characters with a BAB of +0.

I can guarantee that a monk character with a BAB of +0 doesn't qualify for the feat, without fear of much dispute.  I'm of the opinion that a monk character with a BAB of +4 doesn't either, but that's obviously under debate.

Citing the PHBII doesn't add much strength to a position on what meets prerequisites, though, when the PHBII's use of the feat is patently ignoring the feat's prerequisites anyway.

-Hyp.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 22, 2006)

I definitely join these topics for the pleasure of the debate. There are some very sharp minds on this board, I like sparring with them. 

The truth is that while we've invested days and hundreds of posts (along with who knows how much research) into debating this subject...if it came up in the midst of a game, I'd make a decision within 15 seconds, hear immediate arguments and unless someone is vehement would stick with it.

If they are vehement, I might relent and rule in player's favor for "this" game, then research it and come up with a permanent answer that would be used for the next game and beyond.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 22, 2006)

Nail said:
			
		

> But we can agree that "effect" is different than "prerequisite", right?  No ambiguity there.



In this specific context only in the same way that canine is different than poodle.

The idea that the word effect specifically excludes qualifying as a prereq is a self imposed constraint that flys in the face of the concept being expressed, as well as the stated intent.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 22, 2006)

You know Hyp, it seems interesting to me that you keep pointing out WotC's errors in wording to make your case, and yet the crux of your case is that the definition "effect" is perfectly stated and intended with zero chance of error or confusion.

The fact that WotC makes the errors you keep pointing out only further supports the point that reasoned interpretation is not just better but is the correct approach to take.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 22, 2006)

Nail said:
			
		

> But we can agree that "effect" is different than "prerequisite", right?  No ambiguity there.



Actually, I think in this case we can't agree on that. I see "effect" as basically meaning "purpose." I think, as was said earlier, that the definition of "effect" defines the argument in terms of the core rules. There is the mention under magic weapon, but I think that if you believe that an effect includes a prerequsite for a feat, you'll agree that a monk can take INA. Now obviously everyone doesn't agree on this, including many folks I normally agree with, so it's far from being ultimately settled. Outside the core rules, I'd say it *has* been settled.

Just something to think about: for attacks we basically have three broad categories by the core rules: unarmed attacks, natural attacks and weapons. As far as the monk goes, I would contend that the *improved unarmed strike* simply makes your basic unarmed strike into a natural attack, and the monk has the added ability of getting to choose whether to be treated as a weapon or an natural attack on a case by case basis.

For me, this is a lot simpler than saying that improved unarmed strike creates a fourth category of attacks. I think if this were the case, there would be a lot more description on how exactly they work and interract with other effects (spells, feats, actions, etc.)

That's just my $.02.

--Steve


----------



## Zimri (Sep 22, 2006)

SteveC said:
			
		

> Actually, I think in this case we can't agree on that. I see "effect" as basically meaning "purpose." I think, as was said earlier, that the definition of "effect" defines the argument in terms of the core rules. There is the mention under magic weapon, but I think that if you believe that an effect includes a prerequsite for a feat, you'll agree that a monk can take INA. Now obviously everyone doesn't agree on this, including many folks I normally agree with, so it's far from being ultimately settled. Outside the core rules, I'd say it *has* been settled.
> 
> Just something to think about: for attacks we basically have three broad categories by the core rules: unarmed attacks, natural attacks and weapons. As far as the monk goes, I would contend that the *improved unarmed strike* simply makes your basic unarmed strike into a natural attack, and the monk has the added ability of getting to choose whether to be treated as a weapon or an natural attack on a case by case basis.
> 
> ...





You know I honestly have never understood why a human (oid) didn't get a claw claw bite or equivalent attack having been in many a bar brawl in real life I assure you humans have those espescially if they file and harden their fingernails. Improved unarmed strike would seem to me to make it function as an actual melee weapon AND a natural attack rather than just the 1d3 natural attack


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 22, 2006)

Nail said:
			
		

> But we can agree that "effect" is different than "prerequisite", right?  No ambiguity there.




My opinion:

Feats have effects, and are not effects in and of themselves.

The monk class description should be read that if the effect would improve a natural weapon, then the monk's unarmed attack is considered a natural weapon for the purpose of qualifying for that effect.

There you have it.  Interpretations that have "prerequisites" being different from "effects" is the same logic that would have "spells" be seperate from the "spell target" - so that if a spell required a natural weapon for the target a monk would NOT qualify because the spell would work but he must have the valid target BEFORE the spell is cast - much like a feat prerequisite.

Silly stuff!


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 22, 2006)

I really don't understand how this debate continues.

Player's Handbook.  Page 141.  Bottom right hand corner.  "The description of a feat defines it's *effect*".

SRD: "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."

What's vague about that?


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 22, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> My opinion:
> 
> Feats have effects, and are not effects in and of themselves.
> 
> The monk class description should be read that if the effect would improve a natural weapon, then the monk's unarmed attack is considered a natural weapon for the purpose of qualifying for that effect.




Then name something that is, in itself, an effect and not something else that has an effect.  As far as I can tell, your definition eliminates everything, since having an effect is something that other things do.  A spell has an effect.  An ability has an effect.  A magic item has an effect.  Nothing is itself an effect unless it is preceded by (in your interpretation) a non-effect creating that effect.

When faced with two different intepretations of a word in a sentence, if one interpretation renders the word meaningless, and the other intepretation renders it meaningful, you go with the one that renders it meaningful.  In this case, the word "effect" should be interpreted to include something that has an effect.  Otherwise, it has no meaning in the sentence as used.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 22, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> The fact that WotC makes the errors you keep pointing out only further supports the point that reasoned interpretation is not just better but is the correct approach to take.




Which side is not using reasoned interpretation?


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 22, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> ...  In this case, the word "effect" should be interpreted to include something that has an effect.  Otherwise, it has no meaning in the sentence as used.




Either that or that you qualify for whatever grants the effect.

Same difference.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 22, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I really don't understand how this debate continues.
> 
> Player's Handbook.  Page 141.  Bottom right hand corner.  "The description of a feat defines it's *effect*".
> 
> ...




Oh, maybe the fact that the description of a feat includes elements which are not effects. For example, the prerequisites and normal limitations / restrictions are not effects. The description of a feat is well defined in the feat section and it doesn't say anything about effects.


A single entry in a table in a totally different section of the book is hardly a hard and fast rule when it does not explicitly agree with the text of the entire feat section. The wording "The description of a feat defines it's benefit" would have been more accurate. Either that, or WotC should have called the Benefit section of feats the Effect section.


----------



## Legildur (Sep 23, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The PHBII suggests the feat for monk characters with a BAB of +0.
> 
> I can guarantee that a monk character with a BAB of +0 doesn't qualify for the feat, without fear of much dispute.  I'm of the opinion that a monk character with a BAB of +4 doesn't either, but that's obviously under debate.
> 
> Citing the PHBII doesn't add much strength to a position on what meets prerequisites, though, when the PHBII's use of the feat is patently ignoring the feat's prerequisites anyway.



Don't forget that that example starting package (package 2: the destroyer, PHBII p51) also lists Weapon Focus (unarmed strike), which also requires a BAB +1 or greater.

So we have half-orc monk starting package with two feats (in addition to the monk bonus feat) where a half-orc would only be eligible for one, and the monk lacks the prerequisites to qualify for either feat!

Hardly supporting evidence for monks qualifying for INA.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 23, 2006)

I'd disagree- it IS evidence of a position that WotC considers the Monk's unarmed strike as a valid target since it follows a FAQ statement of the same position.

However, it is ALSO evidence of a lack of quality of proofreading (beyond software spellcheckers) in RPG publications- something I've been complaining about since 2Ed.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 23, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I really don't understand how this debate continues.
> 
> Player's Handbook.  Page 141.  Bottom right hand corner.  "The description of a feat defines it's *effect*".
> 
> ...



I agree with you, Mistwell.  That proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that monks cannot take INA. 100%.


----------



## Thurbane (Sep 23, 2006)

So the fact that INA appears in a sample build of a monk in the *official* WotC product PHBII doesn't sway anyone? OK, they buggered up the BAB requirement, but it still signifies an official thumbs up from WOTC to me...


----------



## Legildur (Sep 23, 2006)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> So the fact that INA appears in a sample build of a monk in the *official* WotC product PHBII doesn't sway anyone? OK, they buggered up the BAB requirement, but it still signifies an official thumbs up from WOTC to me...



Well, they gave the half-orc monk too many feats and he didn't meet the prerequisites of either feat.  So it begs the question as too whether the person that actually put the package together even read the rules in other than a cursory way.  If you want to take that particularly example as support for the argument, then you would have to accept that Weapon Focus doesn't actually require a BAB +1 as a prerequisite (need a 3rd level monk to achieve that) and that INA doesn't have a BAB +4 prerequisite (need a 6th level monk to achieve that).


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 23, 2006)

Legildur said:
			
		

> Well, they gave the half-orc monk too many feats and he didn't meet the prerequisites of either feat.  So it begs the question as too whether the person that actually put the package together even read the rules in other than a cursory way.  If you want to take that particularly example as support for the argument, then you would have to accept that Weapon Focus doesn't actually require a BAB +1 as a prerequisite (need a 3rd level monk to achieve that) and that INA doesn't have a BAB +4 prerequisite (need a 6th level monk to achieve that).




Yup...  They might as well have given the sample Monk the Extra Turning or Extra Wildshape feats.  It makes about as much sense since they wouldn't qualify for those either...


----------



## BryonD (Sep 23, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Which side is not using reasoned interpretation?



I think that forcing a specific defintion of effect (such as: Feats have effects feats are not effects) is an artificial constraint.  
Perhaps "reasoned" wasn't the best possible word.  But the stress was supposed to be on the word "interpretation" meaning that the word effect is being used in the general english language rather than as a D&D term.  

The reader should use their reasoning to interpret the word within context.  I see saying that the word "effect" is automatically constrained to a precise D&D defintion as an example of not using reasoned interpretation.

I think this sentence uses the word effects in the same way as the Monk Unarmed Strike section:
Gaining an increase in speed and being allowed to take the Improved Natural Attack feat are two effects of taking a level in the monk class.

It is just a simple expression in the English language.  

Insisting that general useage of language is not allowed is, IMO, a break in reasoned interpretation.  There may be lots of good reasoning before and after this point.  But the chain is broken right there.

I also believe that a 1st level wizard can produce a fireball.  He just tosses a lit torch in a vat of alchemist's fire.  The fact that the term "fireball" most often means a 3rd level spell requiring a 5th level wizard is not relevant because the word fireball is not constrained to a precise D&D defintion.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 23, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I'd disagree- it IS evidence of a position that WotC considers the Monk's unarmed strike as a valid target since it follows a FAQ statement of the same position.
> 
> However, it is ALSO evidence of a lack of quality of proofreading (beyond software spellcheckers) in RPG publications- something I've been complaining about since 2Ed.



I agree with this assessment.
It is evidence that the intent is absolutely there.

However, I also must agree that it is so full of errors that you are never going to get past red herrings like comparing it to "Extra Wildshape".


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 23, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I think that forcing a specific defintion of effect (such as: Feats have effects feats are not effects) is an artificial constraint.
> Perhaps "reasoned" wasn't the best possible word.  But the stress was supposed to be on the word "interpretation" meaning that the word effect is being used in the general english language rather than as a D&D term.
> 
> The reader should use their reasoning to interpret the word within context.  I see saying that the word "effect" is automatically constrained to a precise D&D defintion as an example of not using reasoned interpretation.




I see the opposite.

There are literally dozens and dozens of examples of the word Effect in the game. The usage of the word in all of those cases is that of an external Effect that affects a creature, object, or other effect.

Additionally, that term is not used in the general part of the Feat section at all.

It seems strained to think that WotC uses the word "effect" to mean something specific (and consistent) throughout the entire game system and then suddenly uses it to mean the English language equivalent in this one location.



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> I think this sentence uses the word effects in the same way as the Monk Unarmed Strike section:
> Gaining an increase in speed and being allowed to take the Improved Natural Attack feat are two effects of taking a level in the monk class.
> 
> It is just a simple expression in the English language.
> ...




Yes, but in this case, WotC should explicitly state that they mean a fireball created in this manner as opposed to the standard usage of the term.


An assumption that the standard usage (i.e. the usage used throughout the entire game system) is not the one meant is extremely suspect.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 23, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I see the opposite.
> 
> There are literally dozens and dozens of examples of the word Effect in the game. The usage of the word in all of those cases is that of an external Effect that affects a creature, object, or other effect.
> 
> ...



And it simply boggles me to think that common language useage is suddenly verbotten.

Even moreso if one considers the multiple inconsistencies and errors commited by WotC often referenced in defense of the "no" position.  To admit that WotC can get it wrong and give weapon focus to a BAB+0 character and then turn around and flatly deny the possibility  that they could simply find themselves expressing a point in a simple common language useage manner is an extreme double standard.

That is even more true if one considers that to do so requires ignoring WotC statement's that support the "yes" answer.



> Yes, but in this case, WotC should explicitly state that they mean a fireball created in this manner as opposed to the standard usage of the term.
> 
> An assumption that the standard usage (i.e. the usage used throughout the entire game system) is not the one meant is extremely suspect.



Then you think that the 1st level monk COULD take Focus and they were clairfying this in the PHBII?  I greatly doubt that.  Much more rational is to simply conclude the obvious that all claims of "should" aside, WotC did what they did and that is to simply use the term in common form.  It is much more easy to make a trivally minor case of unclear language than it is to flat out break a basic rule on one of the most common feats in the game.  And yet you accept the extreme case as simple occurance while denying the slightest chance of the vastly more likely occurance.  

This is particularly rational when one recalls that the word effect does not even have a proscribed D&D definition.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 23, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> It seems strained to think that WotC uses the word "effect" to mean something specific (and consistent) throughout the entire game system and then suddenly uses it to mean the English language equivalent in this one location.



Can you prove this claim?  This "one" location is the only general use of the word effect in all WotC 3X products?


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 23, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Can you prove this claim?  This "one" location is the only general use of the word effect in all WotC 3X products?




I do not have to prove it.

You are the one making the claim that this is a general English use of the word as opposed to the standard DND usage. The burden of proof is on your shoulders.



> 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.




This sounds specific to me. It is not BAB or saves or alignment or anything else that *affects* the game, just Spells and Effects.


But, let's look at another example. If Feats (or Feat Benefits) are effects, then there are some screwy game elements where this is not clearly defined. For example"



> Timeless Body
> Psychoportation
> Level: Psion/wilder 9
> Display: Material
> ...




According to the "Feats are Effects" interpretation, your PC could not use many (if not all) of his own Feats that affect him while using Timeless Body. Yet, this is not explicitly called out. The standard interpretation is that of an Effect that is the result of a power, the result of a spell, an external element like Acid, etc.

DM: "Sorry, you cannot use your Dodge Feat with Timeless Body because it is a helpful effect. You cannot dodge your opponent."

Could you use your Prestige Class Abilities when using Timeless Body? Are those effects? For all we know, you cannot use your BAB or saves either. Are those not helpful? Do they not affect the game?

It is inconsistent to use an interpretation that does not make sense throughout the entire game system and does not take the standard usage of the word Effects.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 23, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I do not have to prove it.
> 
> You are the one making the claim that this is a general English use of the word as opposed to the standard DND usage. The burden of proof is on your shoulders.



That is nuts.  You made a claim of a specific exception to the default use of language.
If the default is not the case then this must be stated and the burden of THAT proof is squarely on YOUR shoulders.

Above and beyond that YOU said this was the "one location".  You proclaimed a statment of fact. Is it really a fact? Can you prove it?



> This sounds specific to me. It is not BAB or saves or alignment or anything else that *affects* the game, just Spells and Effects.




Gaining an increase in speed and being allowed to take the Improved Natural Attack feat are two effects of taking a level in the monk class.

Also note that the capitalization has been added by you, for some reason.



> But, let's look at another example. If Feats (or Feat Benefits) are effects, then there are some screwy game elements where this is not clearly defined. For example"
> 
> According to the "Feats are Effects" interpretation ...



I never claimed that feat are effects, so your entire ergument here goes down in flames.

The argument that feats are not effects therefore a monk can not take INA is based on the unsubstantiated presumption that effect is a proscribed D&D term with limited definition.

Feats are not effects, but monks can still take INA.  

Gaining a new feat is an effect of gaining a class level.  The monk's unarmed strike ability description clearly states that for the purposes of effects the monk's unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon.  So, I've gained a new level and now I'm trying to decide how to manage the effects of this new level.  

A feat is not an effect.  Getting to choose a new feat IS an effect.

Arguments based on "feats are not effects" do not work because they do not need to be according to common language.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 23, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Gaining an increase in speed and being allowed to take the Improved Natural Attack feat are two effects of taking a level in the monk class.




They are not effects.

The increase in speed is a class feature. When discussing rules, you really should be specific and use game specific terms.



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> The argument that feats are not effects therefore a monk can not take INA is based on the unsubstantiated presumption that effect is a proscribed D&D term with limited definition.
> 
> Feats are not effects, but monks can still take INA.




If Feats are not effects, then Monks definitely cannot take INA. At least not according to RAW.


----------



## Zimri (Sep 24, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> DM: "Sorry, you cannot use your Dodge Feat with Timeless Body because it is a helpful effect. You cannot dodge your opponent."




Ummmm read what you quoted you wouldn't have to dodge timeless body makes you immune to all attacks


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 24, 2006)

While that is true, KD has a point- if a feat has an effect, its nullified by timeless body.


> It is inconsistent to use an interpretation that does not make sense throughout the entire game system and does not take the standard usage of the word Effects.




The problem with THAT is that this happens all the time in D&D.  For instance, the very definition of natural weapon from the PHB is:



> Natural Weapon
> A creature's body part that deals damage in combat.  Natural weapons include teeth, claws horns tails and other appendages.




Humans have teeth.  Humans have fists that can do damage in combat and are definitely body parts.  Fists are explicitly called "natural weapons" in other parts of the PHB and other WotC products (and importantly, in text that was ADDED in the 3.5 revision of the rules).  Yet, mystifyingly, Humans are considered not to have any natural weapons- (I specifically asked WotC CustServ about that, and that was their opinion).  Instead, they have "unarmed strikes"- a term that is a distinction without a difference.



> Unarmed Strike
> A successful blow, typically dealing non-lethal damage, from a character attacking without weapons.  A monk can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike, but other sdeal non-lethal damage.




If a PC is attacking without weapons, what is he attacking with?  Hmm...body parts like fists, knees, etc..."body parts dealing damage."

My personal view is that Humans and other PC races do have natural weapons- they're just crappy ones- and that what the oft-discussed section in the Monk class adds is the treatment of their natural weapons/unarmed strikes as manufactured weapons in addition to natural weapons.  Thus, IMC, INA is open to anyone.

To clarify my position further, though, INA does NOT:

1)  Change non-lethal damage to lethal damage.  Thus, while a natural weapon that does non-lethal damage may do MORE damage after INA is taken, it is still non-lethal damage.

2)  Allow continuous scaling of natural weapon damage.  That is a Monk's exclusive ability... (also permitted to the 3.5 revision of the OA Shaman.)


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 24, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The problem with THAT is that this happens all the time in D&D.  For instance, the very definition of natural weapon from the PHB is:
> 
> 
> 
> Humans have teeth.  Humans have fists that can do damage in combat and are definitely body parts.  Fists are explicitly called "natural weapons" in other parts of the PHB and other WotC products (and importantly, in text that was ADDED in the 3.5 revision of the rules).  Yet, mystifyingly, Humans are considered not to have any natural weapons- (I specifically asked WotC CustServ about that, and that was their opinion).  Instead, they have "unarmed strikes"- a term that is a distinction without a difference.




Although there could be a definition (like natural attack) and there could still be an exception to the general rule.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 24, 2006)

Except that the exception subsumes nearly every Core and Complete race...

Not helpful, as definitions go, and the example still points out that the game doesn't use its definitions coherently as things stand currently.


----------



## Zimri (Sep 24, 2006)

That is it I've had enough! Time to ask WOTC what part of a human (oid) body that hits something else is not natural or a weapon. I'll let you know what they have to say.

Here is what I sent in

Human (oid) natural attacks and improved natural attack 

There is a great amount of debate in my gaming circle regarding the existence of a natural attack for human (oids). The debate seems to coalesce into two camps. One being humans (dwarves elves gnomes et al) do, in fact, have a (or multiple, as anyone ever in a fight in real life can attest to the fact that humans at least can have a claw claw bite) natural attack which could thus be improved by "improved natural attack". The other group chimes in with "No way, standard humanoids get 1 "unarmed strike" and have no "natural weapons"

The debate usually breaks down long about the time one group starts using it's "natural" claw, claw, bite, kick, knee, headbutt routine against the other groups 1 unarmed strike. Invariably we attract the attention of a monk who due to her iterative attacks and increase to damage dice because of "improved unarmed strike" settles us all down while we await paramedics.

The trips to the emergency room and the local jail are getting expensive and attracting the wrong kind of attention to our gaming group so please for the love of Ilmater the broken can we get a rundown on human (oids) and Improved Natural Atttack. Also we would really love to stick it to the monk and tell her she can't use Improved Natural Attack to improve her already Improved Unarmed Strike.

Please Help


----------



## BryonD (Sep 24, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> They are not effects.
> 
> The increase in speed is a class feature.



It is a class feature.
Gaining this class feature is an EFFECT of taking a level in the class.
As my sentence correctly states, using standard english.



> When discussing rules, you really should be specific and use game specific terms.



And when using the terms as written in the text I should use them the same way as they are written.  Which I am doing.  The problem is that you are arbitrarily trying to force a non-existent "game specific term" onto a common english word.

And that is a point I've already made and you seem to be ignoring.



> If Feats are not effects, then Monks definitely cannot take INA. At least not according to RAW.



As I've already explained, nowhere does the RAW state anything remotely requiring that the feat BE an effect.  
Simply stating your position fails to make it true.

Can you point me to the part of the RAW that states the official game defintion of "effect"?


----------



## BryonD (Sep 24, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Except that the exception subsumes nearly every Core and Complete race...
> 
> Not helpful, as definitions go, and the example still points out that the game doesn't use its definitions coherently as things stand currently.



yep


----------



## BryonD (Sep 24, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Although there could be a definition (like natural attack) and there could still be an exception to the general rule.



Such as with the defintion of the word "effect"?


----------



## grimjack2600 (Sep 24, 2006)

This is (mostly) a no go using the sources available.  

- The Monk gains iterative attacks with it's unarmed strike.  Natural weapons do not gain iterative attacks. 

From the description of Natural Weapons in the SRD:

"Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons."

If your statisfied with the above, stop now.  Seriouosly the stuff before is for the people who want to understand the "mostly" comment above.

If you limited the character to a single attack, then sure, they could apply the feat.  However, the player would have to select which appendage or type (kick, claw, punch, bite, headbutt, etc) to apply the feat toward.  The monk's improved unarmed strike can be accomplished with any limb, however, that is not what the INA feat is designed to handle.  INA is for improving a single aspect of a monsters attack.  Monster attacks are broken down into a list of attacks and frequency: one bite attack, one attack per claw or tentacle, one gore attack, one sting attack, or one slam attack.

The forum so far seems to have concluded that if a monks IUS attack is a Natural Weapon, then it is a slam attack.  

Based on that assessment, the most important thing to note is that slam attacks occur at the rate of one per round.  They are not iterative, no matter how many class levels your earth elemental has.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 24, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> And when using the terms as written in the text I should use them the same way as they are written.  Which I am doing.  The problem is that you are arbitrarily trying to force a non-existent "game specific term" onto a common english word.
> 
> And that is a point I've already made and you seem to be ignoring.




I gotta agree.  When I read KarinsDad's last reply, it did in fact seem like he either ignored what you just said, or didn't read it, or didn't understand what you meant by it.

If gaining a feat is an effect of gaining a new level, as that word "effect" is used in normal english language usage, then it doesn't matter if all feats are themselves effects, all that matters is the thing that grants the feat is itself the effect.

I don't happen to agree with your interpretation BryonD, but I find it interesting.  Personally, I think feats are effects, for the purposes of the specific rules we are discussing.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 24, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I gotta agree.  When I read KarinsDad's last reply, it did in fact seem like he either ignored what you just said, or didn't read it, or didn't understand what you meant by it.
> 
> If gaining a feat is an effect of gaining a new level, as that word "effect" is used in normal english language usage, then it doesn't matter if all feats are themselves effects, all that matters is the thing that grants the feat is itself the effect.
> 
> I don't happen to agree with your inrepretation BryonD, but I find it interesting.  Personally, I think feats are effects, for the purposes of the specific rules we are discussing.



Heh.      
I think we're just looking at the same thing from a different angle.
I'm trying to balance the unofficial "strict D&D meaning" of "effect" with the contextually obvious meaning of the word in the unarmed strike section.  
If you (reasonably) throw out the artificial constraint then my reasoning becomes unneeded.
That leaves you with the much more simple bottom line of: they just used the most simple plain english way to say what they meant.  And I'll accept that.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Sep 24, 2006)

Personally I think the burden of proof that "effect" is a game-specific term that specifically rules out feats is on that team's shoulders.

There's an unspoken (and doesn't need to be spoken) assumption at work that, unless defined elsewhere, all words within the document are used as-per Standard American English.  To assume otherwise makes the game unplayable.  You might as well decide that all forms of "to be" within the document need to be defined in game-specific terms.  If you can take any word in any line and demand it be used externally from SAE, nobody gets to play the game.  Nothing works.  Every verb, every noun becomes instantly suspect.  

The assumption always is that UNLESS SPECIFIED, any word is used with SAE intent.  That "Effect" is not defined anywhere, including the FAQ or Errata ... that "Effect" is furthermore never defined to EXCLUDE feats or qualification for feats ... means that to argue it should be interpreted otherwise is a straw man, pure and simple.  

Time and again WOTC has shown, in the FAQ in new products, that not only is the general intent of the monk unarmed strike rules meant to allow this ... they SPECIFICALLY wish to allow it.  

Every ... single ... argument to the contrary has been a straw man attack concentrating on things beyond the point of the argument.  

The position that the feat cannot be used thusly is, IMO, entirely untenable.  But, I suspect, beyond various religious figures stepping forward and making pronouncements and signed affidavidts to the point, nobody is ever going to agree.

Personally, "I don't like it that way" is fine enough argument that anybody can not let it in their games.  Seriously.  If somebody brougth me a broken monk build that depended on stacking feats and such, I'm always comfortably within my rights disallowing any of it.  I don't think shakey and fallacious arguments should be held up for it, though.  Opinion is strong enough.

--fje


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Sep 24, 2006)

grimjack2600 said:
			
		

> ...Based on that assessment, the most important thing to note is that slam attacks occur at the rate of one per round.  They are not iterative, no matter how many class levels your earth elemental has.




Welcome to the boards.. and thanks for the best reasoning I have seen on this subject yet 

Let me make sure I am following tho..

 If a monk has a Natural Attack to apply INA to, he cannot use iterative attacks when using the higher damage from INA.....


Just for the record, I voted that both sides have merit and personally allow INA to be used by Monks, and anyone else who takes Improved Unarmed Strike, even with iteratives


----------



## Zimri (Sep 25, 2006)

grimjack2600 said:
			
		

> This is (mostly) a no go using the sources available.
> 
> - The Monk gains iterative attacks with it's unarmed strike.  Natural weapons do not gain iterative attacks.
> 
> ...




I tend to agree. Sure a monk CAN take INA. But INA and IUS shouldn't stack. If I recall correctly it is IUS that makes a monk 1) armed when using unarmed strikes/natural attacks, 2) Improves the natural attacks damage dice, and 3) Gives her iterative strikes. If INA and IUS don't stack, I fail to see a compelling reason to take INA.


----------



## Thurbane (Sep 25, 2006)

Note to self: if I ever need a legal document scrutinized, don't hire a lawyer, just post it here on the boards. Seriously, the most ruthless corporate lawyers out there could learn a thing or two about interpreting "letter of the law" from some of the members here.


----------



## Thurbane (Sep 25, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I really don't understand how this debate continues.
> 
> Player's Handbook.  Page 141.  Bottom right hand corner.  "The description of a feat defines it's *effect*".
> 
> ...



I'm amazed no one has responded to this post - it seems to settle the debate pretty much once and for all.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 25, 2006)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> I'm amazed no one has responded to this post - it seems to settle the debate pretty much once and for all.




How so?

I read p141 to show that a feat has an effect, which I've agreed with all along, and why I'd allow a monk who qualified for INA to apply that effect to his unarmed strike.

I just don't agree that most monks qualify for INA, which is the first step towards benefiting from the effect for which the monk's unarmed strike is considered a natural weapon.

-Hyp.


----------



## Thurbane (Sep 25, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> How so?
> 
> I read p141 to show that a feat has an effect, which I've agreed with all along, and why I'd allow a monk who qualified for INA to apply that effect to his unarmed strike.
> 
> ...



Sorry, I thought the major sticking point in the debate was what consitutes an effect.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 25, 2006)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> Note to self: if I ever need a legal document scrutinized, don't hire a lawyer, just post it here on the boards. Seriously, the most ruthless corporate lawyers out there could learn a thing or two about interpreting "letter of the law" from some of the members here.




Hey, I *AM* a ruthless corporate lawyer


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 25, 2006)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> Sorry, I thought the major sticking point in the debate was what consitutes an effect.




It is.  HS is being a bit obtuse


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 25, 2006)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> Sorry, I thought the major sticking point in the debate was what consitutes an effect.




It is.

For a monk's unarmed strike to be considered a natural weapon for purposes of satisfying the prerequisites of the INA feat, one of two things needs to be true.

1. The INA feat is an effect.
2. The prerequisites of the INA feat are an effect.

I don't think anyone's arguing 2 to be true.

And p141 is not evidence proving 1.  p141 shows that a feat has an effect.  It doesn't show that a feat is an effect.

So, to me, p141 doesn't resolve the major sticking point you reference, which is why I don't consider p141 to 'settle the debate pretty much once and for all'.

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 25, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> They are not effects.
> 
> The increase in speed is a class feature. When discussing rules, you really should be specific and use game specific terms...




That would be great if only "effects" were a game-defined term.  Unfortunately, it is not.

One could eaailly say "effects" in the monk class is meant to apply to prerequisites for things that produce effects as say it means some sort of limited term ,"effects" that does not include feats.

NEITHER agrument is 100% persuasive, though the former seems much more natural and less strained to me.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 25, 2006)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> I'm amazed no one has responded to this post - it seems to settle the debate pretty much once and for all.



 I did.  And I agree, it does settle it.  Given that, I don't understand why Mistwell mis-voted.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 25, 2006)

(Messed up an edit. Oh, well..., the main question survives:  Related question:  For what other effects, besides spells, would a monk have "natural weapons?"  Can anyone come up with one?[/b][/i]


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 25, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> *Related question:  For what other effects, besides spells, would a monk have "natural weapons?"  Can anyone come up with one?*




Easy. Psionic powers.

Since this was so easy, does this mean you are changing your POV?


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 25, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Easy. Psionic powers.




Only if you run Psionics as being the same as spells, right?


----------



## Rystil Arden (Sep 25, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Easy. Psionic powers.
> 
> Since this was so easy, does this mean you are changing your POV?



 Even easier than that (since psionics isn't in the core)--Extraordinary and Supernatural attacks of monsters


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 25, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Any more responses to this?  It seems to me that if one ONLY allows "effects" and not qualifiying for whatever grants those effects, than monks can take NOTHING that requires natural weapons.
> 
> *Related question:  For what other effects, besides spells, would a monk have "natural weapons?"  Can anyone come up with one?*




Certainly.  Take a psionic power like Painful Strike.  The effect of the power is to improve natural weapons, so for purposes of that effect, that monk's unarmed strike is considered a natural weapon.  And since the spell targets 'you', not 'your natural weapons', the qualification problem is avoided.



> Only if you run Psionics as being the same as spells, right?




Not at all.  If psionics were the same as spells, it would work even if the power _did_ target 'your natural weapons'.

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 25, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Certainly.  Take a psionic power like Painful Strike.  The effect of the power is to improve natural weapons, so for purposes of that effect, that monk's unarmed strike is considered a natural weapon.  And since the spell targets 'you', not 'your natural weapons', the qualification problem is avoided....-Hyp.




So the fact that the target is "you" and the effect is to improves natural weapons you see an entirely different than the feat requiring you have natrual weapons?

Form a very strict reading, true, but then you'd have to assume WotC actually wrote the rules to be read very strictly.  How many times have you yourself proved it is not possible to do that?

If it were true, then the lone core rule example of a feat being called an "effect" would have to called defintive and therefore feats ARE effects and the argument is done.

If calling a feat an "effect" in that example is to be considered some sort of sloppy writing or a misstatement, that "effects" from the monks can equally be considerd to be like that and one can, with equal validity, assume they really meant "effects and qualifying for them, too".

After the fact, it is clear that's the way WotC veiws it now, for whatever weight that holds.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 25, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> ...Related question:  *For what other effects, besides spells, would a monk have "natural weapons?"  Can anyone come up with one?*





Amendment:  *Anything from the Core Rules?* (PHB, MM, DMG?)


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 25, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> So the fact that the target is "you" and the effect is to improves natural weapons you see an entirely different than the feat requiring you have natrual weapons?




Right.



> If it were true, then the lone core rule example of a feat being called an "effect" would have to called defintive and therefore feats ARE effects and the argument is done.




You're talking about Keen Edge?

If you're going to insist on that one, I'll be forced to point out that all it can be used to show is that the Improved Critical feat is considered an effect, and I don't endorse even that reading 

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 25, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Amendment:  *Anything from the Core Rules?* (PHB, MM, DMG?)




Energy Drain (Su): Living creatures hit by a vampire’s slam attack (or any other natural weapon the vampire might possess) gain two negative levels. For each negative level bestowed, the vampire gains 5 temporary hit points. A vampire can use its energy drain ability once per round.

Amulet of Mighty Fists: This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons.

(Now, that one works for anyone's unarmed strike... but even if "unarmed attacks and" were removed, it would still work for a monk, _and nobody else_.)

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 25, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Energy Drain (Su): Living creatures hit by a vampire’s slam attack (or any other natural weapon the vampire might possess) gain two negative levels. For each negative level bestowed, the vampire gains 5 temporary hit points. A vampire can use its energy drain ability once per round.
> 
> Amulet of Mighty Fists: This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons.
> 
> ...




So we are to assume that "effects" means ONLY Amulet of Might Fists (which does not count as it applies to "unarmed attacks" anyway) and a possible vampire-monk.  And that's IT?

Surely not.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 25, 2006)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Even easier than that (since psionics isn't in the core)--Extraordinary and Supernatural attacks of monsters




Psionics is in the SRD though.

But, you are correct. If there are any EX, SP, or SU abilities that affect natural weapons, they would work.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 25, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Psionics is in the SRD though.
> 
> But, you are correct. If there are any EX, SP, or SU abilities that affect natural weapons, they would work.




Really? How so?

Because the monk would also be a "monster" and thus have the ability already without having to worry about qualifying for it?

So are we to believe the sole purpose of the word "effects" in the monk description (using Core Rules only) is so that monk PCs could more effectively play characters based upon moster.

Please, you MUST be joking.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 25, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> So we are to assume that "effects" means ONLY Amulet of Might Fists (which does not count as it applies to "unarmed attacks" anyway) and a possible vampire-monk.  And that's IT?
> 
> Surely not.




A very odd form of debate.

First, you ask for EVEN ONE such effect.

I point out Psionics (of which there are several).

Then you ask for ANY CORE effects.

Hyp then points out two from core.

Then, you complain that it is only two effects.


It appears that thou dost protect too much. When it is pointed out that there are some effects, both core and SRD, outside of spells, it does not satisfy you.

What exactly are you looking for?


----------



## Rystil Arden (Sep 25, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Psionics is in the SRD though.
> 
> But, you are correct. If there are any EX, SP, or SU abilities that affect natural weapons, they would work.



 Right, like the vampire ability Hyp mentioned above.


----------



## thorian (Sep 25, 2006)

This is non-core...

The new book, Dragon Magic, has an item named the Fang Ring.  It grants Improved Natural Attack (unarmed strike) as a bonus feat in addition to Improved Unarmed Strike.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 25, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> ...You're talking about Keen Edge?
> 
> If you're going to insist on that one, I'll be forced to point out that all it can be used to show is that the Improved Critical feat is considered an effect, and I don't endorse even that reading
> 
> -Hyp.





"...Multiple effects that increase a weapon’s threat range (such as the keen edge spell and the Improved Critical feat) " Cannot be read any other way that to say that at *least* the Improved Critical Feat is is an "effect" UNLESS one does not use a strict construction of the rules.  How can you read this (assuming no error from WotC) to say anything other than that the Improved Critical feat is an example of an "effect" that incereases a weapon's threat range?

If one does not use a strict construction here, then why would one do so for the monk description?

Sorry, but speakiing very strictly, you cannot logically have it both ways.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 25, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Really? How so?
> 
> Because the monk would also be a "monster" and thus have the ability already without having to worry about qualifying for it?
> 
> ...




A PC can gain EX, SP, and SU abilities from PrCs and not be a monster. For example, Ki Strike and Fist of Energy are SU abilities of Enlightened Fists.

The purpose of the word "effects" in the monk description is so that WotC could add effects to Monk Unarmed Strikes, regardless of in which book they do that in.


You limit your thinking to monster abilities only and core only???

Please, you MUST be joking.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 25, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> What exactly are you looking for?




Effects, core rules only (as that was the framing of this whole thread), other than INA, that an ordinary player paying a monk might want to use with his monk's "natural weapons."

A non-standard race (monsters, vampire, template, etc.)  is surely NOT what WotC instended "effects" to be, is it?  I would like anyone to find something that fits what "effects" was intended to be.  Example from core rule - and not silly ones like PCs based upon mosters.

I cannot locate anything other than spells.  One item - but that applies equally to unarmed attacks anyway, so teh monks diod not need to line about "effects" for that.

In other words WHY have "effects" in the description?


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 25, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> ...You limit your thinking to monster abilities only and core only???
> 
> Please, you MUST be joking.




No - I assume that from the Core Rules only, the description should have some meaning other than a vague "maybe something will come up in a future book" sort of thing.

*I submit that the phrase "spells and effects" was INTENDED to be kind of vague catch-all.  "Effects" is NOT a defined game term, anyway, so how could it possibly be used in some precise way?*


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 25, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> No - I assume that from the Core Rules only, the description should have some meaning other than a vague "maybe something will come up in a future book" sort of thing.




This is 3.5 we are discussing. There was already a 3E version of the game with Psionics and Splat Books. Of course the writing of that class feature (and many others) was to include future books.

You cannot be serious in thinking that the class feature was JUST added in for Monks so that they could take INA.

That type of thinking is worse (and more limited) than what you are accusing us of: only two core rules. I could counter with: "You include INA. That's only 3 core rules. What's up with only that???"

Number of pertinent core rules is hardly a convincing argument one way or the other.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> *I submit that the words "spells and effects" was INTENDED to be kind of vague catch-all.  "Effects" is NOT a defined game term, anyway, so how could it possibly be used in some precise way?*




I agree that the phrase was intended as a catch-all. That does not change what they wrote and how they wrote it.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 25, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> ...I agree that the phrase was intended as a catch-all. That does not change what they wrote and how they wrote it.




So, strictly reading the rules as you seem to really enjoy, what is an "effect" in D&D 3.5e?

That should be interesting!


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 25, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> In other words WHY have "effects" in the description?




You've already given the answer to this. It's a catch-all, intended to include Magic Fist and Amulets of Mighty Fist and anything else that WotC writes up that matches that rule (course we disagree that INA matches that rule).

But now you somehow seem dissatisfied with the answer you yourself gave.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 25, 2006)

I've got to sign off for now, but I think it will be very interesting to discuss, using Core Rules strict text only, what is an "effect" and what is not an "effect."


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 25, 2006)

edit:  







			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Is this suppose to be a dig or something?
> 
> If you are trying to be snarky or worse yet, backhandedly insulting, please don't. It's frowned on around here.




Of course I was not.  I am answering this ONLY to ask that if you see something of mine that might be taken as snippy, please IGNORE it.   DON'T respond to it and bring more attention to it - I'd hate to have teis disucssuion closed by moderators and nothing would do ti faster that having personl exchanges about badbopard behavior.  Thanks.

I intentionally buried this response by placing it in an edited earlier response to keep it low-key.  With luck I'll never even know if you saw this or not as we won't mention it again.    

Truly, when I said "interesting" that's what I meant.  There have been a lot of attempts at defining feats as effects or as NOT being effects but few detailed efforts to determine, based upon the entire set of core rules only, what EXACTLY are effects and what are not.  I don't think that the rules are written precisely enough to do that with 100% certainty, thus the discussion would be "interesting."

Moving on....   



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> You've already given the answer to this. It's a catch-all, intended to include Magic Fist and Amulets of Mighty Fist and anything else that WotC writes up that matches that rule (course we disagree that INA matches that rule).
> 
> But now you somehow seem dissatisfied with the answer you yourself gave.




I am quite happy with that answer, actually.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 25, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> So, stricly reading the rules as you seem to really enjoy, what is an "effect" in D&D 3.5e?




I've already stated my opinion of this several times in this and other threads.

An effect is an external influence to a given creature, object, or other effect. I base this definition off of the standard usage of the word effect found throughout the rules.

There appears to be three basic game elements: creatures (and their properties), objects (and their properties), and effects (and their properties: magical or mundane). Virtually every *thing* in the game appears to fall into one of these 3 categories.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> That should be interesting!




Is this suppose to be a dig or something?

If you are trying to be snarky or worse yet, backhandedly insulting, please don't. It's frowned on around here.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 25, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> A very odd form of debate.
> 
> First, you ask for EVEN ONE such effect.
> 
> ...




Keeping it core was quite fair, given there is so much non-core WOTC stuff that proves the point you happen to disagree with.  SRD doesn't mean core, and never did.  So, why did you bring up Psionics in a debate where you already agreed to stick to core, unless it was to be a moving target?


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 25, 2006)

thorian said:
			
		

> This is non-core...
> 
> The new book, Dragon Magic, has an item named the Fang Ring.  It grants Improved Natural Attack (unarmed strike) as a bonus feat in addition to Improved Unarmed Strike.




I think as near to a consensus as you will usually find already agrees that WOTC endorses Improved Natural Attack for the Monk with non-core products and the FAQ and CustServ, and that the intent of the rules was likely that all along.  

This appears to be yet another semantics debate between the usual suspects on this board who repeat the same arguements in different words every day (generally intent versus what was actually written in the rules and balance), all done purely for the pleasure of the debate.  

Nobody is going to persuade anyone of anything, and the same folks who enjoy the game of deconstructing the rules into small portions and throwing them around at each other will continue to do so until they get bored with the topic of "define what is meant by 'effects' " and move on to the next definitions debate.

Sometimes it's a fun game to play, and sometimes it's just plain silly.  This one seems to have crossed that line from fun to silly, at least for me.  You can usually tell when the line has been crossed, because the same usernames show up for almost an entire page, responding back and forth to each other with increasingly small minutia, usually about a tangent that has very little to do with the topic anyway.


----------



## No Name (Sep 25, 2006)

Heh.

Starting from page 6, it's difficult to tell who is arguing for which side.

Btw, I'd like to know the causes for these effects.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Sep 25, 2006)

I'm with WotC on this one.

So, "yes".


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 25, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> WOTC endorses Improved Natural Attack for the Monk with non-core products and the FAQ and CustServ, and that the intent of the rules was likely that all along.




I think if that was the intent of the rules *all along*, the INA feat would have been in the PHB and not the MM. 

It might be that that they now think it is OK, but the original intention seems to be quite clearly that it was a feat for monsters, just based on the placement of it.


----------



## Legildur (Sep 25, 2006)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I think if that was the intent of the rules *all along*, the INA feat would have been in the PHB and not the MM.
> 
> It might be that that they now think it is OK, but the original intention seems to be quite clearly that it was a feat for monsters, just based on the placement of it.



I agree with Plane Sailing, but withheld posting that (should be in PHB) again as the whole argument cannot be satisfactorily resolved barring errata of the PHB and/or MM.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 25, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Keeping it core was quite fair, given there is so much non-core WOTC stuff that proves the point you happen to disagree with.  SRD doesn't mean core, and never did.  So, why did you bring up Psionics in a debate where you already agreed to stick to core, unless it was to be a moving target?




I never agreed to any such thing. I do think that WotC later on made the decision to allow INA for Monks in non-core. That doesn't change how it is written for core.

And anyone who opines that WotC made the core rules up in order to keep them strictly core is creating a straw man.

Additionally, I noticed you cut off the rest of my post which did discuss core. Hmmm. That too is straw man debating.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 25, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> WOTC endorses Improved Natural Attack for the Monk with non-core products and the FAQ and CustServ, and that the intent of the rules was likely that all along.




I suspect that you will find it difficult to support this claim. Not only is INA not in the PHB, but the Monster Manual itself indicates an intent to limit Monster Feats to Monsters (with the typical caveat to allow it elsewhere if WotC forgot something):



> DMG page 303
> 
> This chapter provides descriptions of one skill, Control Shape, and a number of feats that are typically used *only by* monsters.




To support this POV that it was not WotC's intent to allow PCs to have Monster Feats, you'll note that many monk examples in later products like PHB II start putting INA on monks as almost a given (and many players do this as well).

However, the Monk sample NPCs in the DMG do not have this. This means that if it were WotC original intent to give INA to Monks, they sure as heck did not even come up with the idea until much later on. Not only that, but none of the NPC sample characters in the DMG have any Monster Feats listed.

The evidence points to the exact opposite conclusion of yours for what original 3.5 core WotC intent probably was with regard to Monster feats.


----------



## Zimri (Sep 25, 2006)

Well here is my first reply from custserv. Long and short of it is that WOTC thinks all it's players have bodies that are not natural and are damaging each other with things that are not weapons.



			
				custserv said:
			
		

> Hi there Edward,
> 
> Having a limb or a mouth does not mean you can use it as a natural weapon.
> 
> ...




So a tigeress clawing me is a natural attack but my significant other with her inch long nails hardened and filed down to points clawing me isn't. interesting.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 25, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I've already stated my opinion of this several times in this and other threads.
> 
> An effect is an external influence to a given creature, object, or other effect. I base this definition off of the standard usage of the word effect found throughout the rules.
> 
> There appears to be three basic game elements: creatures (and their properties), objects (and their properties), and effects (and their properties: magical or mundane). Virtually every *thing* in the game appears to fall into one of these 3 categories....




Not a bad analysis, in general, but where is the strict from-the rules-text-only backup for this?  It does not exist. (I told you this would get "interesting )  I think when you look deeper it becomes clear that the rules don't *always* distinguish between a "thing" and its "effects."  

For example:



			
				srd said:
			
		

> Keen Edge...
> 
> Multiple effects that increase a weapon’s threat range (such as the keen edge spell and the Improved Critical feat) don’t stack.




Note the lack of distinction between a spell, a feat and their effects.

What reason do we have  to be certain that when "effects" is referred to in the monk class description they actually mean "effects" seperate from that which caused the effect?  

Why can we not assume they meant it in the same sense it was used in the "Keen Edge" spell where it was used in the most general sense to be inclusive of that which caused the effect?

How can you be *100% certain* that the latter is not the correct meaning here?


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 25, 2006)

No Name said:
			
		

> ...Btw, I'd like to know the causes for these effects.




That was a joke, of course, but it raises the point I just discussed above - WotC does not always seperate the cause fom the effect, so sometimes they say "effects" when what they really mean is the cause of the effect.

That's to me is the real reason why we should treat "effect" in the monk's class as meaning both cause AND effect, which is why monk's may take INA per core rules only.

To me what they wrote should be read as "...spells and _other_ effects..."  I think that's the way they meant it.


----------



## Deset Gled (Sep 25, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> That's to me is the real reason why we should treat "effect" in the monk's class as meaning both cause AND effect, which is why monk's may take INA per core rules only.




This is exactly the jump of logic that I refuse to make.  You're saying that by "effect", they didn't really mean "effect".  I maintain that they said "effect", and that regardless of what they meant, that's all they said.  And an effect is not a cause, no matter how you decide to define an effect (in the same way that a sword is not a sheath, a solution is not a problem, and caterpillar is not a butterfly).

You may say that I'm being too precise with the language used in the rules, but I don't think that reading them so loosly that you could fit a Mack truck through is a feasible alternative.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 25, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> This is exactly the jump of logic that I refuse to make.  You're saying that by "effect", they didn't really mean "effect".  I maintain that they said "effect", and that regardless of what they meant, that's all they said.  And an effect is not a cause, no matter how you decide to define an effect (in the same way that a sword is not a sheath, a solution is not a problem, and caterpillar is not a butterfly).
> 
> You may say that I'm being too precise with the language used in the rules, but I don't think that reading them so loosly that you could fit a Mack truck through is a feasible alternative.





Then what about:



			
				srd said:
			
		

> Keen Edge...
> 
> Multiple effects that increase a weapon’s threat range (such as the keen edge spell and the Improved Critical feat) don’t stack.




Here it appears that spells and feats are referred to as effects.  Of course that's wrong from an English perspective as spells and feat have (or cause, if you like) effects, but I submit that WotC is sloppy about the distiction and therefore we have no basis upon which to assume they were precise in the monk's class description.

My point really is not that monks can or cannot take INA, it is that from the core rules, as written, we cannot be certain either way.


----------



## moritheil (Sep 25, 2006)

Le thread est mort.  Vive le thread!

It seems to me that the fundamental resistance of people to the imprecision argument is based in the fact that many conclusions reached elsewhere on these boards depend on precise reading.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 25, 2006)

I've been silent for a few pages, but I figured I would sound off with the summary of why I think what I think...

The wording in the PHB (and SRD) that says to treat a monk's unarmed strike as both natural and manufactured, blah, blah, blah...

To me that sentence is specifically directing you to allow as wide an interpretation of what can enhance a monk's unarmed strike as possible. I don't read that sentence as being the all inclusive, focused list of what can enhance a monk's unarmed strike. I read it as a general guideline to allow anything which otherwise would be applicable to a manufactured weapon or natural weapon. 

*shrugs*

Maybe I'm being too simplistic and should read that section with a more critical eye, but I disagree.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 25, 2006)

moritheil said:
			
		

> Le thread est mort.  Vive le thread!
> 
> It seems to me that the fundamental resistance of people to the imprecision argument is based in the fact that many conclusions reached elsewhere on these boards depend on precise reading.




Sure.  But if it is proven (and I think is has been) that a precise reading of "effects" is not possible given the imprecise way that term is used in the rules, than shouldn't those folks concede that, at the least, there is an alternative view that is equally(?) valid?

No one has yet proved that "effects" is a precise game term.  I do not think that is even possible, but I am prepared to be amazed!


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 25, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> ...To me that sentence is specifically directing you to allow as wide an interpretation of what can enhance a monk's unarmed strike as possible. I don't read that sentence as being the all inclusive, focused list of what can enhance a monk's unarmed strike. I read it as a general guideline to allow anything which otherwise would be applicable to a manufactured weapon or natural weapon. ...Maybe I'm being too simplistic and should read that section with a more critical eye, but I disagree.




You've got it exactly right.  If "effects" was a well-defined game term, than it might be different, but it looks like sometimes WotC uses "effects' to mean both "cause and effect."  That makes the sentence have rather broad applicability.


----------



## No Name (Sep 25, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> I've been silent for a few pages, but I figured I would sound off with the summary of why I think what I think...
> 
> The wording in the PHB (and SRD) that says to treat a monk's unarmed strike as both natural and manufactured, blah, blah, blah...
> 
> To me that sentence is specifically directing you to allow as wide an interpretation of what can enhance a monk's unarmed strike as possible. I don't read that sentence as being the all inclusive, focused list of what can enhance a monk's unarmed strike. I read it as a general guideline to allow anything which otherwise would be applicable to a manufactured weapon or natural weapon.





I agree with the way you think.

I try to stick to the rules; I like consistency. The rules I deliberately change (house rules) can be counted on one hand. When contradictions arise, or when the rules are not so clear, I go with my best guess of what was intended. I don't quibble over the wording. My PHB isn't a holy text (which is a shame because then I could use it to fend off evil outsiders and stuff).


----------



## moritheil (Sep 25, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Sure.  But if it is proven (and I think is has been) that a precise reading of "effects" is not possible given the imprecise way that term is used in the rules, than shouldn't those folks concede that, at the least, there is an alternative view that is equally(?) valid?
> 
> No one has yet proved that "effects" is a precise game term.  I do not think that is even possible, but I am prepared to be amazed!




I'm actually not speaking specifically in terms of this private war, which I humorously suggested might continue for the next ten thousand years.  I'm pointing out that if they accept that WOTC rules cannot be precisely read, then much of the basis of the Rules boards collapses.  Thus, perhaps they unconsciously resist this statement.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 25, 2006)

No Name said:
			
		

> I try to stick to the rules; I like consistency. The rules I deliberately change (house rules) can be counted on one hand. When contradictions arise, or when the rules are not so clear, I go with my best guess of what was intended. I don't quibble over the wording. My PHB isn't a holy text (which is a shame because then I could use it to fend off evil outsiders and stuff).



Exactly.  So, go with the intent that since INA is in the MM and not in the un-holy PHB then don't allow it for monks.


----------



## seans23 (Sep 25, 2006)

CAUSE: the Faq came up with a misguided ruling on monks and INA, which would really only benefit monks for levels 1-3, anyway.

EFFECT: The Book of Nine Swords has the Superior Unarmed Strike feat to make up for this, and to allow unarmed combatants to do more damage, even at higher levels.

problem resolved.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 25, 2006)

DMD page 303 said:
			
		

> This chapter provides descriptions of one skill, Control Shape, and a number of feats that are *typically* used only by monsters.




It is amazing what a little bolding can do.
Again, context, context context......
The word "typically" completely changes the implication.

Can a Warlock take Empower Spell-Like Ability?


----------



## BryonD (Sep 25, 2006)

seans23 said:
			
		

> CAUSE: the Faq came up with a misguided ruling on monks and INA, which would really only benefit monks for levels 1-3, anyway.
> 
> EFFECT: The Book of Nine Swords has the Superior Unarmed Strike feat to make up for this, and to allow unarmed combatants to do more damage, even at higher levels.
> 
> problem resolved.



I'm very sorry but your post is being disqualified because you used the general english definition of "effect".


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 25, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> It is amazing what a little bolding can do.
> Again, context, context context......
> The word "typically" completely undermines the implication you are trying to show.




And if you would have read and quoted the rest of my post (talk about ignoring context), I did mention the "caveat" there.

The fact remains is that the "who uses them" portion of the sentence is totally unnecessary in the "monster feats are useable by anyone at anytime" POV and qualifying in the "monster feats are almost exclusively used by monsters" POV. Hence, your conclusion is not only flawed, but makes no logical sense other than as a strawman to support your POV.

Monster feats are meant for monsters. Even the word "typically" supports that. It means that there can sometimes be exceptions, but typically, there are not.

And since typically these feats are only used by monsters, the exceptions to that general rule have to be explicitly stated. The Monk Unarmed Strike ability does not state that it is an exception to the general rule.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Sep 25, 2006)

If the monster manual was meant for the dm exclusively, how does a druid do anything?  Just pointing out that the monster manual was also meant for pc characters.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 25, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Monster feats are meant for monsters. Even the word "typically" supports that. It means that there can sometimes be exceptions, but typically, there are not.
> 
> And since typically these feats are only used by monsters, the exceptions to that general rule have to be explicitly stated. The Monk Unarmed Strike ability does not state that it is an exception to the general rule.




I've not replied to much of what you've said, because I thought that, though you had stated a position in disagreement to my own, you were making a valid, logically stated point. 

However, in this instance, I have to disagree with you. There is absolutely nothing in the rules, that I am aware of, that requires applying rules in a non-typical manner to only be done if expressly stated that it's allowed. 

The use of the word "typically" indicates a commonality of use among a specific group, in this case monsters. However it does NOTHING to exclude other qualifying groups. 

If a class ability provides my character with Natural Armor, I would be able to take Improved Natural Armor, regardless of the fact that my character is not of a monsterous race. 

Had the term "typically" meant to be exlusionary, it would have to be restated to something like, "Unless otherwise noted, monster feats listed herein are only available to monsters." 

That's a clear, exlusionary statement that requires a direct counter statement in order to be eligible for Monster Feats. The use of "typically" applies absolutely no exclusion whatsoever to the feats listed after that statement.


----------



## Nail (Sep 25, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> If a class ability provides my character with Natural Armor, I would be able to take Improved Natural Armor, regardless of the fact that my character is not of a monsterous race.



No need for a monsterous race......



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> *Barkskin*
> The enhancement bonus provided by barkskin stacks with the target’s natural armor bonus, but not with other enhancement bonuses to natural armor. A creature without natural armor has an effective natural armor bonus of +0.



Apparently, a human (etc) can take the Improved Natural Armor feat.     Right?


----------



## mvincent (Sep 25, 2006)

Nail said:
			
		

> Apparently, a human (etc) can take the Improved Natural Armor feat.     Right?



There seems to be a difference between "_an effective natural armor bonus of +0_" and "_Prerequisite: Natural armor_". A better example might be the Archmage's spell-like ability and the "Quicken Spell-Like Ability" feat.

Regardless, doesn't the fact that the "Craft Construct" feat is listed under monster feats imply that non-monsters can take these feats? (this has likely been addressed earlier, I just didn't have time to sift through pages and pages of responses)


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 25, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> It is amazing what a little bolding can do.
> Again, context, context context......
> The word "typically" completely changes the implication.



 "Typically" or any other wording has nothing to do with it.  Strike that whole sentence if it makes you feel better.  The idea about mentioning the MM is to show intent.  Surely, a feat published in the MM is intended for creatures in the MM, right?  Maybe the feats there can be used by PC races/classes, but the intent for INA was for monsters and not monks by virtue of its printing in the MM.  So, people like No Name who are going strictly by intent should find this reasoning persuasive.


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Sep 25, 2006)

If we're going with "intent" then we have to bring in subsequent WotC products, of course, and then we're back to the various feats that may or may not show that they wanted/intended monks to take the feat and the PHBII which shows, however flawed in execution, the INTENT to allow a monk to take the feat.



Honestly, I feel that the feat was originally NOT intended for Monks ... not, mind you, that this is an intent to DISALLOW the feat for Monks, which is a very different thing.  It's a case of secondary utility, which all tech and the internet in particular loves.  The feat was most likely created without monks at mind at all.

"Hey, we'll make a feat so monsters can have improved natural attacks."
"Yes, let us shall."

That this action created a feat which could be used by monks is happenstance and one, it appears, they have not tried to change, either through rulings in the FAQ nor in the only product that comes to mind that shows a monk built to one specification or the other.  

--fje


----------



## Cedric (Sep 25, 2006)

HeapThaumaturgist said:
			
		

> The feat was most likely created without monks at mind at all.
> 
> "Hey, we'll make a feat so monsters can have improved natural attacks."
> "Yes, let us shall."
> ...




I agree. I imagine the first time the developers who worked on the MM were asked "Hey, can a monk take Improved Natural Attack?" They just sat back and thought a moment, then a light went off overhead and they replied, "Well...yeah, I guess they could. Hmm, works for me."


----------



## seans23 (Sep 25, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> I agree. I imagine the first time the developers who worked on the MM were asked "Hey, can a monk take Improved Natural Attack?" They just sat back and thought a moment, then a light went off overhead and they replied, "Well...yeah, I guess they could. Hmm, works for me."




And then they thought "it'd be a waste of a feat, because at level 4 their damage from an unarmed strike would be the same as if they had improved the damage of their natural attack, anyway."


----------



## HeapThaumaturgist (Sep 25, 2006)

seans23 said:
			
		

> And then they thought "it'd be a waste of a feat, because at level 4 their damage from an unarmed strike would be the same as if they had improved the damage of their natural attack, anyway."




I always rule that part where it says "as if the creature’s size had increased by one category" to then cause subsequent checks for die increase from Monk levels to check "as if the creature’s size had increased by one category".  YMMV, but once I've established it works I'm not going to be a jerk.

--fje


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 25, 2006)

I think maybe this got lost.  I'd love a response:



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I've already stated my opinion of this several times in this and other threads.
> 
> An effect is an external influence to a given creature, object, or other effect. I base this definition off of the standard usage of the word effect found throughout the rules.
> 
> There appears to be three basic game elements: creatures (and their properties), objects (and their properties), and effects (and their properties: magical or mundane). Virtually every thing in the game appears to fall into one of these 3 categories....




Not a bad analysis, in general, but where is the strict from-the rules-text-only backup for this? It does not exist. (I told you this would get "interesting ) I think when you look deeper it becomes clear that the rules don't always distinguish between a "thing" and its "effects." 

For example:




			
				Keen Edge said:
			
		

> ...Multiple effects that increase a weapon’s threat range (such as the keen edge spell and the Improved Critical feat) don’t stack.




Note the lack of distinction between a spell, a feat and their effects.

What reason do we have to be certain that when "effects" is referred to in the monk class description they actually mean "effects" seperate from that which caused the effect? 

Why can we not assume they meant it in the same sense it was used in the "Keen Edge" spell where it was used in the most general sense to be inclusive of that which caused the effect?

How can you be *100% certain* that the latter is not the correct meaning here?


----------



## Cedric (Sep 26, 2006)

seans23 said:
			
		

> And then they thought "it'd be a waste of a feat, because at level 4 their damage from an unarmed strike would be the same as if they had improved the damage of their natural attack, anyway."




Ah yes, but of all the counter arguments that I feel have weight or validity in this thread, your's are not among them. So discounting what you're trying to twist my words to say, my statement stands.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 26, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> "Typically" or any other wording has nothing to do with it.  Strike that whole sentence if it makes you feel better.



Strike the sentence?  You say that like I'm the one who brought the sentence up.
If the sentence can be stricken then how could it possibly support your side?



> The idea about mentioning the MM is to show intent.  Surely, a feat published in the MM is intended for creatures in the MM, right?



Such as drow?
Or halflings?

And I agree it is intended for monsters.  It is also intended for anyone else who a) qualifies and b) wishes to take it.  Such as a monk.



> Maybe the feats there can be used by PC races/classes, but the intent for INA was for monsters and not monks by virtue of its printing in the MM.  So, people like No Name who are going strictly by intent should find this reasoning persuasive.



Bad logic.

Going back to the word typically, it actually makes perfect sense if you think about it.
The only core character class that qualifies for INA is the monk and only some small fraction of pc/npc monks will actually spend a feat on it.  By a vast margin the feat will apply to monsters more commonly than to characters.  And it is not at all logically to conclude that placing a feat in a grouping where it will be mostly commonly encountered disallows it to be used outside that grouping.

If it were monsters only, can you explain why the word "typcially" could possibly exist in the sentence previously referenced? 
Or would you prefer to strike that sentence?


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 26, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> The use of the word "typically" indicates a commonality of use among a specific group, in this case monsters. However it does NOTHING to exclude other qualifying groups.




By itself, no. But, there are some other words in that sentence.



> This chapter provides descriptions of one skill, Control Shape, and a number of feats that are *typically used only by* monsters.




It is not "typically used" by monsters. It is not "used only" by monsters.

It is "typically used only" by monsters.

Just like one cannot drop the word "typically", one also cannot drop the word "only".

Only indicates that *only* monsters can use it. Period.

If anyone else uses them, they have to explicitly state so. That would be an atypical case.

But, if you exclude an explicit requirement, then you drop the word only from the sentence and you disregard RAW.


This, by the way, is another literal RAW reason that INA is not allowed by Unarmed Strike. It is just a little more obscure than the other reasons.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 26, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I think when you look deeper it becomes clear that the rules don't always distinguish between a "thing" and its "effects."



Correct.
Also, it is a completely unfounded statement to claim that because a given word is typcially used with a specific definition in many places that commonly understood alternate or more general definitions of that word may not be used elsewhere.  And when the context makes it clear that such a use is in place it is only reasonable to take that into account.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 26, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Only indicates that *only* monsters can use it. Period.




WOW is THAT WRONG!!!!

ONLY means there are no exceptions.

TYPICALLY ONLY expressly allows that exceptions are allowed to exist.

If you boil it down to a boolean case they are exact opposites.

only = may not and 
typically only = may



> This, by the way, is another literal RAW reason that INA is not allowed by Unarmed Strike. It is just a little more obscure than the other reasons.



Actually, it is another nail in the coffin of "no".


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 26, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> WOW is THAT WRONG!!!!
> 
> ONLY means there are no exceptions.
> 
> ...




What is wrong is claiming that:

"This chapter provides descriptions of one skill, Control Shape, and a number of feats that are typically used only by monsters."

has the exact same meaning as:

"This chapter provides descriptions of one skill, Control Shape, and a number of feats that are typically used by monsters."


They are different sentences, regardless of how many capital letters you put in your post.


----------



## No Name (Sep 26, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Exactly.  So, go with the intent that since INA is in the MM and not in the un-holy PHB then don't allow it for monks.



Nah, just don't allow it for human monks. Halflings are in the MM, and are said to be like children. Children have bite attacks (trust me). Therefore, halfling monks definately qualify for INA.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 26, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> ...It is not "typically used" by monsters. It is not "used only" by monsters.
> 
> It is "typically used only" by monsters.
> 
> ...





That is an incorrect reading and incorrect application of the English language.

I'll give you a parallel example.

Battle dress unforms (BDUs) are typically only worn by the military.

While true, it tells you nothing about how often atypical uses happen.  I'd say, just as a rule of thumb, if perhaps up to 25% (or so) of the time ordinary citizens had BDUs, then this statement would certainly still be true. 

In the case of moster feats, there is NO guideline for how often an "atypical" use might happen.

I'd say the intent was that they were designed for monsters, but PCs could take them if they quailified - which would not happen for the typical PC.

As it turns out that's true.  The generic PC would not qualify for any of them , I think.  Only certain PCs built certain ways will qualify for any of these feats.  Monks and druids come to mind, and there are others, too, certainly, but not the "typical" generic PC.

Of course, this is really all neither here not there.  These feat have no "moster" restriction on them, they have preresquisits - meet them and you may take the feat.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 26, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> That is an incorrect reading and incorrect application of the English language.
> 
> I'll give you a parallel example.
> 
> Battle dress unforms (BDUs) are typically only worn by the military.




How is this different from: "Battle dress unforms (BDUs) are typically worn by the military."?

In other words, if it is different, how? If it is not different, why are you allowed to drop the word "only"?

Speaking purely from a correct application of the English language.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 26, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> How is this different from: "Battle dress unforms (BDUs) are typically worn by the military."?
> 
> In other words, if it is different, how? If it is not different, why are you allowed to drop the word "only"?
> 
> Speaking purely from a correct application of the English language.




It's actually an incorrect usage, not all that much unlike, "usually always." The "always" sounds good but adds nothing - in fact it may create confusion, just as the "only" does in this case.

"Typically" means "in most cases or on most occasions."  It add snothing to say "Usually only monster have these feats."  The word "only" simply adds nothing and should not be used as the only thing it adds to this sentence is confusion.   

In any case, it adds nothing to this debate.  Certainly the monster feats were made up primarily for monsters with likely little thought to how they might apply to PCs.

Now, could we get back to the meaning of "effects."  Not one has yet answered me as to why that word should be treated with precision here when it is not elsewhere in the rules.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 26, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> It's actually an incorrect usage, not all that much unlike, "usually always." The "always" sounds good but adds nothing - in fact it may create confusion, just as the "only" does in this case.
> 
> "Typically" means "in most cases or on most occasions."  It add snothing to say "Usually only monster have these feats."  The word "only" simply adds nothing and should not be used as the only thing it adds to this sentence is confusion.
> 
> In any case, it adds nothing to this debate.  Certainly the monster feats were made up primarily for monsters with likely little thought to how they might apply to PCs.




So, it is your contention that the word "typical" trumps "only" and that we can completely drop the word "only" from the sentence.

I contend that "only" indicates that only monsters get it in the typical case. In an atypical case, one where it is explicitly stated that a non-monster can get a monster feat, there can be an exception. Without the exception being explicit, one would never know when the exception occurs.

But the rule is that only monsters can get these feats. The exceptions are allowed to exist, but they are not typical. In fact, they have to be specified in order to be known.

And the difference here is that my interpretation does not drop the word "only" from RAW. Your interpretation states that RAW is confused here, hence, you will ignore that which disagrees with your interpretation of the INA for Monks debate.


The fact that the opposing POV must drop the word "only" from this rule for their interpretation to work means that something is wrong with the opposing POV. At least by RAW.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 26, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> And the difference here is that my interpretation does not drop the word "only" from RAW. Your interpretation states that RAW is confused here, hence, you will ignore that which disagrees with your interpretation of the INA for Monks debate.
> 
> ...




No, it simply means that the rules were not written with precision English.  We know the rule for feats: have the prerequisite, take the feat.  "Monster" feats do NOT have "monster" as a prerequisite.

The line about "typically only monsters" is little more than "flavor text."  *It has no weight as a rule*.  It certainly does give some insight as to the original intent, though, so it is not totally without purpose.

Dropping the word "only" is not key to the monk/INA argument at all.  You can leave it in all you like - it just has no weight as a rule both since it the sentence itself is not a rule and because the word "only" is not a value-added word form the perspective of American English (or the Queen's English, either, for that matter).

This line of reasoning is all a red herring distracting us from the true argument - the meaning of the word "effects."  

*You seem to have avoided answering me on that one.  I countered your "definition" and you have not presented anything else - do you concede that "effects" is NOT a game-defined term and that WotC has used it with gross imprecision in the core rules even to the point of using it to mean both cause AND effect?*


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 26, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> ...I contend that "only" indicates that only monsters get it in the typical case. In an atypical case, one where it is explicitly stated that a non-monster can get a monster feat, there can be an exception. Without the exception being explicit, one would never know when the exception occurs.....




Another way of answering this is that the "exception" occurs anytime a PC has the prerequisite for the feat.  That nicely matches up to the actual rules on feats.

But I digress from the real issue at hand...


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 26, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Another way of answering this is that the "exception" occurs anytime a PC has the prerequisite for the feat.  That nicely matches up to the actual rules on feats.
> 
> But I digress from the real issue at hand...




This is not a digression. It is integral to the discussion. You appear to be real eager to get off this subject though.

Monster feats are a subset of feats. Hence, they can have their own rules. One of those is that they are monster only with the exception than in an atypical case, this rule can be overwritten.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 26, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> So, it is your contention that the word "typical" trumps "only" and that we can completely drop the word "only" from the sentence.
> 
> I contend that "only" indicates that only monsters get it in the typical case. In an atypical case, one where it is explicitly stated that a non-monster can get a monster feat, there can be an exception. Without the exception being explicit, one would never know when the exception occurs.
> 
> ...




After a few rewrites, I'll just keep this short. 

Typically, is an adverb. It applies a qualifier or descriptor to the word or phrase with which it is paired. An adverb indicates manner, time, place, cause, or in our example, degree.

In this case, by pairing it with the word "only" it eliminates the exclusivity of using "only" without a qualifier. If there are no exceptions or only exceptions when expressly stated, then "typically" would be redundant as the word "only" establishes that point on its own. 

Because "typically" is attached as an adverb to establish degree, it clarifies that while the usual usage of these feats are for monsters, by no means is the usage exclusive to only monsters. 

Again, I think your other arguments had merit. However, I feel you have the semantics wrong on this particular point. Not sort of wrong, just flat wrong. 

Lastly, there are numerous examples of feats presented in the Monster Manual in use by non-monster PCs and NPCs. None of those examples have a caveat to clarify that the character is allowed to take the feat, despite not being a monster. 

Cedric


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 26, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> This line of reasoning is all a red herring distracting us from the true argument - the meaning of the word "effects."




True argument?

So, your contention is that there can only be one argument here? Only one set of rules that the "Monks can take INA" position can be invalid on?


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 26, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> After a few rewrites, I'll just keep this short.
> 
> Typically, is an adverb. It applies a qualifier or descriptor to the word or phrase with which it is paired. An adverb indicates manner, time, place, cause, or in our example, degree.
> 
> In this case, by pairing it with the word "only" it eliminates the exclusivity of using "only" without a qualifier. If there are no exceptions or only exceptions when expressly stated, then "typically" would be redundant as the word "only" establishes that point on its own.




Typically indicates that there can be exceptions.

Only indicates that as a general rule, monster feats are exclusive.

You need both words to convey that these feats are generally exclusive, but there can be exceptions.



			
				Cedric said:
			
		

> Because "typically" is attached as an adverb to establish degree, it clarifies that while the usual usage of these feats are for monsters, by no means is the usage exclusive to only monsters.




They are only exclusive as a general rule. Specific rules can override that. But without specific rules to the contrary, the general rules holds.

Without the word "typically", then the word "only" would be extremely strong as an exclusive directive. With the word typically, only is still exclusive, but the ground work for the case of exceptions is laid.

Typically does not take away the exclusive nature of the word only. It merely indicates that there can be exceptions.



			
				Cedric said:
			
		

> Again, I think your other arguments had merit. However, I feel you have the semantics wrong on this particular point. Not sort of wrong, just flat wrong.




You are entitled to this opinion.



			
				Cedric said:
			
		

> Lastly, there are numerous examples of feats presented in the Monster Manual in use by non-monster PCs and NPCs. None of those examples have a caveat to clarify that the character is allowed to take the feat, despite not being a monster.




And your examples that illustrate this?


----------



## Thurbane (Sep 26, 2006)

But how typically is TYPICAL typical? What is IS? What does MEAN mean?

This has devolved from an intelligent debate into a Dr Seuss book.

Thurbane out.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 26, 2006)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> But how typically is TYPICAL typical? What is IS? What does MEAN mean?
> 
> This has devolved from an intelligent debate into a Dr Seuss book.
> 
> Thurbane out.




I agree...I'm done, bring on the next debate.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 26, 2006)

Yes, KarinsDad, I am eager to get off the MM discussion because it has no weight as a rule at all.  It is only  a comment.  "Typical" means usually, or most of the time, or any other phrase like that.  In this particular case, exceptions are spelled out using feat prerequisites and *typically these prerequistes are only satisfied by monsters.   *

Not that NOTHING in the rules prevents PCs from filling the prerequisites and thus being the "atypical" case where a PC takes a MM feat.

The whole "debate" on the MM feat language is a red herring.  That is, it is "A distractor that draws attention away from the real issue."

Moving on...

*KarinsDad: Would you please address "effects" and why it cannot mean both cause and effects since WotC has used it that way within the rules (as previously cited).  How can you be 100% certain with no doubt whatsoever that in the monk's class description it somehow MUST be taken to mean only the "effect" and not also that which causes the effect?*


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 26, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Strike the sentence?  You say that like I'm the one who brought the sentence up.
> If the sentence can be stricken then how could it possibly support your side?



 You're misunderstanding the context of why that comment was made.  It was merely about intent.  Ignore all the wording is my point and just think about what book the comment was made in.  Who uses that book, the DM or the player?  Thus, do not ask who _can_ use the feat, but who is the feat intended to be _used by_?


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 26, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Yes, KarinsDad, I am eager to get off the MM discussion because it has no weight as a rule at all. It is only a comment. "Typical" means usually, or most of the time, or any other phrase like that. In this particular case, exceptions are spelled out using feat prerequisites and typically these prerequistes are only satisfied by monsters.
> 
> Not that NOTHING in the rules prevents PCs from filling the prerequisites and thus being the "atypical" case where a PC takes a MM feat.
> 
> ...




Let me get this straight.

You flat out dismiss the fact that the rules on Monster Feats are in the Monster Manual, a book primarily designed for use by the DM and not the players. You do not want to discuss that even though it is critical to the discussion.

You then want me to discuss effects again which we have done for about 5 pages here and you specifically want to discuss some nebulous "cause and effect" terminology that you created where cause is not even listed in the rules along with the word effects at all.

What's up with that?


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 26, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Let me get this straight.
> 
> You flat out dismiss the fact that the rules on Monster Feats are in the Monster Manual, a book primarily designed for use by the DM and not the players. You do not want to discuss that even though it is critical to the discussion.
> 
> ...




The MM feat argument is totally a red herring.  The RULE of feats is that if you meet the prerequisites you get to take the feat.  Period.  The FLAVOR TEXT in the MM says the MM feats are typically (that is usually) used only by monsters - that says NOTHING except perhaps that these feats were made up with monsters in mind.  It has NO rules value whatsoever.

"Cause and effects" is my shorthand way of noting that WotC is very sloppy about the way the term "effects" is used, and it has even included that which causes the effect - spells and feats - in at least one instance as "effects"  This makes "effects" an unreliable term if it is used in a technical sense.

You have yet to make any meaningful counter to that argument.  Without at least a  meaningful counter, there is no way someone should be able to be 100% certain that monks cannot take INA.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 26, 2006)

Let me put this another way.

Yes, players can use the monster feats if the DM allows it.

They can also use monster templates if the DM allows it.

They can also use a monster race if the DM allows it.


But, the default of the Monster Manual is that this is a DM book for DM NPCs, not a mini-mart stop and shop for PCs.

The word "only" in that sentence takes precedence over the word "typically", solely based on which book we are discussing here. To get around "only", a PC either has to be a monster or he has to gain an ability which explicitly allows him to use the feat (shy of DM intervention). The word "only" cannot just be dropped out of the sentence as if it were not there and that is what the opposing POV is doing.

By default, PCs cannot just pick anything out of the Monster Manual. That book is the purview of the DM, not the players.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 26, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> ...By default, PCs cannot just pick anything out of the Monster Manual. That book is the purview of the DM, not the players.




Granted.  Of course that's true for EVERY book other than the PHB.  No book other than the PHB is allowed for players without specific DM permission.

There's not a whole lot of value in that argument, but I'll grant you the point- DM permission is needed for eveything other than the PHB.  

Heck, even within the PHB DM permission is really needed as the DM has every right to house rule any rule in the PHB, though normally at least everything in the PHB is allowed.

So, for the rest of this debate, can we give you victory on this narrow issue (DM permission required) and assume the DM has allowed MM feats for PCs if they qualify?


----------



## Cedric (Sep 26, 2006)

Why...why do I let myself get drug back into this!! *cries*

*sighs*

Ok, from the SRD...



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Types Of Feats
> 
> *Some feats are general, meaning that no special rules govern them as a group.* Others are item creation feats, which allow spellcasters to create magic items of all sorts. A metamagic feat lets a spellcaster prepare and cast a spell with greater effect, albeit as if the spell were a higher spell level than it actually is.



Also...


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Improved Natural Attack *[General]*
> Prerequisite
> 
> Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4.
> Benefit...




The emphasis, via bolding, is mine. INA is a "General" feat, no special rules govern it as a group. If it were meant to be monster only, it would have its own type, "Monster" and have special rules to govern who might be eligible to take it. 

Cedric


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 26, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> ...The emphasis, via bolding, is mine. INA is a "General" feat, no special rules govern it as a group. If it were meant to be monster only, it would have its own type, "Monster" and have special rules to govern who might be eligible to take it.
> 
> Cedric




Correct, but to be fair...

"INA" is from the MM, so by the core rules it really should only be allowed if the DM agrees, and in the offical SRD it is in a file called Monster Feats which simply states, "These feats apply to abilities most commonly found amongst monsters or are related to monsters." 

Bottom line:  There is not an actual rules restriction from PCs taking these feats, but as they are presented in what should be DM's material, there is an implied requirement to get DM's permission before any of these feats may be taken.

Note that these are not "optional" rules and the requirement for DM's permission is only implied.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 26, 2006)

To sum up, here is what we have so far:

Outside of core, WotC is putting forth a rule that INA is allowed for Unarmed Strikes. Nobody seems to be arguing this point.


From a strictly RAW core POV, here is what we have so far:

1a) An Unarmed Strike is not a Natural Weapon. It follows virtually none of the Natural Weapon rules. Monks do not have a Natural Weapon and hence do not qualify for the feat in the first place.

1b) The counter position is that spells like Magic Weapon indicate that Unarmed Strikes are Natural Weapons.

2a) An Unarmed Strike can be considered a Natural Weapon for spells and effects, but for no other purpose. A feat prerequisite is a different purpose and there are no rules that feat prerequisites are either spells or effects.

2b) There does not appear to be a counter position to this other than 4b below.

3a) Feats have effects, but feats are not effects. Spells, on the other hand, satisfy both portions of the sentence: spells and effects. Hence, feats do not satisfy the sentence. The Unarmed Strike is a Natural Weapon for the effect of the feat, but not the feat itself and hence cannot be used as a prerequisite.

3b) There does not appear to be a counter position to this.

4a) A feat is not listed as an effect either. There are no rules in the feat section concerning feats as effects or having effects. Feats are listed as having benefits.

Note: There is one table qualifier in a different section of the rules that specifies that the feat description defines its effect. However, this is ambiguous as the feat description describes prerequisites, benefits, normal limitations, and special facts. None of these are specified as being effects and some of them do not make sense as effects. Not only that, but the general rule is that text overrides table entries and since there is no text in the feat section concerning feats being or having effects, it would be extremely difficult for a DM to find this obscure table entry in a totally different chapter of the book and come to the conclusion that it is real support for a INA allowed POV (In fact, this particular quote was first introduced to the discussion by me a few weeks ago. Search the Internet. Nobody even knew this obscure little sentence even existed in the rules with regard to the INA discussion until I mentioned it the other week, even though the INA Unarmed Strike discussion has been going on for years). This does not change the fact that the sentence exists, but it does illustrate that the sentence does not appear to be an intent by WotC that feats are or have effects. Instead, it is meant to illustrate what the action type of a feat might be with regard to the Action In Combat table. Using it to illustrate that feats have or are effects is taking it out of context of that table.

4b) The counter position is that the word effect means the English definition of effect. Hence, anything in the game that affects anything else is an effect. This includes BAB, saves, alignment, etc. With this interpretation, a feat or feat benefit could be or have an effect and hence, a Monk could apply INA to an Unarmed Strike. This counter position also indicates that the feat description defines its effect sentence gives feats the carte blanche ability to be or have effects, regardless of the term effect not being within the Feat rule section.

5a) The monster feats are listed as typically used only by monsters and are also found in the Monster Manual. This indicates that not only DM caveat is required to use them, but that the intent of them is for monsters only unless a core rule specifies otherwise.

5b) The counter position is that the word typically trumps the word only and means that any creature that qualifies for the feat can take it.


Was there any major points I missed? Did I misrepresent any of these points?


----------



## Deset Gled (Sep 26, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Was there any major points I missed? Did I misrepresent any of these points?




Heh, looks pretty similar to the breakdown that I posted here a week or so ago: http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3070203&postcount=131

The only thing you have that I didn't was the arguement about whether or not all unarmed strikes are natural weapons, since I consider the proof that unarmed strikes are not natural weapons to be trivial.

Around and around we go... At least this time I get to recycle the wood I throw on the fire.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 26, 2006)

> From a strictly RAW core POV, here is what we have so far:
> 
> 1a) An Unarmed Strike is not a Natural Weapon. It follows virtually none of the Natural Weapon rules. Monks do not have a Natural Weapon and hence do not qualify for the feat in the first place.
> 
> ...




First, I disagree with the second clause of your second sentence under 5b.

Second, I don't think that INA was listed as being a "monster" feat, just as a general feat (though I could be wrong- my 3.5MM is on loan).  MM3 lists it in a section called "Monster feats" with no designator, and saying that the feats in that section may be taken by PCs if they meet the prerequisites.

Third, Re: 2A/4b- there are sections of the PHB that list "fists" and "bites" as natural weapons.  That's RAW.  That the descriptions appear in spells does not diminish this fact.  I can't think of a healthy human(oid) who can't form a fist or bite someone, so by the PHB _definition of "natural weapon," that means they have natural weapons, despite not having them listed in their stat blocks, despite a WotC CustServ opinion to the contrary.  They have them, they just suck.*

*The question thus REALLY becomes whether INA's effect allows PCs OTHER than Monks with INA and IUC to substitute their INA damage for their normal IUC damage.

As for the "obscure table," its obscurity doesn't matter.  Like the small references to "fists" as natural weapons, if its in the Core, you have to consider it as part of the Core RAW.  You can't just pick and choose which references you like and call them RAW while those you dislike are ignored.

The problem arises because their definitions of Natural Weapon and Unarmed Strike are, strictly speaking, not good definitions.



			Definition
1. to determine or describre the limits of; to determine or set down the precise outlines of.
2. to determine and state the limits and nature of; to describe exactly...
Websters Deluxe Unabridged Dictionary
		
Click to expand...



Natural Weapons deliver unarmed attacks with "body parts," while Unarmed Strikes are punches, kicks, head butts, etc.- also attacks with unadorned body parts (when the body part is adorned, it gets a weapon listing, like gauntlet).  The "definitions" of Natural Weapons and Unarmed Strikes overlap- neither is described exactly, neither's "precise outlines" are determined.

Re: 1a- Unarmed strikes don't follow all the rules for manufactured weapons either.  Try enchanting one._


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 26, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I can't think of a healthy human(oid) who can't form a fist or bite someone, so by the PHB _definition of "natural weapon," that means they have natural weapons, despite not having them listed in their stat blocks, despite a WotC CustServ opinion to the contrary.  They have them, they just suck._



_

So can a night hag, say, make an unarmed strike?  Is is a natural weapon?

-Hyp._


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 27, 2006)

Sure- why not.  Its got a mouth, thus it can bite.  It has hands, thus it can use its fists to punch...

OH NOES!!!  "Fists" are Natural Weapons...but "punches" are Unarmed Strikes!

See, this is why I have said repeatedly (here and in every other INA thread in which I've participated) that WotC got too cute with their use of words and messed up.

There should only be natural weapons and manufactured weapons- Unarmed Strikes as a chimaeric 3rd category needs to be struck from the game, and the term should apply only to strikes with natural weapons that have been improved by training.

Thus, the feat IUC would be re-written something like:



> *Improved Unarmed Combat*
> The skills you have gained through rigorous training make your natural weapons more dangerous.
> *Benefit:*
> You are considered to be armed even when unarmed- that is, you do not provoke attacks of opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed.  However, you still  get an attack of opportunity against any opponent how makes an (unimproved) unarmed attack on you.
> ...




In such a context, INA would still have to be applied to a particular Natural Weapon, and could be taken once for each kind of Natural Weapon a creature has.  As such, even though Monks would (obviously) be able to take it, they would also have to specify if that is the natural being used for a strike.  Thus, a Monk with INA Fists would not get the improved damage when hanging by his hands from a rope or wielding a crossbow.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 27, 2006)

From a previous post:


"Effect" is not a game term - it is undefined for D&D 3.5.  Further, WotC is very sloppy with the term "effect" in the core rules  In at least one instance (_Keen Edge_ spell, "effect" is used to refer to both a spell and a feat.  There is no indication within the Monk description on how to read the word "effect.

It could, with equal validity, mean both the "effect" and whatever caused that effect (a feat, for INA) or it could mean some undefined game term, "effect."  The latter seems unlikely but even if one assumes the latter, one must still conceded that the meaning in unclear at best.

This argument has not be refuted.

Any takers?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 27, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Sure- why not.  Its got a mouth, thus it can bite.  It has hands, thus it can use its fists to punch...




And yet, it adds 1.5x its Str bonus to its Bite attack, because its Bite attack is its sole natural weapon...

-Hyp.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 27, 2006)

> And yet, it adds 1.5x its Str bonus to its Bite attack, because its Bite attack is its sole natural weapon...




So what?

Like I said before (and in the rest of the post you're quoting from)- IMHO, the rules as they are are a mess, and badly in need of revision.

The point stands- here is NO bright-line delineation between Natural Weapons and Unarmed Strike rules.  Unarmed strikes (as written) are a chimaera.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 27, 2006)

Here's my summary of how everyone views monks and INA, in a concise a way as I could.  Slightly edited from earlier comment I made in a previous discussion.

1. From core rules only perspective (no FAQ or other material)): No general agreement: Maybe allowed, maybe not. Hinges on such things as whether feats (or maybe feat prerequisites) are "effects." Really comes down to how precisely one reads the rule, how picky one is over the word "effects" (a large part of the problem is that "effects" is not a defined term), how precisely one assumes the class description was written and what one thinks was the original intent of the class allowing the monks's attacks to be manufactured or natural weapons for "spells and effects."

2. From core rules plus other WotC published material (notably FAQ and PHBII). General agreement: definately allowed. There is no serious alternative argument here.  If you accept those materials as valid, then a monk can take INA.

3. Game balance. Two views here. Whether one prohibits this on game balance grounds depends on things like whether one thinks it too strong to allow monks to boost up their attacks like this at the cost of only one feat. Note that a "splat book" feat (Superior Unarmed Strike from Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords ) has a very similar effect for a monk and if one allows that feat, and, assuming no stacking of the two feats, then this becomes moot since one would simply take that feat instead of INA. There are two views even on that, and some think it is just fine to allow these two feats to stack.

That about sums it up, I think.


----------



## Legildur (Sep 27, 2006)

I disagree with Dannyalcatraz that "unarmed strikes are a chimaera":



> Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed.



An unarmed strike is not a natural weapon - a person does not threaten with an unarmed strike and it deals non-lethal damage, unless the appropriate feat is taken.

A 'natural weapon' is a subset of 'armed unarmed attack', which is a subset of 'unarmed attacks', and, eventually, of 'melee attacks'.  I don't see how INA is applied to an unarmed strike - it applies to a natural attack.

As a frivolous example, would a creature with larger/sharper claws as an 'effect' (couldn't help myself) of the INA feat cause more damage with an unarmed strike, eg a fist?


----------



## Legildur (Sep 27, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> 2. From core rules plus other WotC published matirial (notably FAQ and PHBII). Definately allowed. There is no serious alternative argument here.  If you accept those materials as valid, then a monk can take INA.



Okay, no argument then, but only if my 1st level half-orc monk can take the PHBII starting package and have Improved Grapple, Improved Natural Attack and Weapon Focus (unarmed strike) as his/her starting feats, as published.  Oh, and if we are including the FAQ rulings, I'll put some ranks in Bluff skill and be able to feint as a move action.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 27, 2006)

Legildur said:
			
		

> Okay, no argument then, but only if my 1st level half-orc monk can take the PHBII starting package and have Improved Grapple, Improved Natural Attack and Weapon Focus (unarmed strike) as his/her starting feats, as published.  Oh, and if we are including the FAQ rulings, I'll put some ranks in Bluff skill and be able to feint as a move action.




You might have some issues with *when* you get INA as a monk, but not *whether*.   Correct?  (When assuming a valid FAQ, etc.)

You might have other issues not related to INA, but that's outside the scope of my summary.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 27, 2006)

Legildur said:
			
		

> I disagree with Dannyalcatraz that "unarmed strikes are a chimaera":...




Well, I don't know about a "chimaera," but certainly it could have been much, much better done.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 27, 2006)

> An unarmed strike is not a natural weapon - a person does not threaten with an unarmed strike and it deals non-lethal damage, unless the appropriate feat is taken.
> 
> A 'natural weapon' is a subset of 'armed unarmed attack', which is a subset of 'unarmed attacks', and, eventually, of 'melee attacks'. I don't see how INA is applied to an unarmed strike - it applies to a natural attack.




True as to the "threatening" part, but by the definition of Natural Weapon, an Unarmed Strike can ONLY be performed with a Natural Weapon.



> Natural Weapon: A creature's body part that deals damage in combat.






> Strike, Unarmed: A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike, which may be a punch, kick, head butt, or other type of attack.




A "punch" is a strike with a fist- a natural weapon.  If it is done with a gauntlet or other mechanical enhancement, its a gauntlet strike, and thus armed.  Enhancing your "kick" with equipment is probably using something like an armor spike, and is thus armed.  Etc.

And as pointed out before, a "fist" is a Natural Weapon- not just by the PHB definition, but also in the text of certain PHB spells (as well as other, non-core sources).

The mechanics are at odds with the overlapping definitions.

That unarmed strikes do non-lethal damage and Natural Weapons do lethal damage is not dispositive of the issue either.  There are manufactured weapons that do non-lethal damage only and they don't get tossed into their own special category- they're all manufactured weapons.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 27, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> First, I disagree with the second clause of your second sentence under 5b.




5b only has one sentence.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 27, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> 5b only has one sentence. You really shouldn't inhale and type at the same time.




KarinsDad, steer clear of getting personal...

-Hyp.
(Moderator)


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 27, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> "Effect" is not a game term - it is undefined for D&D 3.5.  Further, WotC is very sloppy with the term "effect" in the core rules  In at least one instance (_Keen Edge_ spell, "effect" is used to refer to both a spell and a feat.  There is no indication within the Monk description on how to read the word "effect.
> 
> It could, with equal validity, mean both the "effect" and whatever caused that effect (a feat, for INA) or it could mean some undefined game term, "effect."  The latter seems unlikely but even if one assumes the latter, one must still conceded that the meaning in unclear at best.
> 
> ...




How is this different from 4B? Because you put the word cause in your paragraph? How exactly are cause and effect the same thing?

Before this argument refutes anything, you had better explain how in English, cause and effect are the same. And, you had better explain how an unclear term (by your own admission here) defaults to one interpretation over the other.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> You also missed:
> 
> The MM feats argument is based upon what anounts to flavor text and has no merit.  The only actual rule is that anyone may take a [General] feat if one meets the prerequisites.
> 
> ...




And how did you come to the conclusion that this was flavor text? Because it is the first sentence in Chapter 6 of the Monster Manual?

If the word "typically" were to be dropped from that sentence and the sentence were then much stronger with regard to "only", would it still be flavor text?



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> Point (1) does not matter as the refutations of point (2), (3) and (4) render point (1) irrelevant.




Actually, the point of the list was to show both points of view. As far as I know, neither side has actually refuted much of anything from the other side, regardless of claims to the contrary.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 27, 2006)

...  I already showed that, using the example of "Keen Edge" where WotC mushes "effect " together with the thing that generates the effect.  My point is that WotC is sloppy with the English leaving us no basis on which to use "effect" in a neat, clean way...

I still have not seen anything approaching a counter to this argument.  Any takers?


----------



## Deset Gled (Sep 27, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> That about sums it up, I think.




Honestly, I think that summary is about as biased to your side of the arguement as possible.  Since this is the second time you posted it, I am going to assume that you are not interested/willing to change it.  Just please do not assume that it is in any way an accurate representation of my (and, as this poll and other threads lead me to believe, a significant percentage of others) opinions on the matter.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 27, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Honestly, I think that summary is about as biased to your side of the arguement as possible.  Since this is the second time you posted it, I am going to assume that you are not interested/willing to change it.  Just please do not assume that it is in any way an accurate representation of my (and, as this poll and other threads lead me to believe, a significant percentage of others) opinions on the matter.




Feel free to edit it to make it more neutral.  I did change it a couple times already with that goal in mind.

I'd really not mind it if you did.  It would be nice to have a decent short summary for new folks to get a general idea of the issues without all the details.

I don't really see that much bias.  I suppose some is unavoidable, though.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 27, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Actually then it would be a disaster as you'd have a ine of text in direct contradiction to the rules.  These are "General" feats with no "Monster" restriction in them.  If the text stated these were ONLY for monsters that would be a rule contradiction.




Disaster?

You are overreacting here.


There are a lot of General Feats that the vast majority of PCs cannot take.

If Monster Feats do not allow most PCs to take them, they would still allow Monster PCs to take them.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 27, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Disaster?
> 
> You are overreacting here.
> 
> ...




Well, disaster from the point of view of having contradictory rules, not world-altering events.  

If it is a General Feat, then ANY PC may take it if they meet the prerequisites.  That's the definition of a general feat.

Being a "monster" is NOT a prerequisite for the feats in the MM.


----------



## Deset Gled (Sep 27, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Feel free to edit it to make it more neutral.




Well, here's a revised version of the summary I came up with before.  I believe this covers all standpoints people have stated in the past couple of threads (in no particular order).  Points can be mixed and matched freely:

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.

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

6. Monks cannot take INA. INA is too powerful of a feat.

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

8. Monks can take INA. INA was intended to improve attacks without weapons.

9.  Monks can take INA.  INA was originally intended only for monsters, but WotC has changed their minds and ruled that it is OK for monks.

10.  Monks can take INA.  Unarmed strikes are actually natural weapons.

11.  Monks can take INA.  However, INA does not stack with the increased damage from the monk class, so it becomes worthless after a few levels.

Personally, I stand by #3, but also agree with #5 and #6.  I really cannot see any basis for points 10 and 11, but include them here for the sake of completeness.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 27, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I never agreed to any such thing. I do think that WotC later on made the decision to allow INA for Monks in non-core. That doesn't change how it is written for core.
> 
> And anyone who opines that WotC made the core rules up in order to keep them strictly core is creating a straw man.
> 
> Additionally, I noticed you cut off the rest of my post which did discuss core. Hmmm. That too is straw man debating.




I think you don't know what a strawman is, if that is your conclusion.  Not discussing a second point you made (which was not directly related to the first) isn't a strawman.  I made a response to one of your points.  You've made a dozen points in this thread, and I responded to one of them, and it was fully in context, and did not mischaracterize your position.  

Nor did I ever claim that WOTC "made the core rules up in order to keep them strictly core".  In fact, that sentence of yours had no meaning as written.  I assume you meant something else, but I have no idea what it might be. 

We were discussing core.  You brought up a portion of the SRD which is not core.  SRD /= core.  If we are discussing non-core items, then your non-core SRD quote is no more or less valid than someone else's non-core non-SRD quote.  SRD is a designation made based on a legal decision of WOTC's regarding what they want to allow in 3rd party products.  It's not something that relates directly to what they deem is core.  In fact, not all the core is even in the SRD, intentionally.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 27, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Well, disaster from the point of view of having contradictory rules, not world-altering events.
> 
> If it is a General Feat, then ANY PC may take it if they meet the prerequisites.  That's the definition of a general feat.
> 
> Being a "monster" is NOT a prerequisite for the feats in the MM.




Are you sure this is true for all of the feats in the MM?

Let's take the first feat in the Monster Manual.

Ability Focus:
Prerequisite: Special Attack

Not a single core PHB race has a Special Attack with a DC. A player has to have a Monster PC in order to take this feat.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 27, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I think you don't know what a strawman is, if that is your conclusion.  Not discussing a second point you made (which was not directly related to the first) isn't a strawman.




Taking a list of points and countering one of them is fine.

Using that to infer the other debater is purposely not following an earlier agreement (which was never actually made) and creating a moving target is a strawman. Knocking down one point does not mean that any others are invalid or that the debater is creating a moving target. It means that one point is inapplicable. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Showing that one point is not part of core is fine. But, using that to infer ulterior motive is not fine.



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> We were discussing core.  You brought up a portion of the SRD which is not core.  SRD /= core.  If we are discussing non-core items, then your non-core SRD quote is no more or less valid than someone else's non-core non-SRD quote.  SRD is a designation made based on a legal decision of WOTC's regarding what they want to allow in 3rd party products.  It's not something that relates directly to what they deem is core.  In fact, not all the core is even in the SRD, intentionally.




I was showing a trend of dismisal. He did not limit his question to core when he asked the question which he assumed had no examples in the game, so I gave a non-core answer. He then limited it to core since the non-core example existed. Hyp then gave him two core examples. He then complained that it was only two examples.

That's a trend of dismisal.


----------



## FireLance (Sep 27, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Are you sure this is true for all of the feats in the MM?
> 
> Let's take the first feat in the Monster Manual.
> 
> ...



Unfortunately, "special attack" is poorly defined.  The SRD entry on the Statistics Block (in Monsters, Intro) states:


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> *Special Attacks and Special Qualities*
> Many creatures have unusual abilities. A monster entry breaks these abilities into special attacks and special qualities. The latter category includes defenses, vulnerabilities, and other special abilities that are not modes of attack. A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su). Additional information (when needed) is provided in the creature's descriptive text.
> When a special ability allows a saving throw, the kind of save and the save DC is noted in the descriptive text. Most saving throws against special abilities have DCs calculated as follows: 10 + 1/2 the attacker's racial Hit Dice + the relevant ability modifier.
> The save DC is given in the creature’s description along with the ability on which the DC is based.



Based on this, a "special attack" is a special ability that is a mode of attack (if it is not a mode of attack, it is a "special quality"). While special attacks can arise from racial abilities, the SRD also makes clear that class abilities also qualify as "special attacks". The aboleth mage lists "spells" (from wizard levels) as a special attack, the hound archon hero lists "smite evil" (from paladin levels) as a special attack, and the celestial charger (unicorn) lists "turn undead" (from cleric levels) as a special attack. Extrapolating from this, a monk's quivering palm class ability is also a "special attack", and a 15th-level monk could take Ability Focus (quivering palm).

Right? 

Incidentally, whether or not the special attack has a DC is irrelevant. A creature could take Ability Focus (smite evil), even though it would be about as useful as Weapon Specialization (net).


----------



## Legildur (Sep 27, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> You might have some issues with *when* you get INA as a monk, but not *whether*.   Correct?  (When assuming a valid FAQ, etc.)



Incorrect.  I don't see how you can so easily separate the two issues.

From my point of view, if you are willing to quote the PHBII as a source of validation or rules for your side of the argument that monks can take the INA feat, then I contend that a monk can take the INA feat (and weapon focus) at 1st level.  If you disregard one portion, why is it that you can't disregard the whole?

What I'm stating (again) is that the starting package in the PHBII is severely flawed and cannot be relied upon as an authoritive source of rules by anyone and remain credible (at least in my eyes).


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 27, 2006)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, "special attack" is poorly defined.  The SRD entry on the Statistics Block (in Monsters, Intro) states:
> Based on this, a "special attack" is a special ability that is a mode of attack (if it is not a mode of attack, it is a "special quality"). While special attacks can arise from racial abilities, the SRD also makes clear that class abilities also qualify as "special attacks". The aboleth mage lists "spells" (from wizard levels) as a special attack, the hound archon hero lists "smite evil" (from paladin levels) as a special attack, and the celestial charger (unicorn) lists "turn undead" (from cleric levels) as a special attack. Extrapolating from this, a monk's quivering palm class ability is also a "special attack", and a 15th-level monk could take Ability Focus (quivering palm).
> 
> Right?




Extrapolating from what?

The SRD quote you gave does not discuss class abilities at all. Hence, how can you extrapolate class abilities from text that discusses racial abilities?  

Nor will you find a legitimate for this feat "special attack" for any of the core PCs. You will find that they put "racial traits" under "special attacks" (e.g. for a Dwarf), but they also put those under special qualities. That was just to be thorough though. For example, the Dwarve's +1 to attack Orcs is considered a special attack. But, it does not have a DC.



			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> Incidentally, whether or not the special attack has a DC is irrelevant. A creature could take Ability Focus (smite evil), even though it would be about as useful as Weapon Specialization (net).




Actually, none of the core races get Smite Evil as a racial ability, so no, they cannot take it for that.

And the fact that a Dwarf could literally take it for +1 Attacks against Orcs (regardless of the fact that it would not in fact give an actual benefit) is merely because the author was lazy when he stated the prerequisite.

Then again, Dwarves are monsters.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 27, 2006)

Legildur said:
			
		

> Incorrect.  I don't see how you can so easily separate the two issues.
> 
> From my point of view, if you are willing to quote the PHBII as a source of validation or rules for your side of the argument that monks can take the INA feat, then I contend that a monk can take the INA feat (and weapon focus) at 1st level.  If you disregard one portion, why is it that you can't disregard the whole?
> 
> What I'm stating (again) is that the starting package in the PHBII is severely flawed and cannot be relied upon as an authoritive source of rules by anyone and remain credible (at least in my eyes).




Ah, but I was saying that IF YOU ACCEPT THESE SOURCES AS VALID, then a monk can take INA.

Even if you toss out PHB II, there is stil the FAQ which is very clear.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 27, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Are you sure this is true for all of the feats in the MM?
> 
> Let's take the first feat in the Monster Manual.
> 
> ...




Yes, I am quite sure,  if a PC meets the prerequisites, they qualify.  Without getting into whether or not any PC has a "Special Attack," the requirement is a "Special Attack" NOT being a monster.  It matters not whether only monsters have "Special Attackks" or not.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 27, 2006)

For reference:

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

A straw man "argument" is a bogus, distorted or deliberately flawed interpretation of an otherwise valid position that has been altered so it can be more easily attacked, delegitimized and disassembled (hence the straw man metaphor) before the eyes and ears of an otherwise impartial audience unfamiliar with the facts and history of an issue or case.


----------



## Legildur (Sep 27, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Ah, but I was saying that IF YOU ACCEPT THESE SOURCES AS VALID, then a monk can take INA.
> 
> Even if you toss out PHB II, there is still the FAQ which is very clear.



I see where you are coming from, but I find it hard to accept that the PHBII is valid on this point because of the very closely associated glaring errors.

And in my view, the FAQ is no more than helpful guidelines written by different people over time.  It has, however, on many occasions been in direct conflict with the core rules (as an example, being able to feint as a move action instead of a standard action is still there after all these months on the bottom of page 12).  This undermines its credibility as valid source.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 27, 2006)

Legildur said:
			
		

> I see where you are coming from, but I find it hard to accept that the PHBII is valid on this point because of the very closely associated glaring errors.
> 
> And in my view, the FAQ is no more than helpful guidelines written by different people over time.  It has, however, on many occasions been in direct conflict with the core rules (as an example, being able to feint as a move action instead of a standard action is still there after all these months on the bottom of page 12).  This undermines its credibility as valid source.




Then my point about conclusions IF YOU FIND ACCEPT THESE SOUCRES AS VALID does not apply to you.  Fair enough.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 27, 2006)

From a previous post:

"Effect" is not a game term - it is undefined for D&D 3.5.  Further, WotC is very sloppy with the term "effect" in the core rules  In at least one instance (_Keen Edge_ spell), "effect" is used to refer to both a spell and a feat.  There is no indication within the Monk description on how to read the word "effect.

It could, with equal validity, mean both the "effect" and whatever caused that effect (a feat, for INA) or it could mean some undefined game term, "effect."  The latter seems unlikely but even if one assumes the latter, one must still conceded that the meaning in unclear at best.

This argument has not be countered.

Any takers?


----------



## Kem (Sep 27, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Extrapolating from what?
> 
> The SRD quote you gave does not discuss class abilities at all. Hence, how can you extrapolate class abilities from text that discusses racial abilities?




http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/archon.htm#houndArchon

Look at the Hero.  Read His Special Attacks.  Then read the rest of his post he provides 3 examples of monsters with class abilities granted by class levels being listed under special attacks.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 27, 2006)

Kem said:
			
		

> http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/archon.htm#houndArchon
> 
> Look at the Hero.  Read His Special Attacks.  Then read the rest of his post he provides 3 examples of monsters with class abilities granted by class levels being listed under special attacks.




While I agree with you, I do not think it pertinent to this debate.  Whether or not any PC actually qualifies as having a "Special Attack" has no bearing on whether PCs qualify for MM feats if they meet the prerequisites.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 27, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> 3. Game balance. Two views here. Whether one prohibits this on game balance grounds depends on things like whether one thinks it too strong to allow monks to boost up their attacks like this at the cost of only one feat. Note that a "splat book" feat (Superior Unarmed Strike from Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords ) has a very similar effect for a monk and if one allows that feat, and, assuming no stacking of the two feats, then this becomes moot since one would simply take that feat instead of INA. So far I have not heard anyone think that these two feats should stack together to advance the monk TWO  categories for damage.




I just wanted to address this point here, since I'm generally in the camp that says INA is approved for a monk. INA works a little differently than the other feats you mention. Superior Unarmed Strike (and the monk's belt) add levels to the monk's character level for damage purposes. That isn't nearly as useful in the long run because a monk's unarmed damage tops out at level 20.

So if we take a 6th level monk with a monk's belt and Superior Unarmed Strike, he does 3D6 damage with an unarmed strike. Base damage is 2d6 since he is striking as a 14th level monk. INA improves that to 3d6. 3d6 damage for a level six character isn't out of line in my book, especially since he's spent 2 feats and a magic item in the belt slot on it.

--Steve


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 27, 2006)

SteveC said:
			
		

> I just wanted to address this point here, since I'm generally in the camp that says INA is approved for a monk. INA works a little differently than the other feats you mention. Superior Unarmed Strike (and the monk's belt) add levels to the monk's character level for damage purposes. That isn't nearly as useful in the long run because a monk's unarmed damage tops out at level 20.
> 
> So if we take a 6th level monk with a monk's belt and Superior Unarmed Strike, he does 3D6 damage with an unarmed strike. Base damage is 2d6 since he is striking as a 14th level monk. INA improves that to 3d6. 3d6 damage for a level six character isn't out of line in my book, especially since he's spent 2 feats and a magic item in the belt slot on it.
> 
> --Steve




Okay, I'll guess I'll edit it since I now HAVE heard of someone who thinks it is okay to stack those two feats together.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 27, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Well, here's a revised version of the summary I came up with before.  I believe this covers all standpoints people have stated in the past couple of threads (in no particular order).  Points can be mixed and matched freely:...




My summary serves a different purpose.  It is designed to take the three basic view points (Core RAW, Core RAW plus FAQ (at. al) and Game Balance) and provide, as briefly as possible, the general basis for coming to one opinion or the other.  After reading my summary you should be able to better understand the arguments on both sides.

That's the intent.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 27, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Okay, I'll guess I'll edit it since I now HAVE heard of someone who thinks it is okay to stack those two feats together.



No problem...I'm just wondering: do you think it would be overpowering to do so? I can see how the monk's belt and the Tome of Battle feat might not stack since they basically do the same thing, but even with that, I just don't see the 3d6 damage as being a big deal. Heck even if you throw in enlarge, that's only up to 4d6...

I haven't really seen a power monk build that's on the level with any of the other extreme builds out there. Monk power build ? 

--Steve


----------



## FireLance (Sep 27, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Extrapolating from what?



As Kem pointed out (thanks, Kem!), racial abilities are not the only source of "special attacks". Class abilities can be "special attacks", too. 


> Then again, Dwarves are monsters.



In that case, so is every PC race in the PH except human, since they all get entries or mentions in the MM and the Monsters SRD, and the argument that monster feats are typically only used by monsters would only apply in the case of a human PC. However, this leads us to conclude that a dwarf monk could take Ability Focus (quivering palm) while a human monk could not because the definition of "monster" includes dwarves but excludes humans. Since I find this to be an absurd conclusion, I would reject the original premise that the "monster" feats (so called because they are in the MM and the "Monster feats" section of the SRD) can only be taken by "monsters". 

Of course, others may not agree because they do not find the conclusion to be absurd. What's another straw, after all?


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 27, 2006)

SteveC said:
			
		

> No problem...I'm just wondering: do you think it would be overpowering to do so? I can see how the monk's belt and the Tome of Battle feat might not stack since they basically do the same thing, but even with that, I just don't see the 3d6 damage as being a big deal. Heck even if you throw in enlarge, that's only up to 4d6...
> 
> I haven't really seen a power monk build that's on the level with any of the other extreme builds out there. Monk power build ?
> 
> --Steve




I see your point, and I think it is probably okay to allow monks to take both feats.  Frankly, I think there are MUCH better choices for monks to take, so I have no trouble if they want to take these two feats, I guess.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 27, 2006)

SteveC said:
			
		

> No problem...I'm just wondering: do you think it would be overpowering to do so?



 If +3.5 points of damage is not overpowering for a feat, why not allow weapon specialization to do it?  How about allowing weapon specialization to give +7 points of damage at 20th level?  It's not entirely about INA being overly powerful for a monk, because many people say that monk's are underpowered, it's about INA being too powerful as a feat in general when applied to a monk's damage progression.  Search this thread for Frank's damage progression list for more details.  If you want to improve the monk as a class, use better design than allow INA, which IMO breaks feat balance.  Either create a new feat, give monk's good BAB, or something else.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 27, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> If +3.5 points of damage is not overpowering for a feat, why not allow weapon specialization to do it?  How about allowing weapon specialization to give +7 points of damage at 20th level?  It's not entirely about INA being overly powerful for a monk, because many people say that monk's are underpowered, it's about INA being too powerful as a feat in general when applied to a monk's damage progression.  Search this thread for Frank's damage progression list for more details.  If you want to improve the monk as a class, use better design than allow INA, which IMO breaks feat balance.  Either create a new feat, give monk's good BAB, or something else.




That's one side of the game balance argument, all right.


----------



## Deset Gled (Sep 27, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> "Effect" is not a game term - it is undefined for D&D 3.5.  Further, WotC is very sloppy with the term "effect" in the core rules  In at least one instance (_Keen Edge_ spell), "effect" is used to refer to both a spell and a feat.  ...
> 
> This argument has not be countered.
> 
> Any takers?




http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3084848&postcount=230

Your example of Keen Edge in no way sways my position on this.  A spell itself could be considered an effect of a casting.  There is no reasonable definition of "effect" that makes it the same as a "cause" (or, more importantly "prerequisite"), unless you're going to be reading the words so loosly that you could just as easily prove black is white.  And that is an interpretation I will not agree with.



> My summary serves a different purpose. It is designed to take the three basic view points (Core RAW, Core RAW plus FAQ (at. al) and Game Balance) and provide, as briefly as possible, the general basis for coming to one opinion or the other. After reading my summary you should be able to better understand the arguments on both sides.
> 
> That's the intent.




In that case, I believe your intent is wrong.  First, there are more than three view points on this arguement, so there is no way to summarize the discussion in the form you chose.  Second, your breakdown of Core vs. Non-core entirely ignores those that consider non-core sources, but believe them to be incorrect per the Primary Source rule.  

Finally, I believe that the "general basis" that you wrote describes the logical path you took to reach the conclusion you did, but is a very poor summary of all the points that have been brought up.  It is much better to present the multiple conclusions that have been reached by different people and allow the reader to reach their own conclusion than to try and condence an arguement that has spanned hundreds of posts over many years into a couple of sentances.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 27, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> If +3.5 points of damage is not overpowering for a feat, why not allow weapon specialization to do it?  How about allowing weapon specialization to give +7 points of damage at 20th level?  It's not entirely about INA being overly powerful for a monk, because many people say that monk's are underpowered, it's about INA being too powerful as a feat in general when applied to a monk's damage progression.  Search this thread for Frank's damage progression list for more details.  If you want to improve the monk as a class, use better design than allow INA, which IMO breaks feat balance.  Either create a new feat, give monk's good BAB, or something else.




While this sounds good on the surface, I think it is actually illusory and the INA feat balance issue is way overblown.

The Monk with INA does +2.5 points of damage at level 6 and +7 points of damage at level 20.

The Fighter with Power Attack does +2 (one handed) or +4 (two handed) points of damage at level 6 (lowering his BAB to that of the Monk) and +5 or +10 points of damage at level 20. The Fighter also gets to choose to use more or less or none of his Power Attack and can take Power Attack at level one.

Both of these are a single Feat. The Fighter can do slightly less or slightly more damage depending on whether he is using a one handed weapon or a two handed weapon.

Also, if the Monk uses a magical Monk weapon in order to get the same magical advantages that the Fighter gets with a magical weapon (e.g. Vorpal, Flaming, Holy, etc.), he loses his use of INA completely. The Fighter can use Power Attack with any weapon.


Hence, it appears that INA is about as powerful and has a lot less utility than Power Attack. That means that it can be considered in the same ballpark balance-wise as Power Attack and possibly other feats as well. In order to illustrate that INA is overpowered, one must first illustrate that Power Attack (even the one handed weapon use of it) is overpowered.


----------



## Asmo (Sep 27, 2006)

From Complete Warrior and the Kensai:

p.50 - Signature Weapon (Su):

Most kensai choose either a sword or bow for this weapon,but even a kensai´s natural weapons can be choosen. If the manufactured weapon is a manufactured one, it must be of at least masterwork quality.

p.51 - Imbue Natural Weapons:

The process for imbuing a kensai´s natural weapons (such as his fists) is the same as for a manufactured weapon, except all of the kensai´s natural weapons of one type are imbued at 100% of the cost + 10% per natural weapon.

For example, a human kensai who has Weapon Focus (unarmed Strike) may turn his fists into signature weapons for 120% of the xp cost.

A six-armed kensai with a bite and tail would have to choose between fists, bite and tail and pay either 160% of the cost (for six fists) or 110% of the cost (for the single bite or tail).
A kensai who imbues a particular type of natural weapon must imbue all his natural weapons of that type (so a human kensai with two fists must imbue both fists).

Losing natural Weapons:

If a kensai loses his natural weapons (such as his fists) he may have them regrown by using  Regeneration or a similar spell.



Is it safe to say that the designers of the class beleives that human fists counts as natural weapons and not just only for the purpose of spells and effects that improve or enhance natural weapons   

Asmo


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 27, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> While this sounds good on the surface, I think it is actually illusory and the INA feat balance issue is way overblown.



 You need to compare apples with apples.  I'm saying that the feat itself, by itself, is overpowered.  Don't apply it to a purportedly weak class and compare that as applied to a strong class.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The Fighter with Power Attack does +2 (one handed) or +4 (two handed) points of damage at level 6 (lowering his BAB to that of the Monk) and +5 or +10 points of damage at level 20. The Fighter also gets to choose to use more or less or none of his Power Attack and can take Power Attack at level one.



 This analysis is completely irrelevant from my comment.


----------



## KuKu (Sep 27, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> If +3.5 points of damage is not overpowering for a feat, why not allow weapon specialization to do it?  How about allowing weapon specialization to give +7 points of damage at 20th level?  It's not entirely about INA being overly powerful for a monk, because many people say that monk's are underpowered, it's about INA being too powerful as a feat in general when applied to a monk's damage progression.  Search this thread for Frank's damage progression list for more details.  If you want to improve the monk as a class, use better design than allow INA, which IMO breaks feat balance.  Either create a new feat, give monk's good BAB, or something else.




Perhaps it is because weapon specialization is not a very good feat to begin with? Perhaps it is because weapons are much easier and cheaper to enhance? Perhaps you are comparing it to a set of assumptions that others would consider wrong? This feat looks good for a monk who is focused on damage dealing but poor for certain other types. Monks do not get many feats to begin with so all must be geared towards what he wishes to do. They are also highly multiple attribute dependent so a monk who is geared towards offense is likely to have some problems in other areas such as armor class.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 27, 2006)

KuKu said:
			
		

> Perhaps it is because weapon specialization is not a very good feat to begin with? Perhaps it is because weapons are much easier and cheaper to enhance? Perhaps you are comparing it to a set of assumptions that others would consider wrong?



 I don't know how to reasonably reply to this.  Let me rephrase your comment such that you understand what I infer: All of the feats in the book are underpowered so therefore it's okay to make INA this powerful.



			
				KuKu said:
			
		

> This feat looks good for a monk who is focused on damage dealing but poor for certain other types. Monks do not get many feats to begin with so all must be geared towards what he wishes to do. They are also highly multiple attribute dependent so a monk who is geared towards offense is likely to have some problems in other areas such as armor class.



 Once again, this is just an example of bad design.  Fix the problem, don't hack a solution.  If INA works for you, then by all means go for it, but there will likely be much better ways to deal with the problems you perceive.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 27, 2006)

Comparing it to Weapon Specialization to determine if it's balanced doesn't really work. 

Based Dmg on a Dagger (Size Medium) is 1d4. If I take Weapon Specialization with that, I'm adding +50% of the weapon's base damage. 

If I take Weapon Specialization for Greataxe (Size Medium), the base damage is 1d12, so I'm adding +16.7% of the weapon's base damage. 

My only point with this is that saying INA adds +2.5 dmg, which makes it overpowered because Weapon Specialization only adds +2 dmg...is an invalid comparison. I can see the logic, it seems like you're comparing equitable items, but you're really not.


----------



## KuKu (Sep 27, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> I don't know how to reasonably reply to this.  Let me rephrase your comment such that you understand what I infer: All of the feats in the book are underpowered so therefore it's okay to make INA this powerful.
> 
> Once again, this is just an example of bad design.  Fix the problem, don't hack a solution.  If INA works for you, then by all means go for it, but there will likely be much better ways to deal with the problems you perceive.




If you feel that all of the feats in the book are underpowered then why are you here talking about it? If you feel that it is bad design and the only proof you have is that you feel a couple of damage is too much then I would assume that you feel most of the characters in the book are badly designed. Karisndad went through one type of rebutal of your claim and it is a good one, in a way weapon focus is a better feat than weapon specialization as well and I dont think many people are calling weapon focus overpowered. It takes four levels in a somewhat substandard class to get a fairly substandard feat so the comparison with improved natural attack starts off on shakey ground to begin with. Especially once we add on how hard it is to get weapon enhancements for the monks attacks. From what I can tell the solution to being able to get rid of it would be changing the cost of enhancements for the monks attacks and cutting down a little on their multiple attribute dependency somehow, but working with just the system as is improved natural attack seems fine balance wise when compared with the rest of the system.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 27, 2006)

KuKu said:
			
		

> If you feel that all of the feats in the book are underpowered then why are you here talking about it?



 I don't.  Apparently you do if you find my assumption that most if not all the other feats are balanced.  You said that you find my assumptions wrong, do you not?  If this isn't true, then what assumption did I make that you find wrong?  Please be clear about it.



			
				KuKu said:
			
		

> If you feel that it is bad design and the only proof you have is that you feel a couple of damage is too much then I would assume that you feel most of the characters in the book are badly designed.



 You assume too much and with a great misunderstanding.  Let me restate my point on this to avoid further misunderstanding: For someone who feels that the monk class (without INA) is weak, then allowing INA for monks purely to offset this weakness is bad design.  Note that my comment here is in direct response to the idea that one should allow INA _because_ monks are weak (stated by someone else, so this is not an assumption but their opinion).



			
				KuKu said:
			
		

> Karisndad went through one type of rebutal of your claim and it is a good one, in a way weapon focus is a better feat than weapon specialization as well and I dont think many people are calling weapon focus overpowered.



 No, it's a bad one.  It requires the comparison of one feat with one class vs. another feat with another class.  The reason for this whole comparison is that the other class is weak.  So, how can it be reasonable to compare it to a strong class?  The proper comparison, as I've mentioned before, would be to all a form of Improved Manufactured Weapon for fighters.  Is that broken?  Is there ANY fighter who wouldn't take it?


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 27, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3084848&postcount=230
> 
> Your example of Keen Edge in no way sways my position on this.  A spell itself could be considered an effect of a casting.  There is no reasonable definition of "effect" that makes it the same as a "cause" (or, more importantly "prerequisite"), unless you're going to be reading the words so loosly that you could just as easily prove black is white.  And that is an interpretation I will not agree with.....




Okay, then...

So I understand that you will not consider "effects" to be used more broadly, but you cannot show me, from the rules themselves, how "effects" was meant to be used in some narrow, technical sense.  Can you?

Let me start with this - do you agree that WotC was very sloppy in the way they used "effects" in the core rules?  

From the core rule themselves only, there is no defintion of the term "effects."  It's not in the glossary.  Our only guidance for how WotC meant to use the term is by looking through the core rules to see how it is used.  Are we agreed with that much, at least?

Regrettably, WotC was not consistent in the use of the term "effects" in the rules. In *at least one case* they referred to a feat in the context of being an "effect."  

Now of course I know a feat is not an "effect" - feats have "effects."  However, that does not mean that WotC does not misuse the term "effect" to include both a feat's effects and the feat itself.

Given that, how can we be 100% certain that the use of "effects" in the monk class description is meant to exclude feats?

I am absoutley NOT trying to convince you that "effects" MUST be read broadly.  I wouldn't dream of such a thing.   

I am trying to say that "effects" is used so poorly in the rules that we could use it just about any way we want in the Monk class description and be justified by the core rules.

On other words, it's use is ambiguous and in need of further clarification than is aviodable with the core rule set alone.

I fail to see how, in the light of this material, you could be 100% certain that monks may not take INA per the core rules?  How can you be 100% certain that reading effcts narrowly is correct?  How can you be *100% certain* that WotC did not use it broadly here, just as they did in the "Keen Edge" spell?


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 27, 2006)

*Just to be clear*

It may seem like I'm vacillating on some issues in this discussion, so here are some of *my positions* on key points:

1.  Monks may take INA per core primarily because the word "effects" was meant to be taken broadly. This seems pretty clear to me.

2.  There is sufficient doubt, confusion and disagreement around point number 1 that a clarifying statement from WotC (a FAQ entry) was entirely appropriate. *I continue to be amazed and astounded that there is not general agreement on this.*

3.  MM feats are generally available to PCs - the argument over this is an archetypical red herring.  Not even worthy of discussion (I hope this absolute language does not put anyone off - it's just my opinion).

4.  I do not really know if allowing it is a game balance issue.  I have been swayed both ways from time to time and I take no firm stance on this one.  I keep vacillating on whether or not there is a serious game balance issue here.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 27, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> You need to compare apples with apples.  I'm saying that the feat itself, by itself, is overpowered.  Don't apply it to a purportedly weak class and compare that as applied to a strong class.




I am comparing two combatant feats. That is apples and apples. Just like when you talked about Weapon Specialization in your post.

If INA is allowed for Unarmed Strikes, only Monks (out of core classes) can get it. Hence, it has to be compared with Monks. Since it is a combat related feat, comparing it to another combat related feat (like Power Attack) is reasonable.

Balance discussions need to address the game system as whole, not some artificial "you cannot compare a weak class with a strong class". The entire point of the balance discussion in this case is that only the weak class can get this feat (if at all) and that weak class can do less damage with this feat than other combatant classes will do with Power Attack, then it is not unbalancing.



			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> This analysis is completely irrelevant from my comment.




Nonsense.

Power Attack can be used with any melee attack and any melee weapon. INA cannot.

Power Attack can be used by any class. INA (assuming it can be used with Unarmed Strike as per the balance comparison) can only be used by Monks.

Power Attack can be adjusted to do varying amounts of extra damage. INA cannot.

Power Attack can be taken at first level by some classes and third level for a Monk. INA cannot be taken until sixth level for a Monk.

Power Attack can do a lot more damage such as "near sure hit" situations (e.g. opponent helpless). INA cannot.

INA does not take a minus to the "to hit" rolls. Power Attack does.

There are a lot more Pros on the Power Attack side than on the INA side.


This is a case of you being unable to accept the fact that balance wise, INA is comparable to another feat called Power Attack. Once I illustrated that, the balance part of the damage part of the discussion is what is irrelevant. You did not post significant counter reasoning that INA is more powerful  or has more utility than Power Attack, you just were unable to accept that the analysis illustrates your balance point irrelevant.


You want a different more "apples to apples" comparison. Fine.

Monk with INA versus Monk with Magical Weapon. Does the addition of the feat greatly increase the amount of damage the Monk can do over what the Monk can ALREADY do using core rules?

Monk with INA cannot use it for a Magical Monk Weapon. Hence, he loses the damage for Holy or Bane and special abilities such as Vorpal or Wounding at 20th level in order to gain +7 points of damage with an Unarmed Strike. This does not sound especially unbalanced.

Plus, in order to have the same to hit as with a magical weapon, a Monk needs to have an Amulet of Mighty Fists (unless he has a Druid friend). How does damage work out at these various levels of INA plus Amulet versus Magical Weapon assuming 25% of wealth by level for this (and remember, the Magical Weapon side does not require a feat, hence, it SHOULD average less damage):

6 2D6 (cannot yet afford amulet) vs D6 +1 (+1 kama), 2.5 damage less, but +1 to hit
8 2D8 + 1 (+1 amulet) vs D6 +1 (+1 kama cannot yet afford better), 4.5 damage less
12 3D6 + 1 (+1 amulet cannot yet afford +2) vs D6 + 1 + 2D6 (+1 Holy kama), same
16 3D8 + 3 (+3 amulet) vs D6 + 3 + 2D6 (+3 Holy kama), 3 damage less
20 4D8 + 5 (+5 amulet) vs D6 + 5 + 2D6 + ~10 (+5 Holy Wounding kama), 1.5 damage more

Granted, Holy and Wounding do not work against all opponents, but they work against the vast majority of them. And even when they do not work, the Monk could always fall back on his normal Unarmed Strike attacks to do more damage. You'll also note that the Amulet cost more than the Kama at every level except level 8.

All in all, this is not a real lot more damage like Frank and you indicated. We are talking about a range of -1.5 to +4.5 (level and items depending) damage with regard to what the Monk can already typically do WITHOUT taking the INA feat.

This is not as unbalanced as you claim. In fact, it is white noise for the most part compared to what the Monk can already do with a magical weapon and without a feat. And, it is definitely white noise compared to what other combatant classes can do.

The damage balance part of this discussion is mostly a red herring and irrelevant.


----------



## KuKu (Sep 27, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> I don't.  Apparently you do if you find my assumption that most if not all the other feats are balanced.  You said that you find my assumptions wrong, do you not?  If this isn't true, then what assumption did I make that you find wrong?  Please be clear about it.
> 
> You assume too much and with a great misunderstanding.  Let me restate my point on this to avoid further misunderstanding: For someone who feels that the monk class (without INA) is weak, then allowing INA for monks purely to offset this weakness is bad design.  Note that my comment here is in direct response to the idea that one should allow INA _because_ monks are weak (stated by someone else, so this is not an assumption but their opinion).
> 
> No, it's a bad one.  It requires the comparison of one feat with one class vs. another feat with another class.  The reason for this whole comparison is that the other class is weak.  So, how can it be reasonable to compare it to a strong class?  The proper comparison, as I've mentioned before, would be to all a form of Improved Manufactured Weapon for fighters.  Is that broken?  Is there ANY fighter who wouldn't take it?




If you were confused on my point why did you not just explain where you were getting lost and ask for further explination? Why did you have to be rude about it? As for people believing that monks need it because they are weak your post that I was quoting has a quote which does not say what you are saying in the quote I am giving here nor does your other post lead one to believe that. If you had actually meant it in the way you are trying to say now then you will need a better quote to reference from and reword your post in a very different manner. As it stands it does not say what you are apparently trying to make it say. It does not matter if the class itself is weak or not, it matters if the choice is too powerful or not. Your points do not show one way or the other, they only show that different choices for different classes have different results. The fact that they are different is not helpful. Knowing about the damages might be helpful but you discount any other damage comparisons made so far and only allow in one choice which is for a weapon that is by default easier to improve than the monks unarmed strikes and so there are problems in the comparison, too many variables and a questionable set of conditions to get a result that proves nothing either way. If you like you could also look at things like oversized weapon fighting, two weapon fighting, size increasing effects, polymorph, exotic weapon proficiency, and everything else that could potentially increase damage for certain character builds. Some people will feel are more relevant than others of course.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 27, 2006)

> ...Why did you have to be rude about it?...




In the interests of keeping this thread open may I ask:

If you spot any apparently rude behavior (by anyone, including me) either:

1.   Ignore it and move on.

or

2.   Report it using the exclamation with the triangle at the lower left of the post (the "report this post" link), but do not mention it in the thread and move on.  

It's too easy to get personal and the board rules do not allow it.  Moderators shut down whole discussions over just a couple of comments sometimes.

Thanks, everyone.


----------



## Deset Gled (Sep 27, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> So I understand that you will not consider "effects" to be used more broadly, but you cannot show me, from the rules themselves, how "effects" was meant to be used in some narrow, technical sense.  Can you??




I hardly think that claiming "effects" are not the same thing as "causes" (or "prerequisites") is a narrow, technical definition.  And of that very broad definition of "effects", I am 100% certain.



> I fail to see how, in the light of this material, you could be 100% certain that monks may not take INA per the core rules?




I find it odd that you will argue to the end of the earth with people that are 100% certain that the RAW state that monks cannot take INA, but have not argued (or argued very little, so much so I cannot remember a case of it) against anyone who claimed that they are 100% certain that monks can take INA per the RAW.  If your point is really to say that the clarification was necessary, shouldn't you also be argueing against the 50% of people with that standpoint as well?


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 27, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> ...If your point is really to say that the clarification was necessary, shouldn't you also be argueing against the 75% of people with that standpoint as well?




Yep. I have done so, and my argument applies equally to both sides.  Have I not said that "effects" is poorly defined and therefore we cannot be CERTAIN of its meaning in the monk class description.  That means we cannot be 100% certain EITHER WAY.

BTW:  It's roughly 50% "100% certain" that's it's allowed and 25% "100% certain" it is not allowed. The other roughly 25% already acknowledge there is at least *some[b/] level of uncertainty to both sides of the argument.*


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 27, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> I hardly think that claiming "effects" are not the same thing as "causes" (or "prerequisites") is a narrow, technical definition.  And of that very broad definition of "effects", I am 100% certain....




So you are 100% certain that "effects" can ONLY mean the "effects" of the feat and not the feat itself (or its prerequisite)?

That what about the "Keen Edge" spell?  If, as I assume is your position, the spell description is in error, then how can we possibly be 100% certain they are not committing the same error in the monk's class description and they really mean the feat as well as its effect?

I had more, but I'll stop there.  Can you answer that question?


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 27, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> If INA is allowed for Unarmed Strikes, only Monks (out of core classes) can get it. Hence, it has to be compared with Monks. Since it is a combat related feat, comparing it to another combat related feat (like Power Attack) is reasonable.



 It's only reasonable if you do not require additional parameters to affect the outcome.  That is, by definition, a straw man.  In comparing INA to PA, you can reference a parameters of a different class as 'proof' that PA is stronger.  You're confounding variables in an effort to support your desired outcome.

Let me come up with another straw man before you do: empower spell.  Sure, this feat can create +5d6 damage, which is much more than INA does for a monk.  Is it comparable though?  It's as comparable as your analogy with a fighter + PA.  I'd like you to respond to my choice for a comparison, though (re: fighter with IMW).



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Balance discussions need to address the game system as whole, not some artificial "you cannot compare a weak class with a strong class". The entire point of the balance discussion in this case is that only the weak class can get this feat (if at all) and that weak class can do less damage with this feat than other combatant classes will do with Power Attack, then it is not unbalancing.



 Not true at all.  You are not going with the initial premise that "INA is needed to help balance the already-known-underpowered monk class."  If this premise doesn't work for you, then you have the same problem I do.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 27, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> I hardly think that claiming "effects" are not the same thing as "causes" (or "prerequisites") is a narrow, technical definition.  And of that very broad definition of "effects", I am 100% certain.



An increase in speed and the ability to take Improved Natural Attack are two of the effects of taking levels in the monk class.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 27, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> If this premise doesn't work for you, then you have the same problem I do.



I agree that trying to justify this arguement either way based on balance does not accomplish anything.
I agree that INA is on the high end of feats.
IMO, a monk taking INA does not throw the game out of whack.
Neither of these points have any bearing on the RAW ruling.
Both of these points support my personal assessment that I'd play with a DM who ruled either way for his own game.
YMMV on all of that.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 27, 2006)

KuKu said:
			
		

> If you were confused on my point why did you not just explain where you were getting lost and ask for further explination? Why did you have to be rude about it?



 For both questions: right back atchya. I did not intend to be rude, however.  I was as un-rude as I thought I could be.



			
				KuKu said:
			
		

> ...then you will need a better quote to reference from and reword your post in a very different manner...



 My initial response on this topic quotes it properly.  It's not my fault that's it was not continually referenced by others.  There are many subplots to this thread, so I don't fault you for missing it.  That's why I restated my point.

So, let me ask you a question that sums up this point.  If you were in the "unsure" (or even "no") camp and trying to decide whether to allow INA, would you think it a good idea to allow INA for monks solely on the basis that monks are a weak class?  Note that you'll first have to agree that monks are a weak class (without INA).


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 27, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> It's only reasonable ...




Actually the game balance argument is very complex if one wanted to be complete.  

First one has to acknowledge that some feats are stronger than others, so a direct comparison for power is not a trivial excerise or even necessarily appropriate.

Second, one needs to do extensive anaylsis on the monk class vs. other classes to determine how it stacks up next to the other classes and the relative value of the monk using up one precious feat for INA.

Third - heck, I don't know.  The list is very long and WAY more than I am willing to tackle.  

Personally, I think the monk is a bit underpowered for melee combat, but that this is no accident - they have other strengths to make up for that.  

Intuitively, I feel this feat does not make a monk overpowered compared to a fighter or paladin, and that's the real test, isn't it?

I don't know - just some thoughts.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 27, 2006)

The whole concept is very simple for me...

I have no doubt that by the reading of the MM and PHB, Monk's are allowed to take INA. However, if I had any doubt, the "Official" 3.5 Edition FAQ, presented as Official, by the Publisher of the game, clarifies any existing ambiguity by making it very clear that Monks are able to take INA. 

Beyond that, I am really unconcerned with semantics, balance or original intent.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 27, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> The whole concept is very simple for me...
> 
> I have no doubt that by the reading of the MM and PHB, Monk's are allowed to take INA. However, if I had any doubt, the "Official" 3.5 Edition FAQ, presented as Official, by the Publisher of the game, clarifies any existing ambiguity by making it very clear that Monks are able to take INA.
> 
> Beyond that, I am really unconcerned with semantics, balance or original intent.




That's incredibly reasonable, but what fun is that?  

With that kind of attitude this whole debate would be pointless.    

In truth, that's the way I feel for my game, but the debate is fun and only really has value as intellectual exercise, but that's enough to keep me in it.  

Maybe I'm just nuts.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 27, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm just nuts.




9 pages later I'm still replying, so they can get me a padded room next to yours...


----------



## Deset Gled (Sep 27, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> That what about the "Keen Edge" spell?  If, as I assume is your position, the spell description is in error, then how can we possibly be 100% certain they are not committing the same error in the monk's class description and they really mean the feat as well as its effect?




...



			
				Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Your example of Keen Edge in no way sways my position on this. A spell itself could be considered an effect of a casting. There is no reasonable definition of "effect" that makes it the same as a "cause" (or, more importantly "prerequisite"), unless you're going to be reading the words so loosly that you could just as easily prove black is white. And that is an interpretation I will not agree with.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 27, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> The whole concept is very simple for me...
> 
> I have no doubt that by the reading of the MM and PHB, Monk's are allowed to take INA. However, if I had any doubt, the "Official" 3.5 Edition FAQ, presented as Official, by the Publisher of the game, clarifies any existing ambiguity by making it very clear that Monks are able to take INA.
> 
> Beyond that, I am really unconcerned with semantics, balance or original intent.




They do clarify some of the rules.  Other rules, they just make up or change.

FWIW, now that I have had some time to think about and re-re-re-read the FAQ, I beleive that the FAQ is clarifying that feats _have_ effects, but are not (in and of themselves) effects.  I agree with others that "effects" is not clearly defined in the Core rules, that the FAQ is meant to clarify these ambiguities, and in the FAQ entry regarding INA they essentially clarified that feats have effects...

However, that doesn't mean (or convince me) that the Prerequisites of feats are effects.  I still beleive you have to first qualify for the feat (via it's prerequisites) BEFORE you can take it's benefits.

To me, it is like using the 1st level benefit of a Prestige class in order to get into that presitge class (which is expressly forbidden, first you must meet the prereqs, THEN enter the class).  If you need 8 ranks in a skill, you can't have 7 ranks in the skill and then take the prestige class and get the 8th rank by virtue of the prestige class (if that makes any sense).  Anyway, it's just an analogy...


----------



## BryonD (Sep 27, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> The whole concept is very simple for me...
> 
> I have no doubt that by the reading of the MM and PHB, Monk's are allowed to take INA. However, if I had any doubt, the "Official" 3.5 Edition FAQ, presented as Official, by the Publisher of the game, clarifies any existing ambiguity by making it very clear that Monks are able to take INA.
> 
> Beyond that, I am really unconcerned with semantics, balance or original intent.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 27, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> With that kind of attitude this whole debate would be pointless.



God No!!!!
Then we'd actually have to PLAY the game for fun...


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 27, 2006)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> ...To me, it is like using the 1st level benefit of a Prestige class in order to get into that presitge class (which is expressly forbidden, first you must meet the prereqs, THEN enter the class).  If you need 8 ranks in a skill, you can't have 7 ranks in the skill and then take the prestige class and get the 8th rank by virtue of the prestige class (if that makes any sense).  Anyway, it's just an analogy...




So what if I said humans are considered elves for the purposes of the (fictional) "elven bow master" prestige class which has a prerequisite of being an elf.  Note I did NOT say they are considered elves for quaifying for that class.

Could they take the class or not?


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 27, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> It's only reasonable if you do not require additional parameters to affect the outcome. That is, by definition, a straw man. In comparing INA to PA, you can reference a parameters of a different class as 'proof' that PA is stronger. You're confounding variables in an effort to support your desired outcome.




I did not do that to illustrate that PA is stronger.

I used it to illustrate that the Monk with INA had fewer options and did less extra damage than the Fighter with Power Attack. And at the same time, the Fighter can use Special Abilities of a weapon and still use Power Attack whereas the Monk cannot use INA if using Special Abilities of a weapon.



			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Not true at all.  You are not going with the initial premise that "INA is needed to help balance the already-known-underpowered monk class."  If this premise doesn't work for you, then you have the same problem I do.




I noticed that you totally avoided the Monk + INA + Amulet versus Monk + Magic Weapon analysis completely.

The fact that Monk + core Magic + Questionable Feat does slightly more damage and sometimes does the same or less than Monk + core Magic is indicative that there is no serious balance issue here.


Be serious. We are talking DND where 200 extra points of melee damage can be done with broken builds. A few points of damage per attack is nothing and is FAR from unbalanced.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 27, 2006)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> They do clarify some of the rules.  Other rules, they just make up or change.




I guess I fail to see where that is a problem, but I understand that several people do have problems with it. 

To my thinking, if they want to revise a rule in the FAQ...well, it's their rulebook, their FAQ. Go for it.

I don't buy that rules alterations or revisions should be handled only with errata. Errata is used to correct "mistakes." A revision to make a rule function more effectively or with less conflict is not the correction of a mistake. Saying "Elf" when you meant "Half-Elf" is a mistake. 

Said revision can happily exist in an FAQ. Branding the FAQ "Official", providing version history and labeling it with all appropriate publication legalise, just provides the legitimacy I need to take the FAQ as a valid source document.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 27, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> So what if I said humans are considered elves for the purposes of the (fictional) "elven bow master" prestige class which has a prerequisite of being an elf.  Note I did NOT say they are considered elves for quaifying for that class.
> 
> Could they take the class or not?




For purposes of the PrC?  Certainly.  The requirements are an element of the PrC.

If you said "humans are considered elves for the purposes of the class features of the Elven Bow Master PrC", though, then a human who somehow took levels in the class could benefit from elf-specific features... but he would need to find a way to satisfy the requirement before taking the first level.  Requirements are not Class Features, so the "considered elves" clause doesn't help.

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 27, 2006)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> ...FWIW, now that I have had some time to think about and re-re-re-read the FAQ, I beleive that the FAQ is clarifying that feats _have_ effects, but are not (in and of themselves) effects.  I agree with others that "effects" is not clearly defined in the Core rules, that the FAQ is meant to clarify these ambiguities, and in the FAQ entry regarding INA they essentially clarified that feats have effects...




And yet...:



			
				FAQ said:
			
		

> 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.




It's obvious that the FAQ ruling is that monks can take INA because either:

1.  Feats are effects  (and if you are considered to have a natural weapons for the feat you automatically also are considered to meet teh prerequisite of having a natural weapon.)

or

2.  Feats have effects and if you are considered to have a natural weapons for the feat's effects you automatically also are considered to meet the prerequisite of having a natural weapon.   

I don't see that it makes any difference whether it is (1) or (2).  Either way monks can take INA per the FAQ.  

Now if you want to say that it is so obvious than monks CANNOT take INA that the FAQ entry is coimpletely in error and should not have been issued, that's fine.  I think that an odd approach given that most folks disagree with that - with 50% thinking the FAQ  entry was not neeed because it is so obvious tha monks CAN take INA - which makes certainty on any poistion very much in doubt and the calrifaction of the FAQ entry required..


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 27, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> An increase in speed and the ability to take Improved Natural Attack are two of the effects of taking levels in the monk class.




What does this have to do with Causes (which is what DG was responding to)?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 27, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> 1.  Feats are effects  (and if you are considered to have a natural weapons for the feat you automatically also are considered to meet teh prerequisite of having a natural weapon.)
> 
> or
> 
> 2.  Feats have effects and if you are considered to have a natural weapons for the feat's effects you automatically also are considered to meet the prerequisite of having a natural weapon.




2 is what RM is using the PrC analogy to illustrate; if taking a PrC would allow you to qualify for that PrC, but you do not already qualify for the PrC, you cannot take the PrC.

Just because you're eligible for a benefit if you take a feat, does not mean you automatically qualify for the feat.  

I reject 2 as simply wrong.

1, on the other hand, is perfectly logical, as long as one accepts that feats are effects.  But I don't, so I reject 1, not because it evinces no logic (like 2), but because I disagree with its basic premise.

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 27, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> 1. Feats are effects (and if you are considered to have a natural weapons for the feat you automatically also are considered to meet teh prerequisite of having a natural weapon.)
> 
> or
> 
> 2. Feats have effects and if you are considered to have a natural weapons for the feat's effects you automatically also are considered to meet the prerequisite of having a natural weapon.






			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> 2 is what RM is using the PrC analogy to illustrate; if taking a PrC would allow you to qualify for that PrC, but you do not already qualify for the PrC, you cannot take the PrC.
> 
> Just because you're eligible for a benefit if you take a feat, does not mean you automatically qualify for the feat.
> 
> ...




Ah but I differ in that I do not necessarily expect it to make sense logically, I just look for what *is true* and then try and make sense out of it.

What is true, per the FAQ, is that monks may take INA.  This seems to mean that when WotC uses the word "effects" they are using it very sloppily like they did in the "Keen Edge" spell.

What is really clarified is that in the monk class description "effects" is used in the same sense as it is in the "Keen Edge" spell.

It not good logic, it is an abuse of the word "effects," and yet that's what they are doing, and thus that's the rules.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 27, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> What is true, per the FAQ, is that monks may take INA.  This seems to mean that when WotC uses the wrod "effects" they are using it very sloppily like they did in the "Keen Edge" spell.




A does not follow B.

Just because WotC screwed up in the terminology of effects in Keen Edge does not mean that they did it anywhere else.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 27, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> A does not follow B.
> 
> Just because WotC screwed up in the terminology of effects in Keen Edge does not mean that they did it anywhere else.




You are absolutely, positively 100% correct.  

However, it also does not mean they did not (intentionally or otherwise) screw up the definition of the word "effects" for monk just like they did with "Keen Edge."  "Keen Edge" sets a possible precedent and the FAQ confirms the they really did mean it that way.

Even without the FAQ, the possibility of a "Keen Edge" precendent should be enough for a less than 100% certainty of *either* position on monks and INA.

The FAQ indicates what they meant to do - screw up the defintion of "effects." (who'd have thunk it?  )


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 28, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Even without the FAQ, the possibility of a "Keen Edge" precendent should be enough for a less than 100% certainty of *either* position on monks and INA.




I was on a jury a while back, for an Assault case.

The guy who got hit said "He hit me."
The two witnesses said "He was kneeling on the guy's chest, punching him in the face."
The defendant said "I didn't hit him."

In our discussions, some of the jurors said "What if he thought he was threatened?  That would make it self defence."

"What?" we said.  "He didn't mention feeling threatened.  His lawyer didn't mention feeling threatened.  He didn't say 'I hit him in self defence', he said 'I didn't hit him'.  We've got two witnesses who said he hit him.  How can he claim self defence, if he's saying it never happened?"

"But how can we _know_?" they pressed.  "We weren't there, so we can't.  And that's reasonable doubt."

I'm having horrible flashbacks to that line of reasoning.

-Hyp.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 28, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I'm having horrible flashbacks to that line of reasoning.




I'm lucky. My sister is a District Attorney (i.e. in law enforcement). I never get on a jury (course, it's usually the Prosecution that drops me, not quite sure why that is).


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 28, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I'm lucky. My sister is a District Attorney (i.e. in law enforcement). I never get on a jury (course, it's usually the Prosecution that drops me, not quite sure why that is).




You probably know better than to trust eye witness testimony.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 28, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I was on a jury a while back, for an Assault case.
> 
> The guy who got hit said "He hit me."
> The two witnesses said "He was kneeling on the guy's chest, punching him in the face."
> ...






In this case, if WotC was wrong in one place, how can we be reasonably sure they are not wrong in another?

If fact, in the FAQ they confirm they meant to be wrong.

Wrong in the sense they they are expanding upon the common definiton of "effects."

Of course they are right in the sense that they wrote the rules and so if they say that's what they meant to do, who are we to say otherwise?  It's not like they had no precedent for the FAQ ruling - they have, at a minimum, the "Keen Edge" spell to use as precendent.

In truth, my very first reading of "spells" and effects" had me thinking they did not really mean "effects;" they really meant that for pretty much everything that improves unarmed weapons, the monks attacks count as natural weapons.  It turns out I was right and that's what they meant (well, as much as we can use the FAQ to discern orginal intent).

I do not ever assume the rules are written with a lot of precision - that way lies madness!  Instead I try and figure out what they meant to do - which , when they screw up the use of common English words, can be challenging.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 28, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I was on a jury a while back, for an Assault case....-Hyp.




As aside, did you know that a jury can find someone "not guilty" no matter the amount of overwhelming evidence? 

There is a rather well-known case wher a very, very nasty, evil man was gunned down in the middle of the street in a small town with lots of witnesses.

There obviously was not much of a defense.   Nonetheless the jury found him "not guilty" because the guy he killed was such a blight on the town.

The verdict was not appealable by the prosecution.

Interesting stuff.

The best part is that the defense attorney is prohibited from telling telling the jury they have this kind of power.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 28, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> As aside, did you know that a jury can find someone "not guilty" no matter the amount of overwhelming evidence?




We didn't find him not guilty; we didn't find him anything, because the "But how can we _know_?!" faction were intractable.

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 28, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> We didn't find him not guilty; we didn't find him anything, because the "But how can we _know_?!" faction were intractable.
> 
> -Hyp.




Apparently they did not listen to the "reasonable doubt" part of the instructions.  

Unreasonable doubt = guilty.

That must have been very painful to go through.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 28, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Unreasonable doubt = guilty.
> 
> That must have been very painful to go through.




Hence the flashbacks 

-Hyp.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 28, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> You probably know better than to trust eye witness testimony.




Hmmm. Interesting. I can see the correlation (prosecution cases are probably often dependent on eye witness testimony), and of course, that does match my personal POV.


Interesting story that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. My wife, a friend, his wife and myself were walking near my old university campus. A drunk driver uses his car to crash through the locked gates at an entrance, spins around and leaves. My wife got a good description of the driver and his shirt. My friend got the make and model of the car. His wife got the color of the car. I got the license plate number. Between us, we had enough substantial information that the police were able to pick the guy up at his apartment in a matter of 10 minutes while he was still intoxicated. And, each of us had totally different eye witness testimony.


----------



## Legildur (Sep 28, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> In this case, if WotC was wrong in one place, how can we be reasonably sure they are not wrong in another?



This is my point precisely about the example starting package in the PHBII that some people have been quoting to support the 'yes' case.  The close proximity of other glaring errors throws into doubt the entire package.

The errors in the FAQ are not in as close proximity, so I found that has greater weight (if you accept the FAQ as a rules source).


			
				Cedric said:
			
		

> I don't buy that rules alterations or revisions should be handled only with errata.



Then you haven't read WotC's own published policy on what errata and the FAQ are meant to achieve.  Because that's exactly what errata are there to do.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 28, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Second, one needs to do extensive anaylsis on the monk class vs. other classes to determine how it stacks up next to the other classes and the relative value of the monk using up one precious feat for INA.



 No, that's what I'm saying you should not do.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I did not do that to illustrate that PA is stronger.
> 
> I used it to illustrate that the Monk with INA had fewer options and did less extra damage than the Fighter with Power Attack. And at the same time, the Fighter can use Special Abilities of a weapon and still use Power Attack whereas the Monk cannot use INA if using Special Abilities of a weapon.



 Your line of reasoning is still irrelevant.  I can't force you to agree, so I have no desire to discuss this point further.



			
				KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I noticed that you totally avoided the Monk + INA + Amulet versus Monk + Magic Weapon analysis completely.



 I tend to do that when I guess that they will be irrelevant.  I skipped over much of that because (a) you seem to be arguing something I don't really care about, and (b) you also ignored my hypothetical which I believe I asked first (and at least is relevant as far as I'm concerned).


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 28, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I never get on a jury (course, it's usually the Prosecution that drops me, not quite sure why that is).



 How do you know?  Here in Orange County we are not told why we are not chosen.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 28, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> How do you know?  Here in Orange County we are not told why we are not chosen.




In many courts the Prosection and Defense will provide dismissals by Potential Juror Number to the judge in front of the Jury Pool, but without reasons for dismissal. So you won't know why, but you'll know if it was Prosecution or Defense that dismissed you.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 28, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> I tend to do that when I guess that they will be irrelevant.  I skipped over much of that because (a) you seem to be arguing something I don't really care about, and (b) you also ignored my hypothetical which I believe I asked first (and at least is relevant as far as I'm concerned).




Typical.


----------



## glass (Sep 28, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> 2.  There is sufficient doubt, confusion and disagreement around point number 1 that a clarifying statement from WotC (a FAQ entry) was entirely appropriate. *I continue to be amazed and astounded that there is not general agreement on this.*



I don't think anyone disagrees in principal with their clarifying it in the FAQ. Some of us just disagree with the direction their 'clarification' took.


glass.


----------



## glass (Sep 28, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> In this case, if WotC was wrong in one place, how can we be reasonably sure they are not wrong in another?



The diference is, the places where they are wrong are not the primary source. The primary source, by definition, _cannot be wrong_. It is the standard by which wrongness or rightness is judged.


glass.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 28, 2006)

Legildur said:
			
		

> Then you haven't read WotC's own published policy on what errata and the FAQ are meant to achieve.  Because that's exactly what errata are there to do.




Cool, where can I find that?


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 28, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> The diference is, the places where they are wrong are not the primary source. The primary source, by definition, _cannot be wrong_. It is the standard by which wrongness or rightness is judged.
> 
> 
> glass.




"Keen Edge" *is* Primary Source.  FWIW, the FAQ lines up nicely with Keen Edge.

It seems to me that either:

(1)  "Keen Edge" is correct and a feat can be considered an "effect."

or

(2)  "Keen Edge" sets a precendent that WotC, for some purposes at least, considers "effects" to be a very broad term that also includes what causes the effect (as in both the feat's effects and the feat itself).

or

(3)  "Keen Edge" is a mistake, despite being a primary source (though by defintion it *cannot be wrong* .

or

(4)  "Keen Edge' ONLY applies to Improved Critical being teated as an "effect," and has no bearing whatsoever on any other feats.

If (1), then monks take INA, no question.  

If (2), which is my position, then we cannot know *for sure* which way effects should be read in the monk's class descirption and maybe monks can take INA, and maybe not, and a FAQ entry was needed to clear it all up.

If (3), then again we do not know which way to treat "effects" in the monk class description - we have no way of knowing if WotC is making the same error there or not.  The FAQ entry clears this up and pretty much clearly states that the error (if you believe it to be one) was intentional.

(4) Is a red herring and not worthy of serious consideration.  Only included for completeness.

If we accept that the primary source rules *cannot be wrong*, then (2) is the best choice to tie it all together in an acceptable way where no rules are incorrect.  That still (even after the FAQ) leaves us in some doubt as to *when* "effects" is meant to broadly include that which causes the effect (feats, et.al) and when it is meant to be only the actual "effect" of the feat, spell, etc.  I don't think it's that hard to figure out from context, though, but others will certainly disgaree.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 28, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> Cool, where can I find that?




Well, WotC does not claarly state what the FAQ is supposed to do and where it's limits are.  However, here's what I could find:

_"Do you have questions about the D&D game rules? Download the official FAQ that best suits your needs."

"If you have a question about the D&D game rules, you might find them within this FAQ."_

That's it for the FAQ.  Kind of vague on what it *is* and *is not*, other than "offical."

On errata:

_"Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. 

One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning
of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities."_

Note that WotC does NOT say that the only place for rules changes is errata, and they further do NOT say what priority the FAQ has as a "Primary Source."

Everything else about the FAQ as a rules source is assumptions and conjecture.

I assume that WotC has decide they can change the rules in the FAQ and that this becomes the new rule - I assume so because they have in fact done this.

This may even be appropriate.  Errata is typically NOT for rules changes, but for fixing errors in the intial publication.  Typically, rules changes would be published some other way other than errata.  Wotc seems to have chosen the FAQ for this, but they won't quite come out and say it.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 28, 2006)

So...there is an official, centralized repository that addresses alterations of function, clarifications to intent, and in general answers questions about every other published document related to the 3.5 Edition of the D&D rules (other than mistake corrections, which are appropriately located in errata files, separately contained for each document). 

To my thinking (and absent of any published instructions to refute this thought), that places the FAQ at the very top of the rules hierarchy. 

Cedric


----------



## Deset Gled (Sep 28, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Errata is typically NOT for rules changes, but for fixing errors in the intial publication.  Typically, rules changes would be published some other way other than errata.  Wotc seems to have chosen the FAQ for this, but they won't quite come out and say it.






			
				Cedric said:
			
		

> To my thinking (and absent of any published instructions to refute this thought), that places the FAQ at the very top of the rules hierarchy.




I simply do not understand how you can reach this conclusion without completely ignoring the Primary Source rule.  Any time a secondary publication (like the FAQ) states a rule that is different (regardless of it it is intentional or accidental) than what is published in the SRDs, it is in disagreement with the primary source.  And we have a clear and unambiguous rule that states that when we find disagreements like that, the primary source (not the secondary FAQ) is correct.  Also, there is precedent for rules changes to come from errata.  Polymorph in particular comes to mind.

Rules changes cannot come from anywhere but errata, per WotCs own "official" decision.


----------



## Pinotage (Sep 28, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> Cool, where can I find that?




I haven't seen anything on their site other than one of the Star Wars Jedi Counselling articles a few months back saying exactly what the rules preference was, and it was as is commonly understood - primary source, errata, FAQ, website article or something like that.

Pinotage


----------



## Cedric (Sep 28, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> I simply do not understand how you can reach this conclusion without completely ignoring the Primary Source rule.  Any time a secondary publication (like the FAQ) states a rule that is different (regardless of it it is intentional or accidental) than what is published in the SRDs, it is in disagreement with the primary source.  And we have a clear and unambiguous rule that states that when we find disagreements like that, the primary source (not the secondary FAQ) is correct.  Also, there is precedent for rules changes to come from errata.  Polymorph in particular comes to mind.




Since the FAQ is a centralized document that houses clarifications of intent and alterations of function for the rules of every other publication, I consider it to be a Primary Source. The Primary Source statement in the preface of the errata does not address what place in the rules Hierarchy the FAQ fills and seems clearly targetted at other published rulebooks, not an overseeing document like the FAQ. So I'm not sure how you can just arbitrarily say the FAQ is secondary. 

Now, if WotC has taken the stance that the FAQ is secondary to the rulebooks it's clarifying (in terms of which takes primacy), I will gladly accept that if you can direct me to where I can find that statement of intent. Though, it would seem odd to publish an FAQ that restates or alters rules and at the same time place it in a position secondary to tbe book it is referring too. 



			
				Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Rules changes cannot come from anywhere but errata, per WotCs own "official" decision.




I've not found where this has been stated. I can certainly see how a posting from a WotC moderator on a forum on their boards would not be official, that makes perfect sense. But nothing I've seen from WotC declares the "Official" FAQ to be incapable of altering the manner in which a rule is used to an extent that many would consider it a revision.


----------



## glass (Sep 28, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> "Keen Edge" *is* Primary Source.



Primary source for what?

_EDIT: I hope we can agree that it certainly not the primary source for how the monks special abilities work. We can agree that that would be the monk description in the Classes chapter, right?_


glass.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 28, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> Primary source for what?
> 
> _EDIT: I hope we can agree that it certainly not the primary source for how the monks special abilities work. We can agree that that would be the monk description in the Classes chapter, right?_
> 
> ...




Primary source for how "effects" is used in the core rules.  The spell text comes right from the core rules, and, since there is no defintion of "effects", the spell text is just as authoritataive as any other PHB text in explaining what "effects" actually means.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 28, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> In many courts the Prosection and Defense will provide dismissals by Potential Juror Number to the judge in front of the Jury Pool, but without reasons for dismissal. So you won't know why, but you'll know if it was Prosecution or Defense that dismissed you.



 Intriguing.  We are sent out of the court room while the defense and prosecutors choose the jury, apparently with the defendant/plaintiffs/currently available witnesses still present.  I was not chosen in the two times I went and I have no real idea why, though I have my hunches.  Quite honestly, though, I like it better this way. 


			
				KD said:
			
		

> Typical.



 Only typical.  And, I was thinking the same thing.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 29, 2006)

> I was on a jury a while back, for an Assault case.
> 
> The guy who got hit said "He hit me."
> The two witnesses said "He was kneeling on the guy's chest, punching him in the face."
> ...




YIKES! 

I was only involved in the criminal side of the law for a couple of weeks (as a Dallas Public Defender Temporary Intern) and even I can see that was a mess!

The prosecutor should have polled the jury- that way he'd have found out that the jury reached an improper (in)decision by assuming facts not in evidence.  That is, they assumed a defense that was not offered at trial and used that as a basis for their decision...probably in direct violation of the jury charge as well. 

That would have been a mistrial and thus time for...<ding!> Round 2!

That DA must have been asleep at the switch...or at least operating under a different set of procedural rules than I'm used to.  Where was this?


----------



## Legildur (Sep 29, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> To my thinking (and absent of any published instructions to refute this thought), that places the FAQ at the very top of the rules hierarchy.



You are joking, right?

Ignoring (for the moment) that the 'published hierarchy' has not yet been sourced, several people have made reference to it, so that it reasonable evidence that it exists (although I do agree that the lack of it does cast some doubt on that).  I have also read numerous criticisms about WotC misusing the FAQ in a way contrary to their own stated purposes in previous threads about INA (there was one thread nearing 1000 posts before it was closed) 

But the plain language used to describe the various documents is, in itself, indicative of their standing.  Did you see the Polymorph changes come through the FAQ?  No.  Nor did they come through the Rules of the Game, or the Customer Service desk.  They came through errata for a good reason.

FAQs are used the world over by a multitude of organisational types for a large variety of reasons.  In my job, we use them to help explain changes to legislation and other guidelines.  What they do not carry is any sort of legal power or authority - those powers are invested in things like the legislation itself, the guidelines to the legislation, regulations, explanatory memoranda, second reading speeches to parliament, and court decisions.  It wouldn't matter what any FAQ said, no matter who backed it, it doesn't carry any weight.

So I would find it next to impossible to to provide any great store in the FAQ as an authoritive rules source, let alone place it at the top of the heap.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 29, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> That would have been a mistrial and thus time for...<ding!> Round 2!




I think, with the hung vote, the case went to a retrial a couple of months later anyway.  But I couldn't swear to it.



> Where was this?




New Zealand, so likely yes, some different rules 

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 29, 2006)

Legildur said:
			
		

> ...Ignoring (for the moment) that the 'published hierarchy' has not yet been sourced...




See post 382.  Primary Sources rule quote is from 3.5 PHB errata.   First FAQ quote is from FAQ web site, second is from inside the 3.5 FAQ.

There.  Now it's sourced.


----------



## Legildur (Sep 29, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> See post 382.  Primary Sources rule quote is from 3.5 PHB errata.   First FAQ quote is from FAQ web site, second is from inside the 3.5 FAQ.
> 
> There.  Now it's sourced.



Thanks.  But that's not the quote I recall from previous discussions....  It was something more concrete than that.  But it could have been a collectively formed opinion as part of previous discussions rather than WotC statement - I wouldn't have said so, but I am entertaining the possibility.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 29, 2006)

Legildur said:
			
		

> You are joking, right?




Hehe, if other people can argue the meaning and use of the word "effects"...and also argue that Humans can't take "Monster" feats (despite them being labeled as [General]) because they aren't monsters...

Then I can certainly point out that there is no published hierarchy and, using reasonable logic, apply my own interpretation. 

Of course, you could argue with what I consider "reasonable logic". 

But let's review for a moment...

Typically errata is used to correct "mistakes". WotC uses errata for this purpose, however has a statement specifying that the errata is only used for game relevant mistakes, and does not include typo's and the like. The counter argument is that WotC errata has gone beyond just mild corrections, however seems to have done so only in cases where a complete rewrite of the existing rule seems to be necessary. 

An FAQ addresses answers to questions and clarifications to ambiguous rules. The amazing amount of debate on this topic makes it crystal clear that this rule is ambiguous. Were it to be flat wrong or right one way or another, the community would not be split along such dramatic lines. You can argue until you are blue in the face that no ambiguity exists, however to do so is to basically disregard the opinion of about half of the D&D community. 

I find it simple and clear that a statement in an FAQ would take precident over the book it was clarifying. Now, if it was a casual FAQ, lacking appropriate revision documentation, I would disregard it's validity. 

However, this is an official FAQ with all of the necessary trappings to establish its validity. 

...and that's the logic I applied and why I'm not joking. 

Cedric


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 29, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> You can argue until you are blue in the face that no ambiguity exists, however to do so is to basically disregard the opinion of about half of the D&D community.




If we take this poll as representative, 73% of the D&D community agrees that no ambiguity exists.

-Hyp.


----------



## Legildur (Sep 29, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> However, this is an official FAQ with all of the necessary trappings to establish its validity.



I can see why you would reach this conclusion.  But then the FAQ 'officially' allows someone to 'feint' as a move action.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 29, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If we take this poll as representative, 73% of the D&D community agrees that no ambiguity exists.
> 
> -Hyp.




That would mean more if it was 73% on one side of the argument, but it's not. It's almost 50% saying yes...almost 24% saying no...and another chunk saying both arguments have vaildity. 

Furthermore, the question in this poll never asked, "Do you understand how someone could find ambiguity with the INA Feat as it applies to monks and their eligibility for the feat?"

The question asks if you are certain a monk can or cannot take the feat. Subtle but clear difference.

I am certain they can, but also can understand how a person might interpret it differently...I just feel they are mistaken.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 29, 2006)

Legildur said:
			
		

> I can see why you would reach this conclusion.  But then the FAQ 'officially' allows someone to 'feint' as a move action.




Ok...I fail to see your point. A feint should be a move action. What would you have it be? A feint is a mock blow to distract your opponent for the purpose of landing an immediate attack from another direction. 

Sounds like a move action.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 29, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> Ok...I fail to see your point. A feint should be a move action. What would you have it be? A feint is a mock blow to distract your opponent for the purpose of landing an immediate attack from another direction.
> 
> Sounds like a move action.





_*Feinting in Combat:* You can also use Bluff to mislead an opponent in melee combat (so that it can’t dodge your next attack effectively). To feint, make a Bluff check opposed by your target’s Sense Motive check, but in this case, the target may add its base attack bonus to the roll along with any other applicable modifiers. If your Bluff check result exceeds this special Sense Motive check result, your target is denied its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) for the next melee attack you make against it. This attack must be made on or before your next turn.

Feinting in this way against a nonhumanoid is difficult because it’s harder to read a strange creature’s body language; you take a –4 penalty on your Bluff check. Against a creature of animal Intelligence (1 or 2) it’s even harder; you take a –8 penalty. Against a nonintelligent creature, it’s impossible.

Feinting in combat does not provoke an attack of opportunity.

*Action:* Varies. A Bluff check made as part of general interaction always takes at least 1 round (and is at least a full-round action), but it can take much longer if you try something elaborate. *A Bluff check made to feint in combat or create a diversion to hide is a standard action.* A Bluff check made to deliver a secret message doesn’t take an action; it is part of normal communication._



> That would mean more if it was 73% on one side of the argument, but it's not. It's almost 50% saying yes...almost 24% saying no...and another chunk saying both arguments have vaildity.




73% of people chose an option that indicated "Both sides have some validity" is incorrect, and they were 100% certain of their answer.  To argue that there is ambiguity is to disregard the opinion of the majority of the D&D community*.

* assuming the poll to be representative.

-Hyp.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 29, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If your Bluff check result exceeds this special Sense Motive check result, your target is denied its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) for the next melee attack you make against it. *This attack must be made on or before your next turn.*




From the text I bolded, it seems to me it was meant to be a move action. Or am I missing something?

I'm not above being dense, it happens, so I'm honestly asking for someone to lay it out for me so I can see what I'm missing. I just thought if you bluffed as a standard action, you couldn't also attack (because you can't normally take a standard action and attack in the same round since that's also a standard action). And, if you had to attack (as a result of your feint) on or before your next turn, how would you ever attack before your next turn? 

I get how you could attack on your next turn, that's clear to me. But unless it was meant to be a move action how would you attack before your next turn? 

I never had a problem with the FAQ clarifying that. 

As to ambiguity...there is a big difference between the two statements:

1. I believe the rule is ambiguous.

2. I understand how someone could reasonably think the rule is ambiguous. 

Those are NOT the same thing. Just because I have conviction for my reading of the rules, doesn't mean I think other people's opinion lack worth or was ill conceived.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 29, 2006)

With around 200 responses, its a pretty good sample.  If it gets another 800 or so, you could consider it representative.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 29, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> From the text I bolded, it seems to me it was meant to be a move action. Or am I missing something?




Despite where it says "A Bluff check made to feint in combat is a standard action", or where the Improved Feint feat says "Normal: Feinting in combat is a standard action", or where Table 8-2 lists "Feint (see page 155)" under "Standard Action"?



> I just thought if you bluffed as a standard action, you couldn't also attack (because you can't normally take a standard action and attack in the same round since that's also a standard action). And, if you had to attack (as a result of your feint) on or before your next turn, how would you ever attack before your next turn?




If the person you feinted provokes an AoO, you'd get an attack before your next turn.  A Choker (with Quickness [Su]) could feint as a standard action and attack before his next turn.  Various ways exist in splatbooks - Snake's Swiftness from Spell Compendium, for example.

Feint is definitely a standard action.

-Hyp.


----------



## geosapient (Sep 29, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> _Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons._
> 
> A monk receives additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using unarmed strikes.
> 
> ...





I thought this was about monks and not creatures? I think it is clear that since a monk counts his fists, feet, head, etc. as both manufactured _and_ natural weapons that they also be eligible for feats from both categories.

I believe that there is a definite line between monks, creatures and creatures with monk levels.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 29, 2006)

geosapient said:
			
		

> I thought this was about monks and not creatures?




You don't think monks are creatures?

When Disintegrate, for example, says "Any creature struck by the ray takes 2d6 damage per caster level..." does that not apply to monks?



> I think it is clear that since a monk counts his fists, feet, head, etc. as both manufactured _and_ natural weapons that they also be eligible for feats from both categories.




He doesn't count them as both manufactured and natural weapons.  He counts them as both manufactured and natural weapons for purposes of spells and effects that improve or enhance manufactured or natural weapons.  That's what a sizeable fraction of the last ten pages have been about.

-Hyp.


----------



## geosapient (Sep 29, 2006)

brendan candries said:
			
		

> could someone clarify why a monk would qualify for INA and not, say, every humanoid of whatever class?




Because the monk has seen the potential in using his/her own body as a weapon much like creatures do. They then trained their body to be that weapon (which is likely the reason that they -start- with improved unarmed strike).

If a fighter took improved unarmed strike then I would argue for them also being able to take improved natural attack.


----------



## geosapient (Sep 29, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> You don't think monks are creatures?
> 
> When Disintegrate, for example, says "Any creature struck by the ray takes 2d6 damage per caster level..." does that not apply to monks?
> 
> ...




No. I don't consider monks to be creatures... I consider the race that has monk levels to be the creature. Human would be a creature, elf would be a creature, gnome would be a ...er something, halfling would be a creature.

Monk would be a class, fighter would be a class, wizard would be a class.

And before you start arguing then why humans as creatures don't count their appendages as natural attacks...
Humans are creatures that get more skill points and an extra feat. Elves are creatures that get mental resistances and bonuses to skills.

Monk is a class that just happens to treat unarmed attacks as natural and manufactured weapons _for the purposes of effects_ (whatever that may or may not mean to you and everyone else).

And as far as _sizeable fraction of the last ten pages_ is concerned I'm trying to get through them. If I don't post as I go I might forget what I want to say.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 29, 2006)

> He counts them as both manufactured and natural weapons for purposes of spells and effects that improve or enhance manufactured or natural weapons.  That's what a sizeable fraction of the last ten pages have been about.




IOW- does the phrase in the monk section (or any other portions of the core) allow the monk's strikes qualify as both targets *&* prereqs for INA.


----------



## geosapient (Sep 29, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> No.  That's just too good to allow, and logic can be applied to prevent that from happening though, strictly rules-speaking, probably yes.
> 
> Of course, even at that what really bad things would happen?  The monk would use up two very valuable feats to get a two-step increase in damage, right?  Hardly game-breaking.  It might actually make them more-or-less effective in offensive combat.  (ooohhh - scary stuff  )




I'm confused by this post. Up to this point he was for improved unarmed attack. Is this serious? Is he being sarcastic? Is he just trying to make a failed attempt at pointing out ambiguity?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 29, 2006)

He's still Pro-INA.

He is probably one of the people who believe that the monk is underpowered as a melee combatant, and that INA puts them more in line with other melee classes.


----------



## geosapient (Sep 29, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> He's still Pro-INA.
> 
> He is probably one of the people who believe that the monk is underpowered as a melee combatant, and that INA puts them more in line with other melee classes.




Up to that point yes. But there he is denying the stacking of improved unarmed strike and improved natural attack. (?)


----------



## geosapient (Sep 29, 2006)

Nail said:
			
		

> But we can agree that "effect" is different than "prerequisite", right?  No ambiguity there.




Actually, Some prestige classes have prerequisites of spell casting ability even if the spell casting ability is just a spell like effect.

The effect then becomes a prerequisite.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 29, 2006)

geosapient said:
			
		

> Actually, Some prestige classes have prerequisites of spell casting ability even if the spell casting ability is just a spell like effect.
> 
> The effect then becomes a prerequisite.




No, the effect _satisfies_ the prerequisite.

A prerequisite doesn't _do_ anything; it's a requirement.  What it is that is required might be a thing that does something.

-Hyp.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 29, 2006)

> Up to that point yes. But there he is denying the stacking of improved unarmed strike and improved natural attack. (?)




Nah.  He's using sarcasm.


----------



## geosapient (Sep 29, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> No, the effect _satisfies_ the prerequisite.
> 
> A prerequisite doesn't _do_ anything; it's a requirement.  What it is that is required might be a thing that does something.
> 
> -Hyp.




I often times think of meeting the prerequisite as having the preprequisite. I guess it is flawed logic.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 29, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Despite where it says "A Bluff check made to feint in combat is a standard action", or where the Improved Feint feat says "Normal: Feinting in combat is a standard action", or where Table 8-2 lists "Feint (see page 155)" under "Standard Action"?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Oh...I fully realize that the rules originally had it listed in multiple places as a Standard action. However, it's clear to me from the logic of what it is and how its used, as well as from the revision in the FAQ, that Feint is a move action. 

But, then again, I'm of the opinion that the "Official" FAQ is actually Official and rests at the top of the rules hierarchy, since it is a central repository for clarifications and revisions to all other 3.5 Documents.


----------



## Legildur (Sep 29, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> Oh...I fully realize that the rules originally had it listed in multiple places as a Standard action. However, it's clear to me from the logic of what it is and how its used, as well as from the revision in the FAQ, that Feint is a move action.



Really?  Here is a quote from the FAQ, word for word, where it says that feinting is a move action (from the 9/20/06 version, but it's been there for a few versions now) [relevant text highlighted in yellow]:



> *Can a monk make disarm, sunder, and trip attacks during her flurry of blows? What about grapple checks? What about bull rushes, overruns, or other special combat maneuvers?*
> As long as every attack is made with one of the monk’s special weapons (that is, weapons allowed as part of a flurry), the monk can perform any special attack that takes the place of a normal attack. She’s free to disarm, sunder, trip, and grapple to her heart’s content.
> She couldn’t bull rush or overrun (since those don’t use special monk weapons), nor could she aid another (which requires a standard action) *or feint (which requires a move action).*



It is quite clearly wrong and contradictory to all other sources on using the Bluff skill to feint in combat.

Your take would require ignoring the PHB in several places (as pointed out by Hypersmurf in an earlier post) and making wholly redundant the Improved Feint feat (PHB p95) and some Prestige Classes (the Invisible Blade from Complete Warrior being one of those with its _uncanny feint_ special ability).  It is also contradictory to the Rules of the Game: Actions (part four) article where it has the following to say about feinting in combat:



> *Feint:* *Feinting is a standard action* you use in melee combat. It does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
> 
> The rules don't say so, but you may want to assume that your foe does not notice a successful feint attempt. If a player character is subjected to feint attempt, the DM should make the required opposed check (see page 155 in the Player's Handbook) secretly. *To take advantage of a successful feint, you must make a melee attack against your foe on or before your next turn.* If you cannot make the attack in time, the feint is wasted.
> 
> *The Improved Feint feat allows you to feint as a move action.*



I only use the feint example as a way of undermining the credibility of the FAQ as a rules source.  I think the FAQ is a useful document, but hardly the last word on the rules.  And yes, there are other examples of clear errors in the FAQ.


----------



## Krelios (Sep 29, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Hmmm. Interesting. I can see the correlation (prosecution cases are probably often dependent on eye witness testimony), and of course, that does match my personal POV.
> 
> 
> Interesting story that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. My wife, a friend, his wife and myself were walking near my old university campus. A drunk driver uses his car to crash through the locked gates at an entrance, spins around and leaves. My wife got a good description of the driver and his shirt. My friend got the make and model of the car. His wife got the color of the car. I got the license plate number. Between us, we had enough substantial information that the police were able to pick the guy up at his apartment in a matter of 10 minutes while he was still intoxicated. And, each of us had totally different eye witness testimony.



Eyewitnesses were great for identifying the man and giving the police a place to start, but if he hadn't been drunk and his car hadn't been damaged, you would likely not have gotten a conviction. Just because four people said something happened, doesn't mean it did.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 29, 2006)

To add to what Legildur stated:



> Can a monk make disarm, sunder, and trip attacks during her flurry of blows? What about grapple checks? What about bull rushes, overruns, or other special combat maneuvers?
> As long as *every* attack is made with one of the monk’s *special weapons (that is, weapons allowed as part of a flurry)*, the monk can perform any special attack that takes the place of a normal attack. She’s free to disarm, sunder, *trip*, and *grapple* to her heart’s content.
> She couldn’t bull rush or overrun (since those don’t use special monk weapons), nor could she aid another (which requires a standard action) or feint (which requires a move action).




This same entry is also misleading (or incorrect) in that it indicates that a Monk can just trip or grapple with a special weapon (unless it is a Kama and that does not allow one to grapple). The Monk can trip with a normal unarmed strike Flurry or a normal unarmed strike attack or even with Improved Trip, and I think this is what this was attempting to say. But, the core Monk special weapons  do not add the ability to trip (except with a Kama) or grapple with them.

The person who wrote this either did not know what he was talking about, or he was just plain careless. Either way, this paragraph is worthless as an official source because the very reason to come to the FAQ is because a person is confused. Coming to the FAQ and getting a confusing or misleading answer is not what you want to do.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 29, 2006)

Krelios said:
			
		

> Eyewitnesses were great for identifying the man and giving the police a place to start, but if he hadn't been drunk and his car hadn't been damaged, you would likely not have gotten a conviction. Just because four people said something happened, doesn't mean it did.




Precisely.

Eyewitness testimony should be allowed to gain additional information, but one should not build a case on it. And that is the fine line I think many jurors do not quite understand when listening to evidence.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 29, 2006)

Ok, I can see now why people feel the FAQ has mistakes in it (and I would agree). However, finding mistakes in a document does not (as much as we would like it too) provide grounds for dismissing the document whole cloth. 

There is a process to write Cust Serv and request that perceived mistakes in the FAQ be addressed. If you disagree with a statement in the FAQ and have not taken advantage of this service, then you have little reason to complain. 

If you have written Cust Serv, then all I can do is, encourage your patience and suggest that you promote the need for your peers to also write and request a correction to the FAQ. 

However, none of those things allow the FAQ to be set aside and disregarded. If you could disregard every rule source that contained an error, we'd be out of rules sources. 

So until their is a revision to the FAQ, Monks can "Officially" take INA, as approved by the primary, overseeing rules document, the FAQ (in my opinion).


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 29, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> However, none of those things allow the FAQ to be set aside and disregarded. If you could disregard every rule source that contained an error, we'd be out of rules sources.



 But then neither can assume that every rule is correct.  For you to quote the FAQ as the defining rule on monks and INA, you have to accept the rule about feinting.  You don't have a choice if you want to be consistent.  The alternate is to merely accept the FAQ as guidance and use the actual rules to disprove/approve the FAQ clarifications.  What this all means is that the FAQ is not as important as you think it is because for every answer it provides, you need to concur with that answer.  You cannot just take it as is.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 29, 2006)

geosapient said:
			
		

> I'm confused by this post. Up to this point he was for improved unarmed attack. Is this serious? Is he being sarcastic? Is he just trying to make a failed attempt at pointing out ambiguity?




Actually, in another post I have noted that I do not have a firm opinion on monks and INA from a game balance perspective.

The quoted post of mine is addressing about game balance only, and has nothing to do with whether monks can take INA per the rules.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 29, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> But then neither can assume that every rule is correct.  For you to quote the FAQ as the defining rule on monks and INA, you have to accept the rule about feinting.  You don't have a choice if you want to be consistent.  The alternate is to merely accept the FAQ as guidance and use the actual rules to disprove/approve the FAQ clarifications.  What this all means is that the FAQ is not as important as you think it is because for every answer it provides, you need to concur with that answer.  You cannot just take it as is.




I do accept the rule on feinting, because it's in the FAQ (I think it's wrong, but I accept it). Additionally, I am dispatching an email to WotC to have it reviewed.


----------



## Nail (Sep 29, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> I do accept the rule on feinting, because it's in the FAQ (I think it's wrong, but I accept it).



Hmm.

The rule for feinting is _in the PH_.  The FAQ is an attempt at clarifying rules found _in the PH_.  When you want to know what the rules are, you read _the PH_.  If you want to play the game 3.5e D&D, you must purchase _a PH_.....


....are you seeing a pattern here?

Why accept a rule because it's in the FAQ?  That's not what a FAQ is for.  The rules are in the PH.  Period.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 29, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> The Monk can trip with a normal unarmed strike Flurry or a normal unarmed strike attack or even with Improved Trip, and I think this is what this was attempting to say.




Actually, I disagree... an unarmed strike is not a trip weapon.  If you don't have a trip weapon, you trip as an unarmed attack... you're not tripping _with your unarmed strike_ like you would _with a sickle_ or _with a flail_.

If you're Flurrying, no Trip unless you have a kama.

-Hyp.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 29, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Actually, I disagree... an unarmed strike is not a trip weapon.  If you don't have a trip weapon, you trip as an unarmed attack... you're not tripping _with your unarmed strike_ like you would _with a sickle_ or _with a flail_.
> 
> If you're Flurrying, no Trip unless you have a kama.
> 
> -Hyp.




I understand your POV, but this is not totally clearcut:



> Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed —that is, you do not provoke attacks of opportunity from armed opponents *when you attack them while unarmed*. However, you still get an attack of opportunity against any opponent who makes an unarmed attack on you.






> Making a Trip Attack: Make an *unarmed* melee touch attack against your target. This provokes an attack of opportunity from your target as normal for unarmed attacks.




Is a creature not attacking an opponent while unarmed when it makes a Trip attack?

From this, an unarmed strike is not just hitting your opponent. It is any unarmed attack.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 29, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> From this, an unarmed strike is not just hitting your opponent. It is any unarmed attack.




I would say, rather, that the benefit of the Improved Unarmed Strike feat applies to any unarmed attack, whether or not it is made with your unarmed strike.

Just like the Deflect Arrows feat lets you deflect a projectile whether or not it is an arrow; the name of the feat does not limit the benefit.

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 30, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I would say, rather, that the benefit of the Improved Unarmed Strike feat applies to any unarmed attack, whether or not it is made with your unarmed strike.
> 
> Just like the Deflect Arrows feat lets you deflect a projectile whether or not it is an arrow; the name of the feat does not limit the benefit.
> 
> -Hyp.




Unarmed Srikes are simply another word for Unarmed Attacks.  Nothing in the rules suggests or implies you cannot trip with an unarmed strike.



			
				srd said:
			
		

> "Armed" Unarmed Attacks
> Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed...
> 
> Unarmed Strike Damage
> ...






			
				srd said:
			
		

> Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons
> This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon’s size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon.
> 
> Light
> ...




And there are other examples, too.  Unarmed Attack = Unarmed Strike.  There is no distinction.

An unarmed strike MIGHT be considered on of the options you can make with an unarmed attack.  Even still, when making an unarmed strike you ARE making an unarmed attack, and therefore you could choose to trip instead of doing damage.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 30, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Unarmed Srikes are simply another word for Unarmed Attacks.  Nothing in the rules suggests or implies you cannot trip with an unarmed strike.




All the weapons you can trip with note in their description "This weapon can be used to make trip attacks".  Unarmed Strike's description says nothing of the sort.



> And there are other examples, too.  Unarmed Attack = Unarmed Strike.  There is no distinction.




That example shows that unarmed strikes are unarmed attacks; it does not show that all unarmed attacks are unarmed strikes.



> Even still, when making an unarmed strike you ARE making an unarmed attack, and therefore you could choose to trip instead of doing damage.




You're making an unarmed attack with an unarmed strike, whose description does not include the ability to trip... unlike every weapon which _can_ be used to trip.

-Hyp.


----------



## Slaved (Sep 30, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> All the weapons you can trip with note in their description "This weapon can be used to make trip attacks".  Unarmed Strike's description says nothing of the sort.




Does it have to?



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> TRIP
> You can try to trip an opponent as an unarmed melee attack. You can only trip an opponent who is one size category larger than you, the same size, or smaller.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 30, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> ...You're making an unarmed attack with an unarmed strike, whose description does not include the ability to trip... unlike every weapon which _can_ be used to trip.
> 
> -Hyp.




An "unarmed strike" in not weapon.  It is very much like one, but it is not one.  It does need a "Trip" ability described as "Trip" weapons do because it is NOT a physical weapon.

"You can try to trip an opponent as an unarmed melee attack."  An "unarmed strike" [/b]_is[/b]_ an unarmed melee attack.

Done.  Simple, eh?  Do not try and make this harder than it is.

_Note that you do NOT provoke an AoO for tripping when you have Improved Unarmed Strike!

"You are considered to be armed even when unarmed —that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed."

"Making a Trip Attack
Make an unarmed melee touch attack against your target. This provokes an attack of opportunity from your target as normal for unarmed attacks. "

Cool, eh?_


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 30, 2006)

Artoomis, these two statements of yours directly contradict each other.


			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> Not all unarmed melee attacks are unarmed strikes, but all unarmed strikes are unarmed melee attacks.





			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> Unarmed Attack = Unarmed Strike. There is no distinction.



 What gives?  Which one do you support?


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 30, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Artoomis, these two statements of yours directly contradict each other.
> 
> What gives?  Which one do you support?




I changed my mind. 

In any case, you most certainly can use any of your monk's unarmed attacks to trip someone, and you will not provoke an AoO when you do so.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 30, 2006)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Does it have to?




Certainly.

"You can try to trip an opponent as an unarmed melee attack."

So, what are the things we can do as an unarmed melee attack?

1. Use unarmed strike to deal damage.
2. Attempt to trip our opponent.
3. Initiate a grapple.
4. Anything else that's defined...

-Hyp.


----------



## Slaved (Oct 1, 2006)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Certainly.




Why? I do not find the list you gave after this as at all convincing or helpful on the subject from a rules basis.


----------



## Legildur (Oct 1, 2006)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Why? I do not find the list you gave after this as at all convincing or helpful on the subject from a rules basis.



Further down in the trip description it says the following:



> _Avoiding Attacks of Opportunity_
> If you have the Improved Trip feat, or if you are tripping with a weapon (see below), you don’t provoke an attack of opportunity for making a trip attack.



and



> *Tripping with a Weapon*
> Some weapons can be used to make trip attacks. In this case, you make a melee touch attack with the weapon instead of an unarmed melee touch attack, and you don’t provoke an attack of opportunity.



While unarmed strike = unarmed attack, the reverse is not universally true.  For example, notice that the Weapon Focus feat description lists unarmed strike and grapple as two separate options.


----------



## Slaved (Oct 1, 2006)

Legildur said:
			
		

> Further down in the trip description it says the following:




None of those answer the question though. They dont even go against anything in the thread relating in the other direction.


----------



## Kem (Oct 1, 2006)

Nail said:
			
		

> Hmm.
> 
> The rule for feinting is _in the PH_.  The FAQ is an attempt at clarifying rules found _in the PH_.




Actually, that question is not about Feinting.  It just has feinting in it.  As such I can accept it just fine as an error because the person providing the answer was answering a different question, not one about feinting.

Had the question itself involved Feinting, or if Feinting was important for the answer, THEN I might have an issue with it.  But it wasn't.  It was a side comment that doesn't even change the answer provided if it was standard action instead of move action.


----------



## Legildur (Oct 1, 2006)

Kem said:
			
		

> Actually, that question is not about Feinting.  It just has feinting in it.  As such I can accept it just fine as an error because the person providing the answer was answering a different question, not one about feinting.
> 
> Had the question itself involved Feinting, or if Feinting was important for the answer, THEN I might have an issue with it.  But it wasn't.  It was a side comment that doesn't even change the answer provided if it was standard action instead of move action.



Ahhh, so you choose to be selective about which parts of the FAQ you use because you acknowledge parts of it have errors.  Now then, how do we know which parts have errors?


----------



## Legildur (Oct 1, 2006)

Slaved said:
			
		

> None of those answer the question though. They dont even go against anything in the thread relating in the other direction.



Okay, I'll throw this in (but I'll soon end up quoting the the entire text at this rate)[my emphasis]:



> *Making a Trip Attack*
> Make an unarmed melee touch attack against your target. This provokes an attack of opportunity from your target as normal for unarmed attacks.



An unarmed strike is NOT an unarmed melee touch attack.  Same with initiating a grapple.


----------



## Kem (Oct 1, 2006)

Legildur said:
			
		

> Ahhh, so you choose to be selective about which parts of the FAQ you use because you acknowledge parts of it have errors.  Now then, how do we know which parts have errors?




Same as I do with the Player's Handbook.

Just like if I want to know about a spell I go to its entry.  If some other table, or chart, or section mentions something about the spell, and its wrong, I ignore it in favor of the actual entry.

If I have a question about something I go to a FAQ entry that deals with it.  I don't bother reading every question to see if one might off handedly refer to it.  If one does refer to what I have a question about, it _can_ be wrong, just like the Quick Reference Spell Chart can be wrong in the PHB.

This is a case of asking a direct question, Can a Monk Take INA and get the Benefit.  Not a case of an off hand comment as it is with feint.  (How is it off-hand?  You can remove the reference to Feint and the question is still answered).


----------



## Legildur (Oct 1, 2006)

Kem said:
			
		

> Same as I do with the Player's Handbook.
> 
> Just like if I want to know about a spell I go to its entry.  If some other table, or chart, or section mentions something about the spell, and its wrong, I ignore it in favor of the actual entry.
> 
> ...



Post errata, are there any contradictions within the PHB?

The rules about text versus tables is clearly articulated in the errata docs.  So there is nothing new there.

You may consider the 'feint as move action' as an off-hand comment (and I agree to an extent), but that paragraph goes to some pains to spell out what other options are not available.  The answer is just plain wrong (as is the reference to Sunder in the paragraph above that).  As I explained earlier, I'm simply using it as an example as to the accuracy (or lack thereof) of the FAQ, and what that may imply about the document as a whole as regards to underpinning any rules discussion.

And a general question, did the current Sage (author of the FAQ?) write the INA feat for the MM?  I'm guessing not, so that would imply that the FAQ answer on INA is someone else's take on whom can take the feat.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for monks taking INA for all the reasons others have discussed, except that I believe it requires a DM to invoke rule #1.


----------



## FireLance (Oct 1, 2006)

Common law does distinguish between _ratio decidendi_ ("the reason or rationale for the decision"), which stand as potentially binding precedent, and _obiter dictum_ (a statement said "by the way"), a remark or observation made by a judge that, while included in the body of the court's opinion, does not form a necessary part of the court's decision, and does not set a binding precedent.

In the case of the FAQ on what the monk can do in a flurry of blows, the _ratio decidendi_ is essentially whether the action can be done with a special monk weapon and can take the place of an attack (yes) or either cannot be done with a special monk weapon or cannot take the place of an attack, e.g. because it requires a standard action or move action (no). The FAQ was inaccurate in calling a feint a move action, since it is only a move action if you have Improved Feint, but that to me is _obiter dictum_.

Of course your DM is the highest court of appeal and can overturn precedent if he wants to. However, in the same way that most legal systems the world over do not overturn precedent lightly, I tend to go with the FAQ unless it is obviously wrong or jars with my own sense of internal logic.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 1, 2006)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Of course your DM is the highest court of appeal and can overturn precedent if he wants to. However, in the same way that most legal systems the world over do not overturn precedent lightly, I tend to go with the FAQ unless it is obviously wrong or jars with my own sense of internal logic.




This equates the FAQ with Common Law. That's an assumption.

I equate the PHB/DMG/MM with Common Law.

I equate the FAQ with the Harvard Law Review (although not as error free). Interesting reading and has a lot of good tidbits in it, but not RAW.


----------



## Kem (Oct 1, 2006)

Legildur said:
			
		

> Post errata, are there any contradictions within the PHB?




Doesn't matter.



> The rules about text versus tables is clearly articulated in the errata docs.  So there is nothing new there.




And also the logical method to determine is something is right, even before the errata told me to do so.



> You may consider the 'feint as move action' as an off-hand comment (and I agree to an extent), but that paragraph goes to some pains to spell out what other options are not available.  The answer is just plain wrong (as is the reference to Sunder in the paragraph above that).  As I explained earlier, I'm simply using it as an example as to the accuracy (or lack thereof) of the FAQ, and what that may imply about the document as a whole as regards to underpinning any rules discussion.




The answer is right, the _exact_ explanation is wrong.  You cannot normally Feint as part of a flurry, even with improved feint.

However, if you had a question about Improved Feint or Regular Feint, you would NOT want to consider a question on Flurry of Blows as a reference.  You don't know what was left out of the FAQ question and answer.



> And a general question, did the current Sage (author of the FAQ?) write the INA feat for the MM?  I'm guessing not, so that would imply that the FAQ answer on INA is someone else's take on whom can take the feat.




WotC wrote it, WotC answered it.



> Don't get me wrong, I'm all for monks taking INA for all the reasons others have discussed, except that I believe it requires a DM to invoke rule #1.




Even before the FAQ I thought that monks could take it.  I never thought it was something that had to be "allowed".


----------



## FireLance (Oct 1, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> This equates the FAQ with Common Law. That's an assumption.
> 
> I equate the PHB/DMG/MM with Common Law.
> 
> I equate the FAQ with the Harvard Law Review (although not as error free). Interesting reading and has a lot of good tidbits in it, but not RAW.



Actually, I would equate the PHB/DMG/MM with the written laws of a country, as enacted by the Legislature. In most countries, the Legislature writes the law, but it does not interpret it. Interpretation of the law is left to the Courts (the Judiciary). Since I see the FAQ as an interpretation of the written law, clarifying how it should be applied, Court judgements are the closest analogue.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 1, 2006)

Legildur said:
			
		

> Post errata, are there any contradictions within the PHB?
> 
> The rules about text versus tables is clearly articulated in the errata docs.  So there is nothing new there.




Now you've entered into a whole mess you probably don't want to dig up.

Yes, there are contradictions in the core.  Yes, there are clearly flawed rules, which have not been erratted, but which pretty much everyone agrees are errors.

For example, in the DMG the prayer necklace has pricing that, if taken as written for not including certain beads in a set of beads when making the necklace, it would make the necklace in the very least free (and in some people's minds, you could gain money for making the necklace).  We all know they didn't mean that, and it didn't take errata to let us know they didn't mean that, but nevertheless the rule is there, and it is flawed.

Heck, even the expansion rules seem to directly modify the core rules at times as if the expansion were errata.  For example, I understand that the rule about losing most prestige class abilities if you lose a prerequisite for that prestige class comes from the Complete Warrior book.  Almost everyone plays with that rule as if it were core, despite it not being in a core book.  Because it makes sense!

No rules source is perfect and infallible and totally noncontradictory.  Not the core rules as written, not the errata (which last I heard created a mess with the wildshaping and polymorph rules) not the FAQ (like the feinting as a move action line), and not the expansion books.  

Every source has flaws.  It is not fair or logical to claim that if a source has one bad rule then the entire source cannot be trusted for any rules.  Given they were all made by humans, they are going to have flaws, and you can find a way to accept most of a body of rules without discarding the whole thing just because it isn't a perfect set of rules.

I choose to accept the core rules, the errata, the FAQ, and the expansion rules.  I know all four are not perfect, and some tend to be better than others.  But I think all four are overall valid, all four are official, and that the term "core" has no realistic meaning most of the time.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 1, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> This equates the FAQ with Common Law. That's an assumption.
> 
> I equate the PHB/DMG/MM with Common Law.
> 
> I equate the FAQ with the Harvard Law Review (although not as error free). Interesting reading and has a lot of good tidbits in it, but not RAW.



That works well for me.

Of course the rule that the word "effects" may not be used as part of standard english appears nowhere in your Common Law.  You are just declaring it.  That's an assumption.
It is an assumption that is not only unsupported by the common law, but it further directly contradicted by the Harvard Law Review.

I'll put the Harvard Law Review higher up the chain than I put the EnWorld Rules forum.  Particularly when to do otherwise flies in the face of simple english and goes out of its way to force a killjoy logic trap demanding absolute perfection in language over the assumption of the reader having the ability to make reasonable common sense judgements.


----------



## Legildur (Oct 1, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> Yes, there are contradictions in the core.  Yes, there are clearly flawed rules, which have not been erratted, but which pretty much everyone agrees are errors....
> 
> ....Every source has flaws.  It is not fair or logical to claim that if a source has one bad rule then the entire source cannot be trusted for any rules.  Given they were all made by humans, they are going to have flaws, and you can find a way to accept most of a body of rules without discarding the whole thing just because it isn't a perfect set of rules.



I actually asked specifically about the PHB, but I take your point on the DMG (although magical item pricing doesn't follow hard and fast rules - there are numerous examples of the pricing issue).

My only point is that for those who wish to hang their hat on the FAQ as the final word on everything, is that you can't do so reliably.  It contains errors and it is written by different people than those that wrote the original core rules (so you can't discern or claim original intent).

If Kem wants to take everything written by WotC as gospel, then that's fine by me, just don't use the FAQ as a source of justification given the problems it has had over the years.


----------



## Cedric (Oct 1, 2006)

Legildur said:
			
		

> I actually asked specifically about the PHB, but I take your point on the DMG (although magical item pricing doesn't follow hard and fast rules - there are numerous examples of the pricing issue).
> 
> My only point is that for those who wish to hang their hat on the FAQ as the final word on everything, is that you can't do so reliably.  It contains errors and it is written by different people than those that wrote the original core rules (so you can't discern or claim original intent).
> 
> If Kem wants to take everything written by WotC as gospel, then that's fine by me, just don't use the FAQ as a source of justification given the problems it has had over the years.




The FAQ is an official document, labelled as such by the publisher. It is complete with all of the necessary revision information, publishing info and legalize to establish its legitimacy. 

Just because you find an error or errors in the document, you cannot disregard the official nature of the document because "you don't like it." If you feel something needs to be changed in the FAQ, there is a feedback process for that as well. 

If WotC had intended for the document to not be "official"...they wouldn't have labelled it as such. 

For those who want to cite other examples in comparison, like consider the FAQ to be akin to Harvard Law Review...I think of it more like ISO-9000. There is a strict protocol to define what makes a document official. In following that protocol to the letter, there is no doubt (in my mind) that WotC intends the "official" FAQ to actually be official.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 2, 2006)

Legildur said:
			
		

> I actually asked specifically about the PHB




Fair enough.  There has been such a huge amount of errata for the PHB that I think it cannot really be argued with a straight face that the PHB was, or even is, error-free.  By definition, before every single new errata that is issued, there must have been some error.



> but I take your point on the DMG (although magical item pricing doesn't follow hard and fast rules - there are numerous examples of the pricing issue).




Note, I was not mentioning the pricing guidelines.  I was mentioning the actual rule for a particular magic item, and the price specifically given for that item.  And there are others but that one just came to mind.



> My only point is that for those who wish to hang their hat on the FAQ as the final word on everything, is that you can't do so reliably.  It contains errors and it is written by different people than those that wrote the original core rules (so you can't discern or claim original intent).




And my point is that the PHB has the same history of errors, and was also written by different people.  In fact, they were taking a lot of text from the 3.0 PHB which was written by someone else and "updatting" by a new person to 3.5, and this process was often the source of many more errors.  If it's hard to discern rules intent from the people who write the FAQ, it's equally difficult to discern rules intent from the people who wrote 3.5 PHB.  So why do you feel PHB is a "better" source than the FAQ, given both have a history of errors, both are written by people who were not the same people who wrote the original rules (most of the time) that they are writing about, and both are official and from the same company about the same rules and same game.



> If Kem wants to take everything written by WotC as gospel, then that's fine by me, just don't use the FAQ as a source of justification given the problems it has had over the years.




And I'd just say then don't use the PHB has a source of justification given the problems it has had over the years.

Can't we just admit that both sources of rules are historically flawed, and both help guide DMs to coming up with good rules to run a game and both are about as official as it gets?


----------



## Legildur (Oct 2, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> ...And I'd just say then don't use the PHB has a source of justification given the problems it has had over the years.
> 
> Can't we just admit that both sources of rules are historically flawed, and both help guide DMs to coming up with good rules to run a game and both are about as official as it gets?



Agreed.  Except that the PHB is core and that the FAQ contradicts it on occasions.  You have to give primacy to one of the documents, and I know which one that should be.

Besides, I have Hypersmurf on my side   

But if I play a monk again, and the build is suited to INA, I'll float the FAQ past my DM (who has already once rejected INA based on it being a feat in the Monster Manual, and therefore not intended for PCs) and see what he has to say then.  I won't argue his interpretation because it is his game.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Oct 2, 2006)

Legildur said:
			
		

> I'll float the FAQ past my DM (who has already once rejected INA based on it being a feat in the Monster Manual, and therefore not intended for PCs)




Does your DM not allow Orcs and Ogres to take Power Attack then?  After all, they are found in the PHB and are "intended for PCs".


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 2, 2006)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Does your DM not allow Orcs and Ogres to take Power Attack then?  After all, they are found in the PHB and are "intended for PCs".




There should be a plethora of feats, spells, and other abilities that should be NPC only.

PCs already have hundreds of feats, over a thousand spells, and many abilities from various sources to choose from. Disallowing feats, spells, and other abilities for PCs is perfectly reasonable. Allowing some of them is also reasonable.

But, the PHB is intended for both PCs and NPCs. The MM and the DMG, although they have elements that can be used by PCs, are the purview of the DM and nothing in those sources should be considered RAW from a players POV. Anything in those two books are dynamic.


----------



## BryonD (Oct 2, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> There should be a plethora of feats, spells, and other abilities that should be NPC only.
> 
> PCs already have hundreds of feats, over a thousand spells, and many abilities from various sources to choose from. Disallowing feats, spells, and other abilities for PCs is perfectly reasonable. Allowing some of them is also reasonable.
> 
> But, the PHB is intended for both PCs and NPCs. The MM and the DMG, although they have elements that can be used by PCs, are the purview of the DM and nothing in those sources should be considered RAW from a players POV. Anything in those two books are dynamic.



Is this a rule or an assumption?


----------



## Legildur (Oct 2, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> Is this a rule or an assumption?



If players were intended to know about feats in the MM, then they would be in the PHB instead.

The Leadership feat is in the DMG - that is not universally available to players.

So I can see where KarinsDad has drawn his conclusion.


----------



## Deset Gled (Oct 2, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> I do accept the rule on feinting, because it's in the FAQ (I think it's wrong, but I accept it). Additionally, I am dispatching an email to WotC to have it reviewed.




Would you change your point of view if Cust Serv ruled against the FAQ?

What advice from the Sage or a RotG article?


----------



## Cedric (Oct 2, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Would you change your point of view if Cust Serv ruled against the FAQ?
> 
> What advice from the Sage or a RotG article?




If Custserv ruled against the FAQ, I would accept the ruling provisionally, but request an update to the FAQ. If it wasn't forthcoming within two updates, I would request again. If nothing changed, I would revert back to the FAQ. 

Typically, I don't read the sage or RotG articles, so I would have to just say case by case on those.


----------



## Kem (Oct 2, 2006)

Legildur said:
			
		

> If Kem wants to take everything written by WotC as gospel, then that's fine by me,




*sigh* Man, I am sooo glad I don't have to argue with you about this.

You know since I never said that.



> just don't use the FAQ as a source of justification given the problems it has had over the years.




Then why bother with it?

A direct question was asked: Can Monks use INA.
It was answered, and published on their website as a rules clarification.

So when I read it, and see that the exact question that is being asked in this thread has a direct answer, why SHOULDN'T I accept it?  Because it doesn't mesh with what you what?

I find that rather coincidental, and it seems that you will only accept what you want.  



> Agreed. Except that the PHB is core and that the FAQ contradicts it on occasions. You have to give primacy to one of the documents, and I know which one that should be.




Great, you do that.  To bad I don't see a contradiction in this case.


----------



## Kem (Oct 2, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Would you change your point of view if Cust Serv ruled against the FAQ?
> 
> What advice from the Sage or a RotG article?




One does not have to agree and use something just because they accept it.

I accept the answer provided for the quesiton on FLURRY, and disregard the part dealing with feinting as it seems they missed something and answered the question correctly for FLURRY, but missing mentioning that feint is a move action only with Improved Feint.

And since the question is about FLURRY OF BLOWS, I would never look at that for a question regarding feinting.


----------



## Kem (Oct 2, 2006)

Legildur said:
			
		

> If players were intended to know about feats in the MM, then they would be in the PHB instead.
> 
> The Leadership feat is in the DMG - that is not universally available to players.
> 
> So I can see where KarinsDad has drawn his conclusion.




I accept his conclusion but don't agree with it.  It may not be intended for PCs, but by RAW you cannot say that PCs don't have a chance on earth of getting them.

As such which book they are in is unimportant.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Oct 2, 2006)

Legildur said:
			
		

> If players were intended to know about feats in the MM, then they would be in the PHB instead.
> 
> The Leadership feat is in the DMG - that is not universally available to players.
> 
> So I can see where KarinsDad has drawn his conclusion.




That doesn't make too much sense...  How is a Druid supposed to look up stats for it's animal companion?  It's in the MM, oh no, can't look there!  Same thing for Summon Monster spells...  Same thing for magic items in the DMG.  If you are creating a character at higher level, you need to know the character wealth for that level and should deck out your character w/ magic items appropriate for that level.  But since these are listed in the DMG, then you're not allowed to?

The feats in the MM are commonly used by monsters.  They aren't limited to just monsters, only monsters, and nothing but monsters.  The only restriction for player's being able to take them would be whatever their prereqs are (and DM fiat...  did I use that word right?  fiat?)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 2, 2006)

> > *KarinsDad*
> > This equates the FAQ with Common Law. That's an assumption.
> >
> > I equate the PHB/DMG/MM with Common Law.
> ...




I'm with FireLance- the Core Rulebooks are analogous to the codified laws of a country or other sovereign.  Like those laws, they can be full of vague or self-contradictory language.

The FAQ and Errata would be analogous to interpretations of that codex by those in power to do so- in other words, cases tried before a judge or judicial body and the resultant
decisions- or in certain circumstances, legislative ammendments or legal circulars.  In the RW, such cases are usually mere interpretations, but they can be used to expand or limit the reach underlying code...or even come up with new stuff.  It can even be wrong and self-contradictory.  Generally, the rulings reach a concensus, and the latest ruling is the one that controls.

The problem is there really is no true body like the Supreme Court to finalize rulings...

except your DM.


----------



## Mistwell (Oct 2, 2006)

Legildur said:
			
		

> Agreed.  Except that the PHB is core and that the FAQ contradicts it on occasions.  You have to give primacy to one of the documents, and I know which one that should be.
> 
> Besides, I have Hypersmurf on my side
> 
> But if I play a monk again, and the build is suited to INA, I'll float the FAQ past my DM (who has already once rejected INA based on it being a feat in the Monster Manual, and therefore not intended for PCs) and see what he has to say then.  I won't argue his interpretation because it is his game.




1. If one set of rules is meant to clarify another set of rules, I think you can expect conflict between the two sources.  I think it's part of the point in fact.  The errata for example is a set of rules that explicitly is meant to contradict the "core", but I doubt you would choose to ignore the errata in favor of the "core" text, despite the errata sometimes being wrong and definitely contradicting the "core" rules.

I keep putting "core" in quotes because I think the whole concept isn't very useful.  The FAQ is meant to clarify the "core", and it is written by the same company about the same product as the "core", so I don't understand how it is any less "core" than the PHB itself.  Much like the errata is meant to correct the "core".  Is the errata therefore not "core" as well?

2. Having Hypersmurf on your side is not, in my opinion, a side that you are correct.  In my opinion, HS much more enjoys the debates itself rather than the the side he has chosen to choose.  In fact, I sometimes think HS randomly chooses a side just for the challenge of defending it.  He's a devil, that advocate.


----------



## Legildur (Oct 2, 2006)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> ...I keep putting "core" in quotes because I think the whole concept isn't very useful.  The FAQ is meant to clarify the "core", and it is written by the same company about the same product as the "core", so I don't understand how it is any less "core" than the PHB itself.  Much like the errata is meant to correct the "core".  Is the errata therefore not "core" as well?



The errata makes changes to the core rules, sure.  But please don't try and lump the FAQ in with that.  It is an acronym for "Frequently Asked Questions", sometimes I think people forget that, and not a set of codified supplementary rules.  Whereas the PHB, DMG, and MM state on the front cover "*Core Rulebook X*" (where X is a I, II, or III).



			
				Mistwell said:
			
		

> 2. Having Hypersmurf on your side is not, in my opinion, a side that you are correct.  In my opinion, HS much more enjoys the debates itself rather than the the side he has chosen to choose.  In fact, I sometimes think HS randomly chooses a side just for the challenge of defending it.  He's a devil, that advocate.



I believe that your opinion would be in the minority.  He may be a troublesome advocate who certainly enjoys a good debate and makes thought provoking posts, but asserting that HS sometimes "chooses a side just for the challenge" seems a little extreme to me.

And as an observation once again the debate has, for the nth time, degenerated into an assessment of the place of the FAQ in the rules hierarchy.  There are those that lump it in with the core rulebooks, and those that don't, and no amount of discussion will sway either side.

Similarly, we have gone away from the preceding discussion about "effects" and how that may determine the legitimacy.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Oct 2, 2006)

Legildur said:
			
		

> And as an observation once again the debate has, for the nth time, degenerated into an assessment of the place of the FAQ in the rules hierarchy.  There are those that lump it in with the core rulebooks, and those that don't, and no amount of discussion will sway either side.
> 
> Similarly, we have gone away from the preceding discussion about "effects" and how that may determine the legitimacy.




This is true. 

And since the whole thing has been about lobbing artillary from entrenched positions and watching the mud fountain up over no-mans land for several pages now, I think that it is time that we drew this thread to a close.

Let's not venture into the land of Monks and INA for a few months, OK?

Thanks


----------

