# Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?



## Artoomis

New survey.  Discuss all you want, but keep it civil.  New thread because the other one got un-civil and closed.  Very, very unscientific, especially as you may make mutiple choices.  

Keep in mind the recent Sage ruling that monks can take Improved Natural Attack and discuss what you think is the actual position on that issue in the rules.

My opinion?  Yes, because:

1. Monks have an ability that allows their special attack to be treated as a natural weapon for the purposes of effects that enhance a natural weapon.
2. A feat exists that has an effect (or is an effect, but I think that argument is a distracting red herring) that enhances a natural weapon, which requires only that one have a natural attack to take the feat.
3. It seems clear on its face that the monk would qualify as having a natural attack for the purposes of effects granted by this feat, and therefore meet the prerequisite of having a natural attack for the purpose of taking this feat. A monk would not, of course, necessarily meet any other prerequisites, were there any.

*Essentially, the argument is that the prerequisite must be viewed in context, not in isolation.* In other words, one should not ask "Does a monk have a natural weapon?" for the prerequisite but rather, "Is there an effect here that would alow a monk to be considered to have a natural weapon?"


----------



## Deset Gled

I voted 3.  Before the sage "clarified" that the prerequisites of a feat count as "effects" I would have said no, but I can see enough of the counter arguement to accept the sage's ruling as a clarification, and not see it in conflict with the rules.

Even when I would have said it was against the rules, I would have allowed it in a game.


----------



## Infiniti2000

Artoomis said:
			
		

> In other words, one should not ask "Does a monk have a natural weapon?" for the prerequisite ...



 Actually, that's exactly what one _should_ ask.  From the SRD, "*Your character must have the* indicated ability score, class feature, feat, skill, base attack bonus, or other *quality designated in order to select * or use *that feat*."  My bolding to show my point.  I'm sure nothing is misinterpreted by this selective emphasis.

I voted no because the prerequisite of actually having a natural weapon  is not met.  That's really all there is to it as far as I'm concerned (per RAW).  Before you attempt to jump all over me for RAW adherence even in silly situations (e.g. a lizarman could take this feat for his unarmed strike) I houserule INA to never work for unarmed strikes -- i.e. you need to apply the feat to the natural weapon that qualified you for the feat.


----------



## CRGreathouse

I voted "No, not per the Rules as Wriiten (RAW)", but that's not quite what I mean.  I don't allow INA to improve the increased damage of the monk, only the base damage.  I believe that in both my campaign and the rules as written a human with INA has base damage 1d4, and a human monk's class damage replaces this.


----------



## Algolei

My answer is the same as it was for the other poll.

Edit:  I mean, no.  Not according to the RAW.


----------



## CronoDekar

None of the listed answers really work for me.  Mine is more "No, because I do not believe that was the intent of the rules," or more concisely, "No, because I say so."


----------



## Scion

Another one of these? 

As before, I believe that the RAW makes it work pretty explicitly.



			
				srd said:
			
		

> IMPROVED NATURAL ATTACK  [GENERAL]
> Prerequisite: Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4.
> Benefit: Choose one of the creature’s natural attack forms. The damage for this natural weapon increases by one step, as if the creature’s size had increased by one category: 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6.
> A weapon or attack that deals 1d10 points of damage increases as follows: 1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8.




So to take this feat we need a few things.

First, we need to have a natural weapon.
Second, we need a BAB of +4.

I dont think anyone has any issues with the second.

As for the first, we need to do a little more digging. After all, are a monks attacks that much different than any other weapon? One place to find out for sure!

Also, there is nothing about 'how' this feat works, so that would be left up to individual cases. Remember to not get bogged down in a specific reading. It doesn’t say that only creatures who are just born can take it, it doesn’t say that your natural weapons grow in size, or that it is some sort of selective training. Use whatever rational makes sense for the specific character.

Much like cleave in this way. You can’t think of cleave in any single sense and have it work all of the times that it should. It is much more fluid than that.




			
				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.




Ok, so we know that the monks unarmed strike can count as a natural weapon sometimes.

Our only real question at this point is whether or not a feat counts as an effect. It certainly isn’t a spell.

Of course, if a feat ‘is’ an effect then we look at how it qualifies for the feat. For purposes that improve a natural weapon (the feat does improve it) then the unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon and so would count as the natural weapon prereq. After all, for purposes of that feat it counts as being it.

If anyone wishes to say that even though you have something that ‘counts as’ the required item does not count as having the item then they had better have an ‘extremely’ convincing case.

Moving along however, there isn’t any definition of ‘effect’ in the rules. However, I was able to find something that said it as directly as it needs to be stated for this forum.



			
				srd said:
			
		

> IMPROVED SPELL RESISTANCE [EPIC]
> Prerequisite: Must have spell resistance from a feat, class feature, or other permanent effect.




So this says that a feat is an effect (technically it says that it is a permanent effect, but the duration isn’t important, only that it qualifies as being an effect).

So, we have all of the components we need. We know that for some purposes the unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon, we know that the feat calls for a natural weapon, and we know that the feat counts as one of those purposes.

So, the monk may take the feat. It doesn’t matter if the human does or does not have a natural weapon normally, all that matters is that the monks ability calls out the exception and when it applies.

By the RAW the monks unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon for feats and so he can feel free to pick it up once he has a high enough BAB.


----------



## Starglim

You missed the option "No, and I disagree with the Sage's ruling."

The effect of a feat is an effect. Qualifying for a feat is not an effect.


----------



## TheEvil

Artoomis said:
			
		

> New survey.  Discuss all you want, but keep it civil.  New thread because the other one got un-civil and closed.  Very, very unscientific, especially as you may make mutiple choices.




Tsk tsk!  Artoomis, not particularly classy to say that someone else's poll is closed when it isn't. :\  On the other hand, I do support starting your own poll rather then criticizing someone else's.  

I voted that a *human* monk can take the feat by RAW, since I have seen nothing indicating that you have to start off with the natural weapon to qualify for the feat.  I would also apply this ruling to elves, gnomes, dwarves, and any other race that didn't normal have a natural weapon.  I wouldn't argue with a GM who wouldn't allow them to have it based on the feat being in the Monster Manual.

P.S. - Did you intend to allow people to vote for more then one answer?


----------



## Infiniti2000

TheEvil said:
			
		

> Tsk tsk!  Artoomis, not particularly classy to say that someone else's poll is closed when it isn't. :\  On the other hand, I do support starting your own poll rather then criticizing someone else's.



 I'm pretty sure he's referring to the 8-page thread that was closed, not your poll thread.


----------



## Storyteller01

A repeat question, but here goes:

Can a Giant, Doppelganger, or othe creature that can use an unarmed attack (slam) to deal damage take this feat?


----------



## Hypersmurf

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> Can a Giant use the feat for their slam attacks?




Absolutely!  A slam is a natural weapon.  An unarmed strike isn't.

Even if they'd look awfully similar when you made the movie, the mechanics define them as different things.

The bard says "Grok punched Jon, and Jon punched Grok back", but Grok is making a slam attack (a natural weapon), and Jon is using an unarmed strike (not a natural weapon).

Saying "What applies to one applies to the other, 'cos they're both punches!" is ignoring the fact that slams and unarmed strikes follow different rules.

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis

TheEvil said:
			
		

> Tsk tsk!  Artoomis, not particularly classy to say that someone else's poll is closed when it isn't. :\  On the other hand, I do support starting your own poll rather then criticizing someone else's.
> 
> I voted that a *human* monk can take the feat by RAW, since I have seen nothing indicating that you have to start off with the natural weapon to qualify for the feat.  I would also apply this ruling to elves, gnomes, dwarves, and any other race that didn't normal have a natural weapon.  I wouldn't argue with a GM who wouldn't allow them to have it based on the feat being in the Monster Manual.
> 
> P.S. - Did you intend to allow people to vote for more then one answer?




Sorry - I did not mean the other poll, I meant the closed 8-page thread, and I wanted to not only provide a bit f a different poll, but also another forum for free and open discussions of this rule, since the 8-page thread got closed.

As for the multiple-selection voting, yes, I intended that.  It does make analysis of the votes somewhat problematic, but it's ludicrously unscientific anyway, so what the heck.


----------



## Storyteller01

So what is it when two giants (or any critter with the same effect) are slamming each other? They follow the same progression as an unarmed attack (roll to hit/apply damage)...


----------



## Hypersmurf

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> So what is it when two giants (or any critter with the same effect) are slamming each other?




Slams are natural weapons.

-Hyp.


----------



## TheEvil

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Sorry - I did not mean the other poll, I meant the closed 8-page thread, and I wanted to not only provide a bit f a different poll, but also another forum for free and open discussions of this rule, since the 8-page thread got closed.
> 
> As for the multiple-selection voting, yes, I intended that.  It does make analysis of the votes somewhat problematic, but it's ludicrously unscientific anyway, so what the heck.




Thanks for clarifying, I was feeling rather slighted.    
As for problematic results, I say not at all!  It is currently running 90.92% For, 19.09% Against.  What could be clearer?

Okay, what may seem like a side question, but trust me that it is applicable to the discussion.  Do you consider Mithral armor to be a catagory lighter?  e.g.- is Mithral Full Plate medium armor for ALL purposes, including proficiency?


----------



## Caliban

TheEvil said:
			
		

> Thanks for clarifying, I was feeling rather slighted.
> As for problematic results, I say not at all!  It is currently running 90.92% For, 19.09% Against.  What could be clearer?
> 
> Okay, what may seem like a side question, but trust me that it is applicable to the discussion.  Do you consider Mithral armor to be a catagory lighter?  e.g.- is Mithral Full Plate medium armor for ALL purposes, including proficiency?




Yes.


----------



## Stalker0

I went 2 and 3. I believed they could by my reading of the rules...but I could be swayed either way. But with the sage ruling, I'm firmly in the yes court.


----------



## FireLance

TheEvil said:
			
		

> Okay, what may seem like a side question, but trust me that it is applicable to the discussion.  Do you consider Mithral armor to be a catagory lighter?  e.g.- is Mithral Full Plate medium armor for ALL purposes, including proficiency?



Races of the Wild lists it as medium armor, so it is medium armor by the RAW even if it is not explicitly stated in the Core Rules. The Sage also clarifies that it is treated as medium armor for the purpose of proficiency in Dragon #335 (it will probably make it into the FAQ soon if it hasn't already), so it's also the official stand.

I personally don't like the idea, so when I'm DMing, I houserule that you need Heavy Armor Proficiency to be proficient in Mithral Full Plate.


----------



## Pinotage

I voted 2 and 3. Basically I agree with Scion.

Pinotage


----------



## glass

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> A repeat question, but here goes:
> 
> Can a Giant, Doppelganger, or othe creature that can use an unarmed attack (slam) to deal damage take this feat?



That'd be an unarmed attack _or_ a slam, right?

He can take the feat, because he has a natural weapon. He can apply it to his slam. He cannot apply it to his unarmed strike, unless he is a monk.

FWIW, I voted No RAW No, IMC Yes.


glass.


----------



## glass

TheEvil said:
			
		

> Okay, what may seem like a side question, but trust me that it is applicable to the discussion.  Do you consider Mithral armor to be a catagory lighter?  e.g.- is Mithral Full Plate medium armor for ALL purposes, including proficiency?



Not sure. I'd have to do a little reading and thinking before I come to a conclusion.

If I did conclude that it counted as medium for proficiencies, I'd probably houserule it so that it didn't!

_EDIT: So why is this relevant?_


glass.


----------



## TheEvil

glass said:
			
		

> Not sure. I'd have to do a little reading and thinking before I come to a conclusion.
> 
> If I did conclude that it counted as medium for proficiencies, I'd probably houserule it so that it didn't!
> 
> _EDIT: So why is this relevant?_
> 
> 
> glass.




Sorry for the delay, went to bed after posting.

Here is the relavent text for Mithral in the materials section of the DMG:

"Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations (for example, whether a barbarian can use her fast movement ability while wearing the armor or not).  *Heavy armors are treated as medium, and medium armors are treated as light, but light armors are still treated as light.*" 

Many of you probably remember the many debates that raged    about whether barbarians were proficient with mithral full plate or not.  Here was a situation where WOTC choose to use the word 'treated' and I, along with many others felt that mithral full plate still required the heavy armor proficiency.  Time and additional printings have proved us wrong.  I still don't agree, but also would not houserule otherwise.  

Basically, it seems that where WOTC says 'treated', they mean 'is'.

If anyone can find more examples of of 'treated' or 'treat' used in WOTC text, feel free to point it out, especially if it disagrees with what I have postulated.


----------



## TheEvil

FireLance said:
			
		

> Races of the Wild lists it as medium armor, so it is medium armor by the RAW even if it is not explicitly stated in the Core Rules. *The Sage also clarifies that it is treated as medium armor for the purpose of proficiency in Dragon #335 (it will probably make it into the FAQ soon if it hasn't already), so it's also the official stand.*
> QUOTE]
> 
> You do realize the irony of saying that on this thread, don't you?


----------



## Infiniti2000

TheEvil said:
			
		

> Do you consider Mithral armor to be a catagory lighter?  e.g.- is Mithral Full Plate medium armor for ALL purposes, including proficiency?



 No, because that's clearly not what the description of mithral states.  "Movement and other limitations" != proficiency.  Moreover, you'd be perfectly within the RAW to say that full plate mail (e.g.) is not treated as one category lighter.


----------



## Infiniti2000

Another comment about allowing INA for human monks (or any monk really).  It's not clear what progression you use for the damage, if any at all.  The first question you need to answer is whether the INA improves the monk's unarmed strike progression or whether it's a one-time deal.  If he takes INA and then gains levels as a monk, improving his damage again later, is that a corresponding advancement based on INA or an absolute advancement?  I think there's an excellent argument for an absolute advancement, because none of the PC tables are used as relative values.  For example, when you gain a monk level, you don't add in the value for the base save bonuses or BAB, you use the new value.  So, if you take INA at 6th level, then at 8th level it should become 1d10 regardless of the previous value.

Also, which progression do you use?  For example, at 5th level he does 1d8 damage.  At 6th level he takes INA and does one of the following:

1d10 - improved progression on the monk table (as 8th level)
2d8 - due to the wording "as if the creature’s size had increased by one category" you look up the Large monk's table
2d6 - use the advancement rules in INA, but this has serious problems when you reach 8th level because you either use the monk table or INA, but not both

I think the correct choice is 2d8 because that's what the rule's text supports.  So, for one feat, he basically does double the damage.  Do you still think it's a balanced feat to allow double damage on all attacks?


----------



## Artoomis

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> ...I think the correct choice is 2d8 because that's what the rule's text supports.  So, for one feat, he basically does double the damage.  Do you still think it's a balanced feat to allow double damage on all attacks?




Maybe, maybe not, but it does not double the damage.  Here's what it actually does:

d6 => d8 average 3.5 => 4.5
d8 => 2d6 average 4.5 => 7
d10 =>2d8 average 5.5 => 9
2d6 => 3d6 average 7 => 10.5
2d8 => 3d8 average 9 => 13.5
2d10 => 4d8 average 11 => 18

The increase is about 50%, not 100%, and that's in *base[/i] damage only.  He'll still be behind fighters in damage dealt, and it does not apply to any weapons he might use, which he will need more and more often at high levels for types of DR that he cannot penetrate.

Of course, whether it is balanced matters for whether or not you'd allow it, not whether or not it is allowed by the rules.*


----------



## apesamongus

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Another comment about allowing INA for human monks (or any monk really).  It's not clear what progression you use for the damage, if any at all.  The first question you need to answer is whether the INA improves the monk's unarmed strike progression or whether it's a one-time deal.  If he takes INA and then gains levels as a monk, improving his damage again later, is that a corresponding advancement based on INA or an absolute advancement?  I think there's an excellent argument for an absolute advancement, because none of the PC tables are used as relative values.  For example, when you gain a monk level, you don't add in the value for the base save bonuses or BAB, you use the new value.  So, if you take INA at 6th level, then at 8th level it should become 1d10 regardless of the previous value.



Would you try to screw a creature over in the same way - for instance, if you were advancing a Treant (say using SS) and took INA, but then advanced enough to increase actual size, would the feat now be useless?



> I think the correct choice is 2d8 because that's what the rule's text supports.  So, for one feat, he basically does double the damage.  Do you still think it's a balanced feat to allow double damage on all attacks?



Well, I think the damage for larger monks is already screwed, so it's a problem with that chart, not with the feat.


----------



## Infiniti2000

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Maybe, maybe not, but it does not double the damage.



 Sure it does.  Going from 1d8 to 2d8 is exactly double the damage.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> Here's what it actually does...



 That's one of the options, but you have not responded to why you chose that option and, more importantly, why it's the correct option versus the one I used.  Using the Large monk progression seems to be the correct choice based on INA's text (not table) and therefore there's a descrepancy.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> d6 => d8 average 3.5 => 4.5



 Note that this line is impossible with a human single-classed monk.



> The increase is about 50%, not 100%, and that's in *base[/i] damage only.  He'll still be behind fighters in damage dealt, and it does not apply to any weapons he might use, which he will need more and more often at high levels for types of DR that he cannot penetrate.*



* Is there any feat a fighter can take that increases his base damage by 50%?  No, so your statement that he'll be behind fighters in damage dealt is obviously wrong without a boatload of assumptions along the lines of "fighter has a higher strength", etc., none of which are necessarily true and might be wrong.  Allowing +50% damage (assuming you use your progression table) is clearly far better than the fighter-only feat of weapon specialization.  There's no feat that a fighter can take that equals that except, arguably greater weapon specialization, but that's at 12th level, not 6th.




			Would you try to screw a creature over in the same way - for instance, if you were advancing a Treant (say using SS) and took INA, but then advanced enough to increase actual size, would the feat now be useless?
		
Click to expand...


 No because the rules on advancing creature's attacks is clear.  It's not an absolute table.*


----------



## Scion

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> The first question you need to answer is whether the INA improves the monk's unarmed strike progression or whether it's a one-time deal.  If he takes INA and then gains levels as a monk, improving his damage again later, is that a corresponding advancement based on INA or an absolute advancement?  I think there's an excellent argument for an absolute advancement, because none of the PC tables are used as relative values.  For example, when you gain a monk level, you don't add in the value for the base save bonuses or BAB, you use the new value.  So, if you take INA at 6th level, then at 8th level it should become 1d10 regardless of the previous value.




What are you talking about? The feat makes you treat the damage as if you were one size category larger.

The monk is of level X and so qualifies for a certain level of unarmed strike, and if he was medium before he now does damage as if he was large.

There is no 'one time deal' or 'advancement along the monks unarmed strike lines' it is only making him do damage as if he was one size category larger.

Some of the advancements from this may parallel the monks advancement, but that is unimportant.


----------



## Scion

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Is there any feat a fighter can take that increases his base damage by 50%?




As I have said in most, if not all, of these threads there is a direct corallary: Exotic weapon proficiency.

Generally the exotic weapon is 'better' somehow than the martial counterpart. One of the ways that it can be better is having an increased damage die.

That looks exactly the same to me.

Each has a tradeoff of course. The fighter type will have to choose his feats around the weapon but in return he can choose from a number of different benefits depending on which weapon he goes with. The monk will only ever get the damage increase, but he can choose it just about anytime in his carear from level 6 onwards.

Of course, the fighter can get the benefit from level 1 whereas the monk has to wait until at least level 6 (unless multiclassed in specific ways of course). Tradeoffs again.


----------



## Scion

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Sure it does.  Going from 1d8 to 2d8 is exactly double the damage.




Gah, triple post, but they are all seperate thoughts ;/ Sorry all.

Are you looking at the correct table infiniti? There is the monk chart which assumes medium, and then there is another chart which shows small and large next to one another.

At level 4 it shows the monks d8 going to 2d6, just like the monster advancement rules for size.



			
				srd said:
			
		

> Table: Increased Damage By Size
> Old Damage (Each)*	New Damage
> 1d2	1d3
> 1d3	1d4
> 1d4	1d6
> 1d6	1d8
> 1d8	2d6
> 1d10	2d8
> 2d6	3d6
> 2d8	3d8


----------



## dcollins

Having read all the previous arguments, I voted "No, not per the Rules as Written (RAW)". 

Technically, there is ambiguity. Ambiguous situations are in fact what Sage rulings are meant to help with with. However, for me the deciding factor is that the feat appears in the MM, and frankly I don't want the power of PC monks in my campaign to be dependent on players being cunning enough to turn to the MM to dig up this feat.

If it's not in the PHB then it's not something that monk players are able to reference, RAW.


----------



## Infiniti2000

Scion said:
			
		

> What are you talking about?



 A human monk does a specific unarmed strike damage according to the monk's table.  It goes 1d6->1d8, etc., changing at different levels.  I was postulating that when a human monk takes INA, it changes the unarmed strike damage (to some higher value).  Regardless of what it changes to, when the monk progresses in his class, his unarmed strike damage becomes what it says in the table, just like with BAB and base saves.  The table is not cumulative for the damage.  Do you understand my point?  You may disagree, I'm okay with that, but I want you to at least understand it.


----------



## Scion

dcollins said:
			
		

> Having read all the previous arguments, I voted "No, not per the Rules as Written (RAW)".
> 
> Technically, there is ambiguity. Ambiguous situations are in fact what Sage rulings are meant to help with with. However, for me the deciding factor is that the feat appears in the MM, and frankly I don't want the power of PC monks in my campaign to be dependent on players being cunning enough to turn to the MM to dig up this feat.
> 
> If it's not in the PHB then it's not something that monk players are able to reference, RAW.




That sounds, to me, almost exactly like the last choice there dcollins. 'yes, but I dissalow it in my games'.

After all, just because you dont allow the players to pick feats from the monstrous manual (which I do not understand at all, considering the various classes which can use them in interesting, and not unbalancing, ways) does not mean that it is not part of the raw.

It helps the monks deal damage yes, but that is all. It isnt necissary for them to take nor is it unbalancing when they do. Unless you also consider weapon specialization and/or exotic weapon proficiency to be equally unbalanced.


----------



## Dimwhit

dcollins said:
			
		

> Technically, there is ambiguity. Ambiguous situations are in fact what Sage rulings are meant to help with with. However, for me the deciding factor is that the feat appears in the MM, and frankly I don't want the power of PC monks in my campaign to be dependent on players being cunning enough to turn to the MM to dig up this feat.
> 
> If it's not in the PHB then it's not something that monk players are able to reference, RAW.




Actually, there are many feats in the MM intended to be allowed by classes. The feats improving spell-like abilities, for one. Just because a feat is in the MM doesn't mean they are intended for monsters only, anymore that feats in Complete Warrior being intended only for classes in that book. If the feat has the [General] tag, is was designed to be used by anyone or anything.


----------



## Infiniti2000

Scion said:
			
		

> Are you looking at the correct table infiniti?



 Yes, but I missed a line.  Ignore my comments on this, please.


----------



## Scion

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> A human monk does a specific unarmed strike damage according to the monk's table.  It goes 1d6->1d8, etc., changing at different levels.  I was postulating that when a human monk takes INA, it changes the unarmed strike damage (to some higher value).  Regardless of what it changes to, when the monk progresses in his class, his unarmed strike damage becomes what it says in the table, just like with BAB and base saves.  The table is not cumulative for the damage.  Do you understand my point?  You may disagree, I'm okay with that, but I want you to at least understand it.




So if I have weapon focus in longswords and then get a longsword +1 my weapon focus no longer works? Or, even better, enlarge person. The sword damage die changed, so the feat must no longer apply by your logic.

After all, that is essentially the same progression. You are saying that because some amount of damage changed then all of a sudden my feats turn off.

it doesnt matter 'what' value the monks table says. he is a monk of level X as far as it is concerned and of size Y (where Y is one higher than his actual size) and so he deals damage Z.

So no, I do not understand your point. You appear to be saying that the feat goes away somehow or becomes moot because the damage changed. But that is completely immaterial.

The feat says to treat as though one size category larger. So why would you assume that when you go up a level you drop back down to the smaller table for advancement? Why cant you simply follow along the new sizes advancement chart?

Or even if you couldnt do that why does the feat suddenly turn off?? The monk now does a different damage die than before, but the ability is still the same, and the feat says to treat him as one size category larger. Done and done, they do not conflict at all.


----------



## Scion

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Actually, there are many feats in the MM intended to be allowed by classes. The feats improving spell-like abilities, for one. Just because a feat is in the MM doesn't mean they are intended for monsters only, anymore that feats in Complete Warrior being intended only for classes in that book. If the feat has the [General] tag, is was designed to be used by anyone or anything.




Plus, there isnt infinite space in the phb so some things must be shunted elsewhere.

Or at least that is what they told us


----------



## burnrate

Of course - by the RAW and as clarified by the sage.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

My vote, in case anyone still cares at this point, is "No, not per the Rules as Wriiten (RAW)." and "No, but I'll allow it in my games."


----------



## FireLance

TheEvil said:
			
		

> FireLance said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Races of the Wild lists it as medium armor, so it is medium armor by the RAW even if it is not explicitly stated in the Core Rules. *The Sage also clarifies that it is treated as medium armor for the purpose of proficiency in Dragon #335 (it will probably make it into the FAQ soon if it hasn't already), so it's also the official stand.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize the irony of saying that on this thread, don't you?
Click to expand...


I have just as much right to make sweeping statements as the next poster!


----------



## xen_xheng

I voted no, since it is a feat designed for monsters (it appears in the Monster Manual); I suppose only the designers can give a correct clarification on the issue, but I feel the feat was intended for monster's natural weapons (claws, bite, etc) and not unarmed attacks.


----------



## Zandel

xen_xheng said:
			
		

> I voted no, since it is a feat designed for monsters (it appears in the Monster Manual); I suppose only the designers can give a correct clarification on the issue, but I feel the feat was intended for monster's natural weapons (claws, bite, etc) and not unarmed attacks.




So are you saying that PCs cannot take the Craft Construct feat just because it's in a monster manual?

PCs can take the Craft Construct feat if they meet the prereq's and the rules are the same for INA. Monks with a +4 BAB DO meet the prereq's and thus can take and be effected by the feat.

Scion is right and his first post should end this discussion as that's how it is by the RAW. What you do in your games is up to you but that's not RAW and belongs in the house rules forum.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Here, I fixed that for you.  



			
				Zandel said:
			
		

> PCs can take the Craft Construct feat if they meet the prereq's and the rules are the same for INA. [Human] Monks with a +4 BAB DO [NOT] meet the prereq's and thus can['t] take and be [a]ffected by the feat.
> 
> Scion is [not] right [...] as that's how it is by the RAW. What you do in your games is up to you but that's not RAW and belongs in the house rules forum.




There.  Much better.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Zandel said:
			
		

> Scion is right and his first post should end this discussion as that's how it is by the RAW. What you do in your games is up to you but that's not RAW and belongs in the house rules forum.




Dispute over interpretation of the written rules certainly belongs in the Rules forum, which is what is happening here.

Not everyone is saying "I agree that as written, a monk's Unarmed Strike class feature satisfies the prerequisite for INA".  There is disagreement not just over what people would do in their own game despite what's written (which is more what the House Rules forum is for), but over what the rules actually say.

The Rules forum is the right place for the thread.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)


----------



## Hypersmurf

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Here, I fixed that for you.




Patryn, don't do that.

Dispute points, but don't play the fixed-it-for-you game - it's needlessly inflammatory.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)


----------



## Zandel

> Here, I fixed that for you.






> There. Much better.




Only if your house rulling or can't read the RAW otherwise I was right.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Hey - I threw in a smiley or two.

Zandel, quite obviously Scion's original post is not right.  You may wish that it was right, you may even believe it to be right, but the fact of the matter is that it is only correct if Scion [and yourself] are houseruling or can't read.

I've provided as much evidence as you have.

Ergo, if you're right, then I'm right.  Since we can't both be right (since that would be a contradiction), then what we have here is a dilemma.

I've posted my own "proof" elsewhere, and feel no need to repeat it here.  Suffice it to say that I have not seen sufficient evidence that my view is wrong, and therefore strident claims that "Scion's right, dernit!" will certainly not convince me.

Try again if you've got a more novel line of argument.


----------



## Scion

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> quite obviously Scion's original post is not right.




I have not seen any sufficient proof from you to state this.

If you know of a place where my arguement breaks down feel free to say so.

Otherwise, I follow the rules point by point and the only conclusion that I can draw is that it works.


----------



## Dimwhit

Patryn, no offense, but I saw your proof elsewhere, and I didn't think it was at all correct. For what that's worth. I'd give it another read, but I have no idea where it is anymore and I'm too lazy to hunt it down. But I haven't really heard anything that supports the thinking that the feat isn't allowed. I'm open-minded (I think), but it just doesn't make sense.

Were you one of the ones using the 'feat isn't an effect' argument?


----------



## Zandel

And of course you (scion) are right. 

PoE just because you can't see the truth of the rules or enough evidence to prove you wrong doesn't mean it isn't there. I came to this thread with the opinion that using human monks and INA was just wrong but i've wayed up all the rules and evidence and everything else and like it or not by the RAW scion is right. Personally i'm not sure i'd allow it in my game but by the RAW it is allowed.


----------



## Scion

dimwhit said:
			
		

> Patryn, no offense, but I saw your proof elsewhere, and I didn't think it was at all correct. For what that's worth. I'd give it another read, but I have no idea where it is anymore and I'm too lazy to hunt it down. But I haven't really heard anything that supports the thinking that the feat isn't allowed. I'm open-minded (I think), but it just doesn't make sense.
> 
> Were you one of the ones using the 'feat isn't an effect' argument?





If I remember correctly he was useing the, 'monks unarmed strikes arent _actually_ natural weapons and so do not meet the prereqs' arguement.

Which I find to be incredibly silly considering that the ability itself says that the monks unarmed strikes count as natural weapons for effects.

How one can reach 'counts as' does not mean 'counts as' I do not know.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Scion said:
			
		

> How one can reach 'counts as' does not mean 'counts as' I do not know.




But "counts as a natural weapon for the purpose of effects that improve natural weapons" not meaning "counts as a natural weapon for the purpose of satisfying the prerequisites for a feat that improves natural weapons" is an easier one to see.

Whether one agrees with it or not is a separate issue, but a logical disconnect isn't as self-evident.

-Hyp.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Scion said:
			
		

> How one can reach 'counts as' does not mean 'counts as' I do not know.




A prerequisite is not an effect, even if (and this is still debatable) the feat for which it qualifies you is.

A monk can use the feat to improve his unarmed strike should he qualify to take the feat.  A human monk does not qualify to take the feat (broadly speaking).

As far as "counts as," I presented to Scion and others an "effect" which was neither a feat nor a spell that improved a natural weapon.  The monk's unarmed strike counts as natural weapon for purposes of that effect, and thus can be improved by that effect.


----------



## Dimwhit

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But "counts as a natural weapon for the purpose of effects that improve natural weapons" not meaning "counts as a natural weapon for the purpose of satisfying the prerequisites for a feat that improves natural weapons" is an easier one to see.
> 
> Whether one agrees with it or not is a separate issue, but a logical disconnect isn't as self-evident.
> 
> -Hyp.



 Magic Fang requires a natural weapon for it to be cast, yet a Monk can benefit. So it satifies the prereq for the spell (and many spells have prereqs, they just aren't listed as such like they are for feats). INA is a feat that requires a natural weapon for its effect to work. A Monk satisfies that, as well. It comes back to the are feats an effect argument.


----------



## Scion

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But "counts as a natural weapon for the purpose of effects that improve natural weapons" not meaning "counts as a natural weapon for the purpose of satisfying the prerequisites for a feat that improves natural weapons" is an easier one to see.
> 
> Whether one agrees with it or not is a separate issue, but a logical disconnect isn't as self-evident.





No, I do not see the distinction.

If it counts as for a purpose then it counts as for that purpose.

I just dont see how it could count as being a natural weapon for a feat enough to get the benefit but not count enough to be counted as being a natural weapon in order to get the benefit.

The position is completely illogical in my eyes. Which means I have a very hard time feeling that it is a serious arguement.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Magic Fang requires a natural weapon for it to be cast,




Incorrect.  Note the target line of the Magic Fang spell.



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Magic Fang
> Transmutation
> Level: Drd 1, Rgr 1
> Components: V, S, DF
> Casting Time: 1 standard action
> Range: Touch
> *Target: Living creature touched*
> Duration: 1 min./level
> Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)
> Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless)
> 
> Magic fang gives one natural weapon of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon. (The spell does not change an unarmed strike’s damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage.)
> Magic fang can be made permanent with a permanency spell.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Scion said:
			
		

> No, I do not see the distinction.
> 
> If it counts as for a purpose then it counts as for that purpose.




And there are two purposes here.  Your inability to see this is "completely illogical in my eyes."



> The position is completely illogical in my eyes. Which means I have a very hard time feeling that it is a serious arguement.




Fortunately, I don't depend upon your "feelings" when discussing the rules.


----------



## Dimwhit

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> A prerequisite is not an effect




Yeah, this just baffles me. Of course a prereq isn't an effect. It isn't anything! Saying the feat requires a natural weapon (i.e. as a prereq) is the same as saying Magic Fang must be cast on a natural weapon (which is another way of refering to a prereq, as I mention above).

I don't understand how a prereq not being an effect has anything to do with this argument.


----------



## Scion

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> A prerequisite is not an effect




I am afraid that here is one of the main points I see your arguement breaking down.

This part simply makes no sense. It isnt necissary for the prereq to count as an effect, it is part of the feat. The only thing that matters is whether or not the 'feat' which the prereq is 'part of' counts as an effect, and I have shown that the rules do indeed count feats as effects.


As for the other example, which I believe was alignment descriptors, those only work for natural weapons as well. It is 'exactly' the same thing, just written in a slightly different format.

To me, to say that one works while the other does not is to be ignoring the rules of the game.

The feat requires a natural weapon on which to impart its effect, which is itself, and the monks unarmed strikes count as a natural weapon for that effect. So it works.

I feel that you are trying to draw lines that not only do not exist, they simply 'cannot' exist in a logical fashion.


----------



## Dimwhit

Patryn. Ahem...



			
				Magic Fang said:
			
		

> Magic fang gives one natural weapon...




If the creature doesn't have a natural weapon, the spell is ineffective. Hence, a natural weapon is required in ordre to benefit from the spell. The target being one living creature touched is irrelevant. That's what you cast it on, nothing more. The creature must still have a natural weapon.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Yeah, this just baffles me. Of course a prereq isn't an effect. It isn't anything!




Then, if it isn't an effect, the monk's unarmed strike does not count as a natural weapons for purposes thereof.

Accordingly, human monks may not take INA.  Thank you for finally agreeing with me.  

Note, however, you're still wrong about Magic Fang.  Check my above post.

Magic Fang does not require that the creature have a natural weapon.  It merely provides an effect which improves a natural weapon - one which, therefore, a monk may apply to his unarmed strike.


----------



## Zandel

in the magic fang point PoE is right. You can cast magic fang on a human Com1...it wont have any effect other than give them a magic aura for the duration of the spell but you can do it anyway.


----------



## Scion

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Fortunately, I don't depend upon your "feelings" when discussing the rules.




That is fine. But it definately seems like you are destroying logic while simultaneously ignoring the rules.

That is what I am having trouble with.

Your arguement simply makes a distinction that cannot, and as far as I can tell, does not exist.


----------



## Scion

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> I don't understand how a prereq not being an effect has anything to do with this argument.




As far as I can tell it doesnt.

The point has no basis that I can see. There is nothing to suggest that the prereqs are not part of the feat, which itself is an effect, and so can be qualified for directly.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Scion said:
			
		

> I am afraid that here is one of the main points I see your arguement breaking down.




Whereas I see that your inability to account for this in your argument is the place where your argument breaks down.  It simply makes no sense, etc.



> To me, to say that one works while the other does not is to be ignoring the rules of the game.




To me, to say that they both work is to be ignoring the rules of the game.



> I feel that you are trying to draw lines that not only do not exist, they simply 'cannot' exist in a logical fashion.




Ditto, etc.  

EDIT:

To expand, regurgitating the fact that you don't understand, comprehend, etc., my position isn't going to get us anywhere.

I've explained my reasoning.

Succinctly, a prerequisite is not an effect in and of itself.  Accordingly, a human monk does not possess a natural weapon for purposes of prerequisites, as he is only considered to have a natural weapon for purposes of spells, effects, etc., that improve natural weapons.  Therefore, a human monk cannot take the INA feat because he does not meet the prerequisites.

If he somehow met the prereqs, he could take the feat and apply its benefits to his unarmed strike.

A lizardman monk has no such problems.

Whether or not you like, understand, comprehend, agree with, etc., my reasoning, there it is.

Further discussion seems like it will be rather unproductive, so why don't we agree to disagree?


----------



## Dimwhit

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Then, if it isn't an effect, the monk's unarmed strike does not count as a natural weapons for purposes thereof.
> 
> Accordingly, human monks may not take INA.  Thank you for finally agreeing with me.




Nice try. See Scion's post, because he explains it well. The prereq doesn't NEED to be an effect.



> Note, however, you're still wrong about Magic Fang.  Check my above post.
> 
> Magic Fang does not require that the creature have a natural weapon.  It merely provides an effect which improves a natural weapon - one which, therefore, a monk may apply to his unarmed strike.




For the effect of Magic Fang to manifest, it does require a natural weapon. Yes, you can cast it on anyone, but you only get the benefit if you have a natural weapon.

I admit, it's not the strongest of examples, since we're comparing a spell to a feat. But if the spell was written as a feat, I'd bet you anything it would have a prereq of needing a natural weapon. Again, though, it's not the best example.


----------



## Scion

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> *snip*



::shrugs:: I could simply say that pink bunnies prevent monks from ever gaining level 2.

That doesnt make it so.

If you can show how the prereqs are not part of a feat then maybe you will start to have an arguement. The prereqs simply state what is needed to be able to use the feat, and the monk qualifies, as per his description.

Until then however, pink bunnies prevent monks from ever gaining level 2 has an equal rules basis as your arguement as near as I can tell.


----------



## Dimwhit

Patryn, I'm just baffled as to what role you think a prereq has in all this.


----------



## Scion

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> a prerequisite is not an effect in and of itself




This is the part that I feel you have no basis in the RAW. Which means that the arguement fails on step one.

You have not shown that the prereq needs to be an effect, or that it even exists in some metaphysical realm outside of the feat itself, or that somehow even though one could qualify for the feat enough by having something that counts as a natural weapon for it (by feats being effects so the unarmed strike qualifies) that you cannot qualify to meet *that very feats prereqs*.

Pink bunnies.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Nice try.




I thought so.  



> The prereq doesn't NEED to be an effect.




I disagree.  It absolutely must be an effect if the monk wants to use his special monk ability to treat his unarmed strike as a natural weapon to qualify for the feat.  His special ability only works for certain effects, so if it isn't an effect, it doesn't work at all.



> For the effect of Magic Fang to manifest, it does require a natural weapon. Yes, you can cast it on anyone, but you only get the benefit if you have a natural weapon.




Or, oddly enough, have a special ability that lets you treat your unarmed strike as a natural weapon for purposes of spells or effects that improve natural weapons.

Which the monk has.

That's why a human monk could benefit from the INA feat, *if he could take it.*



> I'd bet you anything it would have a prereq of needing a natural weapon. Again, though, it's not the best example.




At which point the monk could no longer take the feat.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Scion said:
			
		

> You have not shown that the prereq needs to be an effect




I don't need to.  The monk's ability requires it to be an effect:



			
				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.




If a prerequisite is not an effect and it is not a spell, then a monk's unarmed strike does not count as a natural weapon for purposes thereof.

The onus is not on me to prove that prereqs are not effects.  It is upon you to prove that they are.  Something that, as far as the RAW are considered, I doubt you'll be able to do.

You could claim (and have!) that "Prereqs and feats are all part of the same package," but then you're on metaphysical ground that is just as shaky as mine.


----------



## Scion

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> I don't need to.  The monk's ability requires it to be an effect:




You dont need to prove that the prereq is a seperate entity than the feat?

Why not? your entire arguement is hinged on that.

Without that little bit of info your arguement means the same as the pink bunnies.

The feat qualifies as an effect. So for all parts of that feat the monks ability qualifies. All parts, such as the prereqs.

The 'prereqs are not effects' simply means nothing. The prereqs mean nothing except in context of how they are used. They are used in the feat. The feat counts as a prereq therefore the monk can take it and he qualifies.




			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> The onus is not on me to prove that prereqs are not effects.




You are making the claim that they are somehow disseperate entities.

So yes, the burden of proof lies on your shoulders.



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> You could claim (and have!) that "Prereqs and feats are all part of the same package," but then you're on metaphysical ground that is just as shaky as mine.




Unless of course we read the rules:



			
				srd said:
			
		

> FEAT NAME [TYPE OF FEAT]
> Prerequisite: A minimum ability score, another feat or feats, a minimum base attack bonus, a minimum number of ranks in one or more skills, or a class level that a character must have in order to acquire this feat. This entry is absent if a feat has no prerequisite. A feat may have more than one prerequisite.
> Benefit: What the feat enables the character (“you” in the feat description) to do. If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.
> In general, having a feat twice is the same as having it once.
> Normal: What a character who does not have this feat is limited to or restricted from doing. If not having the feat causes no particular drawback, this entry is absent.
> Special: Additional facts about the feat that may be helpful when you decide whether to acquire the feat.




This is what a feat is. The entire body makes up the feat. You cannot take away one part and have it still be the same feat.

After all, this is the basic feat entry.


Until then though, pink bunnies.


----------



## Legildur

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> <snip> Further discussion seems like it will be rather unproductive, so why don't we agree to disagree?



Probably the most sensible line about this topic that I've read across the now locked thread and the two poll theads.

It seems pretty darn clear to me that there are a core of people on both sides of the discussion that can't be swayed either way and many pages of posts don't seem to achieving a great deal now.  Which is a shame, as I would like to see a final agreed position in this (even the poll results are not sufficiently conclusive for my liking).

Personally, I don't think that a human monk qualifies for INA for all the reasons already flagged, but, for me, it is mainly because it is in the MM and not in the PHB, that monks already get a progression of their unarmed strike, and that the 3.0e of Oriental Adventures required a significantly longer feat chain to obtain the Empty Hand Mastery (?) style.

That being said, I can see a certain logic on the 'for' side of the argument, and now the FAQ (for what it is worth) supports that view, and so wouldn't blink if a DM either allowed it or disallowed it.


----------



## Dimwhit

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> If a prerequisite is not an effect and it is not a spell, then a monk's unarmed strike does not count as a natural weapon for purposes thereof.




Man, that's just...wow. I don't know how else to explain it. The feat is the effect. The prereq is simply the state of being needed before the effect of the feat can be reached. A monk's unarmed attack qualifies as a natural weapon for the feat.

It's like Power Attack. You must have a STR 13 to take it. In other words, you must be 'this strong' to take it. That 13 STR isn't an effect...it's nothing. Just the prereq necessary. The state of being.

You're giving prereqs a quality that just doesn't exist.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> It's like Power Attack. You must have a STR 13 to take it. In other words, you must be 'this strong' to take it. That 13 STR isn't an effect...it's nothing. Just the prereq necessary. The state of being.




Similarly, that "natural weapon" isn't an effect ... it's nothing.  Just the prereq necessary.  The state of being.  The one a human doesn't have.


----------



## Dimwhit

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Similarly, that "natural weapon" isn't an effect ... it's nothing.  Just the prereq necessary.  The state of being.  The one a human doesn't have.



 Except for the Monk that needs it to qualify for a feat or other effect that requires natural weapons. See, you're coming around!

EDIT: I worded that poorly.

Exept for the Monk, which qualifies as having a natural weapon for effects that require one, like this feat.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Except for the Monk that needs it to qualify for a feat or other effect that requires natural weapons. See, you're coming around!




Err, no, I'm not.  I'm saying that I don't think your line argument is productive in forcing me to come around.

A monk's unarmed strike qualifies as a natural weapon *only* for purposes of spells or effects.  Nothing else.

By your arguments, a feat's prerequisite is not an effect - it's not anything!  Ergo, a monk's unarmed strike does not qualify as a natural weapon for purposes of a feat's prerequisites.

Therefore, a human monk does not meet the prerequisites of the INA feat.  Therefore, he cannot take the feat.


----------



## Zandel

Legildur said:
			
		

> Personally, I don't think that a human monk qualifies for INA for all the reasons already flagged, but, for me, it is mainly because it is in the MM and not in the PHB, that monks already get a progression of their unarmed strike, and that the 3.0e of Oriental Adventures required a significantly longer feat chain to obtain the Empty Hand Mastery (?) style.




Once again that's like saying a wizard doesn't qualify for Craft Construct just because of the book it's in (a monster manual) and that's just dam TFU if you ask me.

-


----------



## Dimwhit

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> A monk's unarmed strike qualifies as a natural weapon only for purposes of spells or effects. Nothing else.
> 
> By your arguments, a feat's prerequisite is not an effect - it's not anything! Ergo, a monk's unarmed strike does not qualify as a natural weapon for purposes of a feat's prerequisites.




Right there, that's the problem. The unarmed strike 'qualifying as a natural weapon' for an effect is the same thing as saying it 'satisfies the prerequisite for' an effect. The two are the same thing. The Monk's unarmed attack (which qualifies as a natural weapon) is the same as the prereq. One doesn't lead to the other. It doesn't satisfy the prereq, it IS the prereq. I don't know how else to put it.


----------



## Zandel

> Therefore, a human monk does not meet the prerequisites of the INA feat. Therefore, he cannot take the feat.




This is a very interesting point that I seem to have missed along the line. I've always said that a monk could 'use' the feat but now there's the question of how he gets it........ now I can see polymorph self being useful here but what happens when the duration runs out?

With feats as soon as you no longer meet the prerqus you loose all benifits for them so theoretically if a human monk somehow got this feat he could only use it while under magic of some form to give him a natural weapon.......

I have to look into this further...


----------



## IanB

The big problem with this argument, as I see it, is that the 'human monks don't qualify but lizardfolk monks do' letter-of-the-law interpretation results in the least logical and satisfying of the three possibilities, which is to say, 'human monks can't take it, but lizardfolk monks can take it and apply it to unarmed monk attacks.' There is a decent argument to be made for this, as there is for allowing it, based on the description of the monk's unarmed strike.

The three possibilities I see:

1) All monks qualify and can take the feat and apply it to unarmed strikes.
2) Monks with other natural weapons can take the feat and turn around and apply it to their unarmed strike. Monks without natural weapons cannot take the feat.
3) No monks can apply the feat to unarmed strikes, regardless of whether or not they have natural weapons that qualify them to take the feat.

From a standpoint of logic and rules consistency, options 1 and 3 are clearly better rulings than option 2. Option 3 clearly is the weakest from a RAW standpoint, but possibly strongest if you consider the likely designer intent behind the feat (I highly doubt they considered monks when designing it.) Now, we also have a Sage ruling in favor of option 1.

The combination of being a cleaner, more logical rule, having a Sage ruling, and having a decently strong RAW argument (equally as strong as the argument in favor of 2 in my opinion, but not stronger) in favor of 1 would seem to be enough to make the 'default' rule on this pretty clear.

IMC, I think I will go with option 3 and happily call it a house rule.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Right there, that's the problem. The unarmed strike 'qualifying as a natural weapon' for an effect is the same thing as saying it 'satisfies the prerequisite for' an effect.




No, see, that's where I disagree.  They aren't the same thing at all.

It doesn't satisfy the prereqs of an effect.  It can act as a target of an effect that only works on natural weapons, however.


----------



## Dimwhit

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> No, see, that's where I disagree.




Yep, you're right. 

At least I finally know where the exact conflict is. I could never figure it out before.


----------



## Borlon

As Zandel's post illustrates, it is possible to follow this debate for quite a while without quite "getting" what the disputed issue actually is.

That said, let me put my oar in. 



			
				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.




It seems to me there are two "effects" that are relevant to the discussion.  One effect is the benefit of the INA feat.  I read the FAQ clarification as stating that human monks can benefit from the INA feat.  That seems straightforward, and I don't think anyone is disputing this.  The issue is whether a monk's unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon for the purpose of meeting prerequisites.  Whatever a prerequisite is, it does not seem to be an effect that enhances or improves a natural weapon.

The other "effect" is the INA feat itself.  If it were an effect, then it would certainly (as a whole) enhance or improve a natural weapon, and so, if it were an effect, it would treat a monk as having a natural weapon.  If the whole feat treats a monk as having a natural weapon, then all the parts of the feat should treat the monk as having a natural weapon.  Even the prerequisites.

There are two main arguments advanced for a feat to be considered an effect.  One is the prerequisite of the Improved Spell Resistance epic feat:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Prerequisite: Must have spell resistance from a feat, class feature, or other permanent effect.




The other argument is to say that acquiring a feat is a result (=effect) of leveling up.  Since "effect" is a rather imprecise term, this may be a legitimate reading.

Consider Dimwhit's latest argument in the context of INA being an effect.



			
				Dimwhit said:
			
		

> The unarmed strike 'qualifying as a natural weapon' for an effect is the same thing as saying it 'satisfies the prerequisite for' an effect.




Patryn of Elvenshae refusal to accept this principle stems, I think, from treating the "effect" as being the first kind of effect (the benefit of the feat) and not the second kind of effect (the feat itself).  After all, it is certainly possible to benefit from an ability without satisfying the prerequisites required to actually acquire the ability.

In short, I think that if the INA *has* an effect that enhances a natural weapon, it does not seem that a human monk is eligible to take it.  But if INA *is* an effect that enhances a natural weapon, a human monk would be eligible to take it.

At the moment I tend toward the latter view, but I have the utmost respect for Patryn of Elvenshae and the other proponents of the Nay side, and would very seriously consider any objections that might be raised to this position.


----------



## Artoomis

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> No, see, that's where I disagree.  They aren't the same thing at all.
> 
> It doesn't satisfy the prereqs of an effect.  It can act as a target of an effect that only works on natural weapons, however.




Now THIS I understand and takes one right back to whether this boosting of damage to the next larger size damage is an "effect" or not.

If it is, then the prerequisite is met. If it is not an "effect," then the prerequisite is not met.  For if it is an "effect" then the monks attack can benefit from it.  

Mind you, all feats do not need to be "effects" for a monk to qualify for INA, only the boosting of the damage in the manner of INA needs to be an effect for this to be true.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Borlon said:
			
		

> That said, let me put my oar in.




Yup - that's summed up the situation fairly well, I think.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Now THIS I understand and takes one right back to whether this boosting of damage to the next larger size damage is an "effect" or not.
> 
> If it is, then the prerequisite is met. If it is not an "effect," then the prerequisite is not met.  For if it is an "effect" then the monks attack can benefit from it.




As Borlon explained, the two are not necessarily inextricably linked.

If the benefit of the INA feat is an effect that improves a natural weapon, the prerequisite is not met.
If the INA feat is an effect that improves a natural weapon, the prerequisite is met.

-Hyp.


----------



## Dinkeldog

Legildur said:
			
		

> Personally, I don't think that a human monk qualifies for INA for all the reasons already flagged, but, for me, it is mainly because it is in the MM and not in the PHB, that monks already get a progression of their unarmed strike, and that the 3.0e of Oriental Adventures required a significantly longer feat chain to obtain the Empty Hand Mastery (?) style.




Honestly, I think INA wasn't in the PHB because it wasn't ready when the PHB went to print.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Yep, you're right.
> 
> At least I finally know where the exact conflict is. I could never figure it out before.




Well then, at least we know where we [don't] stand, then, eh?  

I'm sorry I didn't make that clearer before.

EDIT:

Well summarized, Borlon.


----------



## Legildur

Zandel said:
			
		

> Once again that's like saying a wizard doesn't qualify for Craft Construct just because of the book it's in (a monster manual) and that's just dam TFU if you ask me.



 <shrug> I still stand by it.  I was actually waiting for someone to raise the Leadership feat, but that is essentially an optional rule.



			
				Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> Honestly, I think INA wasn't in the PHB because it wasn't ready when the PHB went to print.



 And that may well be true, and therefore a good point.  But if it came AFTER the PHB then there are two possibilities as to why there is no mention of monks in the feat description:

1.  They thought it was so obvious that Monks could take INA as to not require mention; or

2.  They thought it was so obvious that Monks could NOT take INA as to not require mention.

Unfortunately, except for very much belated Sage advice (which, as already pointed out by others, isn't always correct), I don't believe that the intention is clear.  Therefore individuals will have to make up their own minds.


----------



## Artoomis

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> As Borlon explained, the two are not necessarily inextricably linked.
> 
> If the benefit of the INA feat is an effect that improves a natural weapon, the prerequisite is not met.
> If the INA feat is an effect that improves a natural weapon, the prerequisite is met.
> 
> -Hyp.






> ...In short, I think that if the INA has an effect that enhances a natural weapon, it does not seem that a human monk is eligible to take it. But if INA is an effect that enhances a natural weapon, a human monk would be eligible to take it.




I think I see the problem.  If INA gave several effects, some of which were unrelated to having a natural weapon, then this might be an entirely different discussion.  However, as INA's SOLE EFFECT is to give a boost to the damage for a natural weapon, the monk qualfies.  Simple as that.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Artoomis said:
			
		

> However, as INA's SOLE EFFECT is to give a boost to the damage for a natural weapon, the monk qualfies.  Simple as that.




No, I don't think it's as simple as that.  Consider the following [changes from INA called out]:



			
				Patryn's Made-up Feat said:
			
		

> REALLY IMPROVED NATURAL ABILITY [GENERAL]
> Prerequisite: Natural weapon, [Improved Natural Attack,] base attack bonus +[6].
> 
> Benefit: Choose one of the creature’s natural attack forms [that has benefitted from the Improved Natural Attack feat]. The damage for this natural weapon increases by one [additional step], as if the creature’s size had increased by one [additional] category: 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6.
> 
> A weapon or attack that deals 1d10 points of damage increases as follows: 1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8.
> 
> [In addition, the creature gains a +2 increase to Natural Armor.]




For those of you who say a human monk qualifies to take INA, why doesn't a human monk qualify to take this feat?


----------



## Zandel

If your thinking because of the natural armour increase then your wrong as all humans have a +0 natural armour modifier.


----------



## FireLance

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> For those of you who say a human monk qualifies to take INA, why doesn't a human monk qualify to take this feat?



There might be something I missed, but I don't see why a human monk could not qualify for this feat. Whether or not the feat is balanced is another issue, but that's not being discussed here.


----------



## RigaMortus2

Borlon said:
			
		

> Whatever a prerequisite is, it does not seem to be an effect that enhances or improves a natural weapon.




I think this is the best quote so far, as to why a (Human) Monk does NOT qualify for INA.

Let's forget the prereq part for a second.  How did we even come to the conclusion that a feat (or the Benefit portion of the feat) is considered an "effect" anyway?  Since "effect" is not a well defined term, are we just assuming (a feat's) benefit = effect?

Let's look at the "Benefit" portion of INA, and the "Prereq" portion of INA, and ask ourselves (as per described under Monk) "Does this enhance or improve a natural weapon?"  Well, the Benefit of INA is that it bumps up the damage die of a Natural Weapon, so I would qualify this as an enhancement or improvement.  Ok, no problem here...

The Prerequisite of INA is that you must have a Natural Weapon to begin with as well as have a +4 Base Attack Bonus.  So does "having" a natural weapon or "having" a +4 Base Attack Bonus enhance or improve natural attacks?  I don't see how.

And finally, to open another can of worms...  If someone were to cast a spell on a Monk that reduced the damage of Natural Weapons by 1 damage die, would it affect the Monk?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Well, I was really attempting to get more at Artoomis's point, that a human monk can qualify for the INA feat because it is a feat that *only* improves natural attacks, and therefore the monk meets the prereqs.

According to you, FL, the human monk would qualify for any feat that in any way improved natural weapons, so long as he was capable of meeting its other prereqs.

There is dissension in the camp, I guess.


----------



## RigaMortus2

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> For those of you who say a human monk qualifies to take INA, why doesn't a human monk qualify to take this feat?




I'll take a stab at this (but I am on your side BTW  )...  Is it because you have to specify a natural attack form?  Monk's (at least human ones) don't have a "natural attack form".  Even though their unarmed attacks are considered natural weapons for spells and effects.

Am I right?  I have no idea...  Just looked like a fun game to play


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> And finally, to open another can of worms...  If someone were to cast a spell on a Monk that reduced the damage of Natural Weapons by 1 damage die, would it affect the Monk?




Of course not.  A monk's unarmed strike is only considered a natural weapon for purposes of spells or effects that *improve* natural weapons.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Is it because you have to specify a natural attack form?




No - that text is unchanged from the base INA.  Monk's unarmed strikes count as natural weapons (which, as near as I can tell, is equivalent to "natural attack forms") for this purpose.


----------



## RigaMortus2

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Of course not.  A monk's unarmed strike is only considered a natural weapon for purposes of spells or effects that *improve* natural weapons.




Hehe, ok so that was an "easy" trick question...  Not so much a trick I suppose...


----------



## FireLance

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> According to you, FL, the human monk would qualify for any feat that in any way improved natural weapons, so long as he was capable of meeting its other prereqs.



Yup, because I interpret the whole of a feat to be an effect. The benefit is part of that effect. The prerequisite is also part of that effect, in the same way that the range or target entry in a spell description is part of a spell.



> There is dissension in the camp, I guess.



Three threads and more than ten pages of posts kind of suggests that.


----------



## FoxWander

*Actually, what an "effect" is doesn't matter...*

A definition of what an "effect" is is irrelevant because what a "natural weapon" is is already clearly defined. 


			
				The SRD on 'Monster types 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.



So, technically, anybody with the "Improved unarmed strike" feat has "Natural weapons."



			
				The SRD on "Feats" said:
			
		

> *IMPROVED UNARMED STRIKE* [GENERAL]
> 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.
> 
> In addition, your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option.
> 
> Normal: Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack.
> 
> Special: A monk automatically gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat at 1st level. She need not select it.



Monks automatically get 'Improved Unarmed Strike' and thus automatically have 'Natural Weapons.' So you can skip the arguments about what is and isn't an effect that can be applied to the monk's "natural" (or "manufactured") weapons, because that point is kind of moot.

However, the field is now open for arguments about whether monks (be they human, lizardman or tarasque!) should be allowed multiple attacks for high BAB with their (again, CLEARLY defined) natural weapons because the definition of "Natural Weapons" goes on to say this...


			
				SRD again said:
			
		

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



 And there's lots more to argue about in there also, but the main point is that IMPROVED UNARMED STRIKES (as in 'the feat' which monks automatically get) are indisputably NATURAL WEAPONS!


----------



## glass

FoxWander said:
			
		

> And there's lots more to argue about in there also, but the main point is that IMPROVED UNARMED STRIKES (as in 'the feat' which monks automatically get) are indisputably NATURAL WEAPONS!



Actually, unarmed strikes (improved or otherwise) are pretty much indesputably _not_ natural weapons.

Yes, natural weapons threaten and area and do not provoke AoO when used. Neither do Improved Unarmed Strikes. This does not make them the same thing. Manufactured weapons also threaten and do not provoke AoO when used: does anyone weilding a sword qualify for INA?

An analogy: My car is blue. My shirt is blue. Is my shirt a car?  


glass.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Thanks, glass.


----------



## glass

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Thanks, glass.




You're welcome, Patryn.


glass.


----------



## TheEvil

Having the most endurance to argue doesn't make your arguement the correct one.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

And bowing out early makes the other side correct?


----------



## Artoomis

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> No, I don't think it's as simple as that.  Consider the following [changes from INA called out]:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by Patryn's Made-up Feat
> REALLY IMPROVED NATURAL ABILITY [GENERAL]
> Prerequisite: Natural weapon, [Improved Natural Attack,] base attack bonus +[6].
> 
> Benefit: Choose one of the creature’s natural attack forms [that has benefitted from the Improved Natural Attack feat]. The damage for this natural weapon increases by one [additional step], as if the creature’s size had increased by one [additional] category: 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6.
> 
> A weapon or attack that deals 1d10 points of damage increases as follows: 1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8.
> 
> [In addition, the creature gains a +2 increase to Natural Armor.]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For those of you who say a human monk qualifies to take INA, why doesn't a human monk qualify to take this feat?
Click to expand...



Myabe they do, and maybe they don't.  As I said, that's a very different discussion.

Here's the logic.  First, I assume a feat is not an effect in and of itself but is enables an effect, not that it really matters, in my view.  It only matters that the increase in damage is an "effect," which, while arguable, no one seems to be debating. 

Monks do indeed have a natural weapon for the purpose of getting the improved damage, but not for the purpose of improving natural armor.  One could view this two ways:

1.  They get all the feat's benefits as relates to natural weapons ONLY.  They do not get the improved natural armor.
2.  They do not qualify as you either get all or nothing of a feat's effects, and, since they would only get partial benefits from the feat, they do not qualify.

The monk is a really special case because they only count as having natural weapons for the purpose of getting benefits that improve the natural weapon from spells and effects, but for no other purpose.  This means that when looking to effects that enhance natural weapons, the monk meets the requirement of having a natural weapon for that effect to enhance.  In other words, they meet the prerequisite of having a natural weapon.

Note that, oddly enough, they would fully qualify AND get the improved Natural Armor if the prerequisite was ONLY Improved Natural Attack (disregarding the BAB requirement - that only affects when they can take the feat, not whether they qualify).  Weird, maybe, but hardly the weirdest thing in the rules.


----------



## melkorspawn

In this corner: Justice Thomas and the "PHB in exile" croud.
In that corner: Justice Ginsberg and the "living PHB" croud.

I've kept quiet up until now, because I'm part of Justice Potter's "I shall not attempt today to further define a natural attack... but I know one when I see it" croud.


----------



## Pielorinho

*Moderator's Notes*:

As the moderator who got so cantankerous in the previous closed thread, I figure it's only right for me to step in and thank everyone for keeping this one so civil, courteous, and respectful.  I may have no earthly idea what y'all are arguing about, but that's okay:  y'all are doing it in a way that keeps my blood pressure low .  So thank you!

Daniel


----------



## Artoomis

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> *Moderator's Notes*:
> 
> ... I may have no earthly idea what y'all are arguing about...
> 
> Daniel




Let me explain...


----------



## comrade raoul

It's not clear in the rules whether unarmed strikes are natural weapons. However, it seems plausible that if slam attacks are natural weapons, and can be improved with the Improved Natural Attack feat, then unarmed strikes can too. But, again, I think there is nothing in the rules that takes anything like a clear line one way or the other. Because this is the case, I think we ought to give FAQ rulings the normal authority for setting out what's in the RAW.

That said, I think it's certainly counter to the _spirit_ of the rules to allow monks to improve their unarmed attacks with Improved Natural Attack. If the designers intended for (humanoid) monks to seriously consider the option of taking a feat to do more damage with their unarmed attacks, they'd have included the feat in the PH. Its presence in the Monster Manual instead suggests that it's mainly there for DMs to apply to monsters, even though, like all MM feats, it's possible for players to take it. The overwhelmingly plausible interpretation, here, I think, is that the technical availability, and usefulness, of Improved Natural Attack to monks exists only because of an oversight on the part of the designers. As such, it's a prime candidate for a house rule.


----------



## Artoomis

Oh, I don't know, comrade, it seems no worse than, say, Exotic Weapon Prof (Spiked Chain).

Of course, that's all really beside the point of whether it's allowed by RAW or not.


----------



## glass

comrade raoul said:
			
		

> It's not clear in the rules whether unarmed strikes are natural weapons.



Unarmed strikes (from a monk or anyone else) are not natural weapons. In the case of monks they count as natural weapons for certain purposes, and the debate in this thread (and others) is whether meeting a prerequisite is one such purpose.

If unarmed strikes were no creature then would ever be unarmed, and you couldn't make iterative attacks with natural weapons. Neither of these is true.



> think there is nothing in the rules that takes anything like a clear line one way or the other. Because this is the case, I think we ought to give FAQ rulings the normal authority for setting out what's in the RAW.



I quite agree, give the FAQ the normal authority for setting what's in the RAW: None!


glass.


----------



## Artoomis

glass said:
			
		

> ...I quite agree, give the FAQ the normal authority for setting what's in the RAW: None!
> 
> 
> glass.




Actually, that's open for debate and is up for discussion in another thread.  In any case, it's totally off-topic.  We are discussing what the RAW actually says about monks and INA, not what the FAQ says.  In fact, the FAQ does not even address this issue (yet), only a published Sage ruling, which resurrected this whole topic.

Essentially, we are discussing whether the Sage issued a ruling that is at variance with the published rules or is only a clarification/interpretation.


----------



## Borlon

Artoomis said:
			
		

> The monk is a really special case because they only count as having natural weapons for the purpose of getting benefits that improve the natural weapon from spells and effects, but for no other purpose. This means that when looking to effects that enhance natural weapons, the monk meets the requirement of having a natural weapon for that effect to enhance. In other words, they meet the prerequisite of having a natural weapon.




Could you spell out the argument in the last two sentences, please?  I strongly suspect that your argument is invalid, but I might just be misunderstanding it.

As far as I can tell, something's being a valid target for an effect is not the same as meeting all prerequisites for generating the effect.  You have to have a natural weapon to benefit from _magic fang_ and the monk's unarmed strike qualifies as a legitimate target.  But no-one would claim that the monk can therefore *cast* _magic fang_.  Being the target of the spell is very different from being the originator of it.

When you look at the INA feat, being the target requires having INA- the monk qualifies.  But to be the source of the effect requires meeting certain prerequisites.  And the fact that you have a natural weapon for targetting purposes does not mean that you have a natural weapon for prerequisite purposes.  Unless a rule says otherwise.  But the rule that says a monk's unarmed attack qualifies as a target is silent on whether it qualifies for a prerequisite.  The reason is that a prerequisite is not an effect which enhances a natural attack, and so it is not covered by the rule.

I don't think you are trying to say that prerequisites and effects are the same things, or that being the target of an effect is the same as being the originator of the effect.  (Are you?) But I am not quite clear on what it is you *are* trying to say.  Every time I try to parse your statements, it comes out to you conflating two very different ideas.


----------



## glass

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Actually, that's open for debate and is up for discussion in another thread.  In any case, it's totally off-topic.  We are discussing what the RAW actually says about monks and INA, not what the FAQ says.  In fact, the FAQ does not even address this issue (yet), only a published Sage ruling, which resurrected this whole topic.



How can _I_ be off-topic when I am responding to another poster? He mentioned the FAQ, I just felt the need to point out the esteem with which a lot of people around here hold the FAQ (and Sage Advice, for that matter).



> Essentially, we are discussing whether the Sage issued a ruling that is at variance with the published rules or is only a clarification/interpretation.



IMO we have been predominantly discussing whether a human monk can take INA per the RAW.

Of course, if those of us who believe that the answer is 'no' are correct, then the Sage is wrong, but the AFAIAC the Sage is wrong sufficiently often that that is not a major issue.  


glass.


----------



## Scion

Borlon said:
			
		

> The reason is that a prerequisite is not an effect which enhances a natural attack, and so it is not covered by the rule.




Could you do what patryn apparently cannot and show some rules stating that the prereq is a completely seperate entity from the feat that it is a part of?

Without that little bit of information stating that, 'the prereq isnt an effect' is at best a pink bunny.

I have already posted rules showing that the prereq is part of the feat, you will have to counter those as well.


----------



## Peter Gibbons

FoxWander said:
			
		

> So, technically, anybody with the "Improved unarmed strike" feat has "Natural weapons."



Incorrect.  If that were so, a monk would not receive additional unarmed attacks from having a high base attack bonus (see MM, p.312).

EDIT: Also, your interpretation would reduce the "monk's unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon" language to mere surplusage.  The fact that natural weapons and IUS share some (or even most) characteristics does not make them the same thing.


----------



## Artoomis

glass said:
			
		

> How can _I_ be off-topic when I am responding to another poster? He mentioned the FAQ, I just felt the need to point out the esteem with which a lot of people around here hold the FAQ (and Sage Advice, for that matter)...glass.





Well, I responded, too.  I meant the whole subject was off-topic, I did not mean it to sound like a reprimand to you.  Sorry if it came across that way.


----------



## glass

Scion said:
			
		

> Could you do what patryn apparently cannot and show some rules stating that the prereq is a completely seperate entity from the feat that it is a part of?



He doesn't need to. The prerequisite of a feat does not have to be 'completely separate' from the feat to not be an effect.

'Effect' is not a term of art in D&D like (for example) 'level' is, so we have to rely on plain English for what it means. From dictionary.com:[SBLOCK]ef·fect
n. 
Something brought about by a cause or agent; a result. 
The power to produce an outcome or achieve a result; influence: The drug had an immediate effect on the pain. The government's action had no effect on the trade imbalance. 
A scientific law, hypothesis, or phenomenon: the photovoltaic effect. 
Advantage; avail: used her words to great effect in influencing the jury. 
The condition of being in full force or execution: a new regulation that goes into effect tomorrow. 

Something that produces a specific impression or supports a general design or intention: The lighting effects emphasized the harsh atmosphere of the drama. 
A particular impression: large windows that gave an effect of spaciousness. 
Production of a desired impression: spent lavishly on dinner just for effect. 
The basic or general meaning; import: He said he was greatly worried, or words to that effect. 
effects Movable belongings; goods.[/SBLOCK]

Which of the definitions in the above block fit prerequisite? None in my opinion!
_EDIT: The first sense, 'something brought about by a cause' is particularly instructive here, I believe._



> Without that little bit of information stating that, 'the prereq isnt an effect' is at best a pink bunny.
> 
> I have already posted rules showing that the prereq is part of the feat, you will have to counter those as well.



One sentance on an unrelated subject, which can be read to imply in passing that feats are effects but doesn't have to be? And that in know way demonstrates that feat prerequisites are effects, even if the feat as a whole is? Hardly conlcusive proof!


glass.


----------



## glass

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Well, I responded, too.  I meant the whole subject was off-topic, I did not mean it to sound like a reprimand to you.  Sorry if it came across that way.



I probably overreacted. I got the feeling that you were responding to me but not Comrade Raoul because he agreed with you and I didn't, but that was probably all in my head!  


glass.


----------



## Scion

glass said:
			
		

> He doesn't need to. The prerequisite of a feat does not have to be 'completely separate' from the feat to not be an effect.




Umm.. yeah, he does.

Otherwise I can simply fall back on, 'a feat is an effect'. Since the prereq is part of the feat then by default it is part of an effect.

In other words, unless the prereq is a seperate entity then the whole line of, 'a prereq isnt an effect' is either completely wrong or completely meaningless.

Which is why it is so hard to understand the position. There simply 'isnt' a position.


Does a fighter have to be proficient with 'hilts' as well as 'blades' in order to use his sword? No, he just needs to be proficient in swords. It is unimportant that all swords have blades and so he must be able to use those properly. So long as the weapon is made for someone of his form and he is proficient in swords that is all that it takes.

Unless proven otherwise the prereq is a part of the feat as a whole and all of it is treated at the same time. Qualify for the feat and you qualify for the prereqs, and vice versa, because they are exactly the same entity.


----------



## Artoomis

I still say the whole argument of whether a feat is an "effect" is moot.  

The only thing that is important is whether increasing damage by one size category is an "effect."  If it is, then the monk has a natural weapon for that puporse, and therefore meets the prerequisite of having a natural weapon (for this purpose only, of course).

It seems really silly to me to state that the monk would indeed have a natural weapon for the purpose of increasing his damage by one size category if only he had an actual natural weapon and was not merely considered to have one for the purposes of effects that granted benefits to natural attacks.

QUESTION:

Of what purpose is it to be considered to have a natural attack for the purpose of certain "effects" if one does not have a natural attack for the purpose of _*qualifying*_ to get that self-same effect?


----------



## glass

Scion said:
			
		

> Umm.. yeah, he does.
> 
> Otherwise I can simply fall back on, 'a feat is an effect'. Since the prereq is part of the feat then by default it is part of an effect.



But the monks ability does not say 'for parts of effects', it says 'for effects'. Even if the feat as a whole is an effect (which you have yet to satifactorily demonstrate), the prerequisite still has to be an effect in it's own right to be in the scope of the monk's ability.

Is the name of a feat an effect? Or is it completely separate? Neither?


> In other words, unless the prereq is a seperate entity then the whole line of, 'a prereq isnt an effect' is either completely wrong or completely meaningless. Which is why it is so hard to understand the position. There simply 'isnt' a position.



No it isn't. See above.


> Does a fighter have to be proficient with 'hilts' as well as 'blades' in order to use his sword? No, he just needs to be proficient in swords. It is unimportant that all swords have blades and so he must be able to use those properly. So long as the weapon is made for someone of his form and he is proficient in swords that is all that it takes.



What does that have to do with anything?


> Unless proven otherwise the prereq is a part of the feat as a whole and all of it is treated at the same time. Qualify for the feat and you qualify for the prereqs, and vice versa, because they are exactly the same entity.



No, meet the prerequistes and you qualify for the feat. Fail to meet the prerequisites, and you don't. If the prerequisites don't exist as an entity in their own right (albeit part of the feat) then how can you meet them (or not meet them).


glass.


----------



## Artoomis

glass said:
			
		

> But the monks ability does not say 'for parts of effects', it says 'for effects'. Even if the feat as a whole is an effect (which you have yet to satifactorily demonstrate), the prerequisite still has to be an effect in it's own right to be in the scope of the monk's ability...glass.





See my question above.  How could you be considered to have a natural weapon for an effect but not for qualifying for the effect?  That does not even make sense.

Edit:  Imagine this conversation:

"Congratulations. Your weapon is considered a natural weapon for the purpose of this effect that raises your natural weapon damage by one catgeory."
"Wow, cool!  Thanks, I'll take it."
"Nope, sorry.  You don't meet the prerequisite of having a natural attack"
"Huh, but you just said..."


----------



## glass

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I still say the whole argument of whether a feat is an "effect" is moot.



So do I, although I suspect for a different reason.  



> The only thing that is important is whether increasing damage by one size category is an "effect."  If it is, then the monk has a natural weapon for that puporse, and therefore meets the prerequisite of having a natural weapon (for this purpose only, of course).



You are conflating two different purposes. If the _prerequisite_ of a feat is not an 'effect that enhances natural weapons' (I maintain it isn't), then you don't have a natural weapon for the purpose of meeting feat prerequisites. 



> It seems really silly to me to state that the monk would indeed have a natural weapon for the purpose of increasing his damage by one size category if only he had an actual natural weapon and was not merely considered to have one for the purposes of effects that granted benefits to natural attacks.



It is a bit odd, but that doesn't stop it being the RAW.



> Of what purpose is it to be considered to have a natural attack for the purpose of certain "effects" if one does not have a natural attack for the purpose of _*qualifying*_ to get that self-same effect?



Do you mean, 'why would the rules be like that'
? Dunno. They are probably like that because noone considered the interaction of INA, monks and creature with and without natural weapons.


glass.


----------



## glass

Artoomis said:
			
		

> See my question above.  How could you be considered to have a natural weapon for an effect but not for qualifying for the effect?  That does not even make sense.
> 
> Edit:  Imagine this conversation:
> 
> "Congratulations. Your weapon is considered a natural weapon for the pupose of this effect that raises your natural weapon damage by one catgeory."
> "Wow, cool!  Thanks, I'll take it."
> "Nope, sorry.  You don't meet the prerequisite of having a natural attack"
> "Huh, but you just said..."




Or alternatively:

"Are there any feats I can take that improve my monk unarmed damage?"
"Well there's INA, but unfortunately you can't really qualify for that as a human"
"Ah OK, I'll have to pick something else then"
"I tell you what, it wouldn't be unbalanced for your monk to take it, I think I'll houserule it so you can, if you like"
"Thanks"

Just because you can construct and unreasonable fictional converstion about a ruling doesn't mean that the ruling is unreasonable, and even if it is unreasonably doesn't necesarily mean it is wrong.


glass.


----------



## Artoomis

glass:

A prerequisite is not a thing by itself, it's what qualifies you to take a feat.  If a monk has a natural weapon for the purpose of reaping the benefits of INA, then they must be meeting the prerequisite of having a natural weapon.

For a monk, ther is no such thing as a simple, straight answer to the question, "Do you have a natural weapon?"  That question can ONLY be answered in context.

Therefore, it is not correct to state that a monk cannot take INA because they do not have a natural weapon.  You have to check to see if you are asking because of an effect that will enhance a natural weapon or it if is for some other reason before you can say "yes" or "no" to the question of whether a monk has a natural weapon.


----------



## Artoomis

glass said:
			
		

> Or alternatively:
> 
> "Are there any feats I can take that improve my monk unarmed damage?"
> "Well there's INA, but unfortunately you can't really qualify for that as a human"
> "Ah OK, I'll have to pick something else then"
> "I tell you what, it wouldn't be unbalanced for your monk to take it, I think I'll houserule it so you can, if you like"
> "Thanks"
> 
> Just because you can construct and unreasonable fictional converstion about a ruling doesn't mean that the ruling is unreasonable, and even if it is unreasonably doesn't necesarily mean it is wrong.
> 
> 
> glass.




Or:

"Well there's INA, but unfortunately you can't really qualify for that as a human"
"What are the prerequisites?"
"A natural weapon and BAB +4"
"Don't I have a natural weapon for effects that benefit me as if I had a natural weapon?
"Sure, but a prerequisite by itself is not an effect that benefits your natural weapon."
"Huh?!?  What are you talking about?  I have a natural weapon for the purposes of the benefits of this feat but I still don't qualify as having a natural weapon for this feat?!?"


----------



## Dimwhit

Man, this is just going around is circles.

I think the main problem (or one of the dozen or so) is that the language in being interpreted differently. I'm going to try once more. The Monk's ability says:



> 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 is essentially a qualifier. I'm going to reword this to read how I read it: A monk's unarmed attack is NOT a 'natural weapon.' HOWEVER, because Monks are special, their unarmed attack qualifies as a 'natural weapon' if you have some effect that can enhance or improve it.

Now we have INA. This is a feat that improves a natural weapon. Naturally, because it improves a natural weapon, you need a natural weapon before you can take it. That's called qualifying (i.e. a prerequisite), much like before you get into law school you need a certain score on your LSAT (among other things).

Does a Monk qualify? First, do Monks have a natural weapon? No. Their unarmed strike is not a natural weapon. However, it qualifies as one if you have an effect that will improve it. INA will improve it, so for the purposes of taking this feat, the Monk qualifies.


This is essentially how I read the feat and the Monk's unarmed attack. I think we're reading WAY too far into things and not paying attention to what the language is telling us. And I feel that the actually wording supports this thought, I'm just dumbing it down.

The only argument left is does INA count as an effect. With no definition of 'effect' in the books, we turn to the dictionary:



> Effect: a change that is a result or a consequence of an action or other cause.




Taking feats of any kind are a result of leveling. A character improves himself, and at some arbitrary time a new ability is gained. We call them feats, but they're really just an ability of some sort gained after receiving a certain amount of experience. Therefore, a natural weapon becoming stronger and doing more damage in the effect of the Monk gaining experience and bettering himself. He's been working extra hard to do more damage with his fists, and now he does.

Anyway, that's my rambling on the subject.


----------



## Artoomis

I think you've captured the essence of it, Dimwhit.

The only real question in my mind is whether improving one's natural wepon damage as a result of taking this feat is an "effect" or not.


----------



## Dimwhit

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I think you've captured the essence of it, Dimwhit.
> 
> The only real question in my mind is whether improving one's natural wepon damage as a result of taking this feat is an "effect" or not.



 Well, given the dictionary definition, I think it is. But maybe I like to be more encompassing or something.  However, in the absence of an official definition for 'effect' in D&D terms, I think this is all we have to go on.


----------



## Artoomis

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Well, given the dictionary definition, I think it is. But maybe I like to be more encompassing or something.  However, in the absence of an official definition for 'effect' in D&D terms, I think this is all we have to go on.




I agree with you, but I see it as the only real point worthy of debate.  The rest seems somewhat obvious to me.


----------



## Pielorinho

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Let me explain...



The more of this thread I read, the more this sounds like a personal threat .

Daniel


----------



## Artoomis

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> The more of this thread I read, the more this sounds like a personal threat .
> 
> Daniel




Oh, no... just trying to be helpful.


----------



## FoxWander

glass said:
			
		

> <snip> does anyone weilding a sword qualify for INA?




Since swords are *NOT* "physically a part of a creature" (see the _first sentence_ of the "natural weapon" definition) then they are NOT natural weapons, and thus, obviously, do not qualify for INA. However, a monk's fists/elbows/knees/feet are clearly "physically a part of" him and so *DO* fit the definition thus qualifying for INA.

So the analogy should be: (coming from a monk or person with IUS feat) My fists are part of me, I am considered to be armed with them and don't provoke AoO when I attack with them. Natural weapons are part of a creature, make that creature to be considered armed and don't provoke AoO when used to attack. My fists are natural weapons.


----------



## RigaMortus2

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Of course not.  A monk's unarmed strike is only considered a natural weapon for purposes of spells or effects that *improve* natural weapons.




If a Human Monk is hit by Reduce Person, does he retain his "medium sized" damage for unarmed strikes?


----------



## Artoomis

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> If a Human Monk is hit by Reduce Person, does he retain his "medium sized" damage for unarmed strikes?




No - this has nothing to do with him having a natural weapon, his actual size got changed, so everything based on that size changed as well.  Bad example.

A better example would be a Curse Fang, Curse Weapon, or something along those lines.  I am sure there is something, but I just can't think of it right now.


----------



## Peter Gibbons

FoxWander said:
			
		

> So the analogy should be: (coming from a monk or person with IUS feat) My fists are part of me, I am considered to be armed with them and don't provoke AoO when I attack with them. Natural weapons are part of a creature, make that creature to be considered armed and don't provoke AoO when used to attack. My fists are natural weapons.



Natural weapons can be used to make secondary attacks and do not permit additional attacks due to high base attack bonuses.  A monk's fists _do_ permit additional attacks due to high base attack bonuses and _cannot_ be used to make secondary attacks.  A monk's fists are _*not*_ natural weapons.

However, they are _treated as_ natural weapons for purposes such as INA.


----------



## Anubis

I had a three-day vacation?  Didn't even notice, I was playing RTKX the last few days without being on the internet.  So much for that, heh.

Anyway, I saw someone mention on the other thread that no one considers a human monk's unarmed strike a natural weapon.  I'd really like to know how this could be possible.  You see, we have all this stating otherwise:

A human's natural attack is it's unarmed strike.  A monk's unarmed strike ability makes that natural attack lethal with more damage, and is thus a special ability modifying an existing natural attack.  Improved Natural Attack would be applied next, but on top of the existing abilities, not parallel to them.  As such, the monk's unarmed strike is an ability-modified natural attack, and perfectly qualified for the feat.  In fact, I'd go a step further and say that _any_ human could take it, not just monks, but the effects would be pretty dang weak otherwise.

Anyway, I still don't see the debate here, not for the *Rules* forum.  This forum is about the official rules.  As-written, monks qualify.  As per the Sage's ruling (and he is the _official_ rules interpreter), monks qualify.  According to Artoomis (I think it was Artoomis), customer service says monks qualify.  The spirit of the rules suggest monks qualify.  Based on all this with a dose of common sense and the word of people "in the know", the _official_ stance is that monks qualify, and that means specifically that _per the *rules*_, monks qualify.

Now whether it's balanced or not, that is well and fine for a debate.  Whether you wanna house rule or not is up to you as well.  This is the *Rules* forum, though, and the _official by-the-book and by-the-creators_ (Skip Williams's name is listed as being on the design team, so he is most certainly one of the creators) rule, for purposes of a *Rules* forum, is that monk's qualify.

Honestly, what gives anyone here the right to defy the very creators of the product on this?  They made the rules, so what they say goes, at least officially speaking.  Use whatever you want at your table, but if you argue it any other way, it's not the official rule anymore and belongs in another forum.  The case is closed, and from the Sage's mouth to all your ears, one truth prevails.

Heh, and without a single insult.  I must be happy about my overwhelming victory over Sun Quan last night.


----------



## RigaMortus2

FoxWander said:
			
		

> Since swords are *NOT* "physically a part of a creature" (see the _first sentence_ of the "natural weapon" definition) then they are NOT natural weapons, and thus, obviously, do not qualify for INA. However, a monk's fists/elbows/knees/feet are clearly "physically a part of" him and so *DO* fit the definition thus qualifying for INA.
> 
> So the analogy should be: (coming from a monk or person with IUS feat) My fists are part of me, I am considered to be armed with them and don't provoke AoO when I attack with them. Natural weapons are part of a creature, make that creature to be considered armed and don't provoke AoO when used to attack. My fists are natural weapons.




Can you attack with your hair as a Monk, and do "monk"damage with it?  After all, it is physically a part of the creature...

If a Monk has a child, can that child attack doing 1d6 damage?  After all, that child is physically a part of the creature.


----------



## RigaMortus2

Artoomis said:
			
		

> No - this has nothing to do with him having a natural weapon, his actual size got changed, so everything based on that size changed as well.  Bad example.




Well it's kind of like when you change your size category from medium to large via wildshape, and then cast Animal Growth on you...  Same concept...

Only spells or effects that enhance natural weapons affect the monk.  Going from medium to small does not in any way "enhance" their natural weapons.  So I don't think it should affect their damage, right?


----------



## Hypersmurf

Anubis said:
			
		

> A human's natural attack is it's unarmed strike.




There's a distinction between an unarmed strike and a natural weapon.  Humans have unarmed strikes; they do not have natural weapons.

-Hyp.


----------



## Peter Gibbons

Anubis said:
			
		

> Anyway, I saw someone mention on the other thread that no one considers a human monk's unarmed strike a natural weapon.  I'd really like to know how this could be possible.  You see, we have all this stating otherwise:
> 
> A human's natural attack is it's unarmed strike...



Hold it right there.  Where is it "stated" that a human's unarmed strike is a natural weapon?

The rules for natural weapons are set forth in the Monster Manual, and a human's unarmed strike does not follow them, so unless you have some authority for your starting premise, I'd say your conclusion is invalid.


----------



## Dimwhit

Peter Gibbons said:
			
		

> Hold it right there.  Where is it "stated" that a human's unarmed strike is a natural weapon?
> 
> The rules for natural weapons are set forth in the Monster Manual, and a human's unarmed strike does not follow them, so unless you have some authority for your starting premise, I'd say your conclusion is invalid.



 You (and others) are correct. A human's unarmed strike is not the same as a 'natural weapon' as defined in the rules. The Monk, of course, is the exception in the sense that it is considered a natural weapon for the purposes of yada yada...enter the debate.


----------



## Anubis

Unarmed strike is their natural attack simply because without any other weapon, that is what they would attack with.  The reason it doesn't necessarily fit the standard definition is because of the special modifiers on many humanoid races that make their attacks nonlethal.  That, however, doesn't make them any less natural.  It's an attack using a part of your body, that simple.  There is nothing explicitly stating whether or not it's right, but the spirit of the rules is clear on that point.

It seems, however, that people around here (namely the previous two posters before Dimwhit) don't like to read entire posts.  You see, I made two points.  The first was merely about natural attacks in general, the second was about the rule itself.  You attack the first part even though I didn't use that in the second part because it's truly a moot point.  Anyway, since you didn't pay attention the first time, I'll repeat myself word-for-word.  I suggest reading the _entire_ post this time so you don't make yourself look bad again.



So yeah, READ THE WHOLE THING!  In fact, I'll even underline the parts you conveniently skipped so you don't miss it again.

I had a three-day vacation? Didn't even notice, I was playing RTKX the last few days without being on the internet. So much for that, heh.

Anyway, I saw someone mention on the other thread that no one considers a human monk's unarmed strike a natural weapon. I'd really like to know how this could be possible. You see, we have all this stating otherwise:

A human's natural attack is it's unarmed strike. A monk's unarmed strike ability makes that natural attack lethal with more damage, and is thus a special ability modifying an existing natural attack. Improved Natural Attack would be applied next, but on top of the existing abilities, not parallel to them. As such, the monk's unarmed strike is an ability-modified natural attack, and perfectly qualified for the feat. In fact, I'd go a step further and say that any human could take it, not just monks, but the effects would be pretty dang weak otherwise.

Anyway, I still don't see the debate here, not for the Rules forum. This forum is about the official rules. As-written, monks qualify. As per the Sage's ruling (and he is the official rules interpreter), monks qualify. According to Artoomis (I think it was Artoomis), customer service says monks qualify. The spirit of the rules suggest monks qualify. Based on all this with a dose of common sense and the word of people "in the know", the official stance is that monks qualify, and that means specifically that per the rules, monks qualify.

Now whether it's balanced or not, that is well and fine for a debate. Whether you wanna house rule or not is up to you as well. This is the Rules forum, though, and the official by-the-book and by-the-creators (Skip Williams's name is listed as being on the design team, so he is most certainly one of the creators) rule, for purposes of a Rules forum, is that monk's qualify.

Honestly, what gives anyone here the right to defy the very creators of the product on this? They made the rules, so what they say goes, at least officially speaking. Use whatever you want at your table, but if you argue it any other way, it's not the official rule anymore and belongs in another forum. The case is closed, and from the Sage's mouth to all your ears, one truth prevails.

Heh, and without a single insult. I must be happy about my overwhelming victory over Sun Quan last night.


----------



## Zandel

The only problem there is that it's written that humans and other base races with only unarmed strikes do NOT have a Natural Weapon or Natural Attack Form. Not sure where that is though.

BY the RAW:

=1=_____Feats are effects......scion has shown this to be correct

+2+_____INA is a feat.....obvious

=3=_____INA has the prerequisits of BAB+4 and a Natural Weapon.....again obvious

+4+_____Base races with no weapons that can only attack with an Unarmed Strike do NOT have a natural weapon.....somwhere

Now the question is not IF a monk can benifit from INA, the question is if a monk can TAKE INA in the first place.

On this i'm not too sure at this time......I can see good arguments for both sides.
Anubis does have a point with the spirit of the RAW but how can we guess what the designers intended?


----------



## Anubis

Zandel said:
			
		

> Anubis does have a point with the spirit of the RAW but how can we guess what the designers intended?




*Points up to my last two posts.*

The spirit of the rules don't even matter, and the intentions of the designers are crystal clear.  Skip Williams is part of the design team, and he says monks qualify, so they do.

*Points to the credits of the PH.*

Like I said, from Skip Williams's mouth to all of your ears, one truth prevails.


----------



## Zandel

> The spirit of the rules don't even matter, and the intentions of the designers are crystal clear. Skip Williams is part of the design team, and he says monks qualify, so they do.




If skip says it and is backed up by others with no dispute amongst the designers then that is how it is. By the RAW it's not so clear but that doesn't reallt matter does it?


----------



## Anubis

Zandel said:
			
		

> If skip says it and is backed up by others with no dispute amongst the designers then that is how it is. By the RAW it's not so clear but that doesn't reallt matter does it?




BINGO!  FINALLY!

Yes, this is the *Rules* forum, so if the RAW are unclear to anyone (they're clear to me, but I guess not so clear to others), the word of the designers clears it up 100% outright.  They wrote it, they know how to interpret it better than we do.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Anubis said:
			
		

> Unarmed strike is their natural attack simply because without any other weapon, that is what they would attack with.  The reason it doesn't necessarily fit the standard definition is because of the special modifiers on many humanoid races that make their attacks nonlethal.




And that they're used as off-hand attacks instead of secondary natural attacks, and that they can gain iterative attacks from a high BAB instead of being limited to one attack, and that they're distinguished in various places (eg: _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)..._) in the rules...

An unarmed strike is distinct from a natural weapon.



> You see, I made two points.  The first was merely about natural attacks in general, the second was about the rule itself.  You attack the first part even though I didn't use that in the second part because it's truly a moot point.  Anyway, since you didn't pay attention the first time, I'll repeat myself word-for-word.  I suggest reading the _entire_ post this time so you don't make yourself look bad again.




If I make a post that begins "A Medium longsword deals 1d6 piercing damage.  On the topic of Improved Natural Attack...", then the fact that the first statement is irrelevant doesn't make it less wrong.  Someone addressing it to correct my error is not making themselves look bad.

On the other note, it's the 'as-written' and 'spirit of the rules' interpretations that are under dispute.

-Hyp.


----------



## Anubis

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> On the other note, it's the 'as-written' and 'spirit of the rules' interpretations that are under dispute.
> 
> -Hyp.




You ignored my post again.  Okay, I'll post it one more time, except I won't talk about the natural weapons this time, seeing as the rest of the post is what matters.  So please, stop ignoring this.



*Anyway, I still don't see the debate here, not for the Rules forum. This forum is about the official rules. As-written, monks qualify. As per the Sage's ruling (and he is the official rules interpreter), monks qualify. According to Artoomis (I think it was Artoomis), customer service says monks qualify. The spirit of the rules suggest monks qualify. Based on all this with a dose of common sense and the word of people "in the know", the official stance is that monks qualify, and that means specifically that per the rules, monks qualify.

Now whether it's balanced or not, that is well and fine for a debate. Whether you wanna house rule or not is up to you as well. This is the Rules forum, though, and the official by-the-book and by-the-creators (Skip Williams's name is listed as being on the design team, so he is most certainly one of the creators) rule, for purposes of a Rules forum, is that monk's qualify.

Honestly, what gives anyone here the right to defy the very creators of the product on this? They made the rules, so what they say goes, at least officially speaking. Use whatever you want at your table, but if you argue it any other way, it's not the official rule anymore and belongs in another forum. The case is closed, and from the Sage's mouth to all your ears, one truth prevails.*

As you can see, the RAW may be unclear (to you and some others) and the spirit of the rules may be disputed, but the official rule is clear because a member of the design team said so.  Unless the rest of them wanna come out and refute it (which they haven't), it can be assumed that they concur or that they just don't care.  You see, your interpretation of the RAW doesn't matter and neither does mine.  Skip Williams is one of the designers, though, so that's pretty good evidence that his interpretation is correct.  Or are you saying you know more about what they intended than they do?


----------



## Borlon

Scion said:
			
		

> Borlon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason is that a prerequisite is not an effect which enhances a natural attack, and so it is not covered by the rule.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you do what patryn apparently cannot and show some rules stating that the prereq is a completely seperate entity from the feat that it is a part of?
> 
> Without that little bit of information stating that, 'the prereq isnt an effect' is at best a pink bunny.
> 
> I have already posted rules showing that the prereq is part of the feat, you will have to counter those as well.
Click to expand...



Actually, Scion, I am on your side in all this.  I agree that a feat is an effect (of leveling up), and since INA enhances a monk's natural effects, it treats a human monk as having a natural weapon.  And all of its parts treat the human monk as having a natural weapon, including the prerequisite part of it.

Artoomis, however, has stated that it is irrelevant whether a feat is an effect or not (I am paraphrasing, and I hope I have not distorted Artoomis's position).  That is the point I am trying to get at.  That, far from being irrelevant, it is essential that a feat be considered an effect.

If you don't consider the feat to be an effect, then the only effect around that is enhancing a monk's natural weapon is the benefit section of the feat.  Which is distinct from the prerequisites section.  Thus the argument that a monk is an eligible recipient of the benefit, but does not meet the prerequisites for the feat.

The only way I see of linking the two (benefit and prerequisites) is by considering the feat as an effect.  Artoomis doesn't see it that way, and I want to understand what the reason behind that position is.

I also want to see if there are undesirable consequences to the general principle that a feat is an effect, but that won't happen unless the importance of the principle is recognized.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Anubis said:
			
		

> As you can see, the RAW may be unclear (to you and some others)...




The RAW _seem_ clear to me, but since there is obvious dispute, it is apparent that regardless of individual perception, they _are_ unclear.



> Skip Williams is one of the designers, though, so that's pretty good evidence that his interpretation is correct.




Firstly, some of Skip Williams' interpretations are extremely loosely-connected to what's written.  I'm not sure how you can take something that's written as a one-handed weapon, say "It's a two-handed weapon", and call it 'interpretation'.

Secondly, the INA ruling in question came from Andy Collins, as I understand it...?

-Hyp.


----------



## Dimwhit

Borlon said:
			
		

> Thus the argument that a monk is an eligible recipient of the benefit, but does not meet the prerequisites for the feat.




And this is where that argument breaks down. Basic English says that's impossible. Being eligible for the feat IS meeting the prerequisite. That's what a prereq is. A prereq is there to tell you what you need to be eligible for a feat. Since the effect of the feat improves the natural attack, the Monk is eligible for it, thereby satisfying the requirement (i.e. prereq) of the feat. I see nothing in the English language that allows for a different interpretation. Not that anyone has shown yet.


----------



## Anubis

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The RAW _seem_ clear to me, but since there is obvious dispute, it is apparent that regardless of individual perception, they _are_ unclear.
> 
> 
> 
> Firstly, some of Skip Williams' interpretations are extremely loosely-connected to what's written.  I'm not sure how you can take something that's written as a one-handed weapon, say "It's a two-handed weapon", and call it 'interpretation'.
> 
> Secondly, the INA ruling in question came from Andy Collins, as I understand it...?
> 
> -Hyp.




Not according to the OP from the other thread.



			
				reveal said:
			
		

> From the new Dragon mag #336, page 94, "Official Answers to your Questions"
> 
> Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack (Monster Manual, page 304) to improve his unarmed strike?
> 
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by the Sage
> Yes. As stated on page 41 of the Player's Handbook, a monk's unarmed strike "is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either," which includes feats such as Improved Natural Attack.
> 
> Barring multiclassing, the earliest a monk could take this feat would be at 6th level (due to the base attack bonus prerequisite), at which point her unarmed strike damage would improve from 1d8 to 2d6 (which represents an average increase of +2.5 points of damage). The same monk at 20th level would deal 3d8 points of damage with her unarmed strike.




Hmmm, and there it even says _official_ answers.  It doesn't matter if you think the Sage's interpretations are incorrect.  If something got written down in a way that jumbles up the original intention, that's something neither you nor I can readily see, but he can because he was there.  Not like it matters if it was Skip Williams or Andy Collins, though, because they'r *both* part of the design team.

Still, RAW unclear or not, spirit disputed or not, the _official rule_ is that they can take it.  If you don't wanna allow it at your table, then that's a house rule.  This is the Rules forum, though, which means it's about the official rules.  Now that the question has an official answer in writing, I don't see how the debate about what's official can continue.  Skip Williams helped write it, and without any of the others refuting it, we can safely say the word is pretty much *final*.  If you think he's wrong, well, that's a house rule.  As a mod, you should already know that, though.

SIDE NOTE: About enhancing versus making things worse, please keep in mind that by the book definition of enhance, any change up or down is counted as such.  A longsword -1 has a -1 enhancement.  Yeah, I know it sounds silly, but it makes things simpler to keep track of at least.  Anyway, that's what the book states.  Enhance can be good OR bad.  That's why you can have enhancement penalties.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Being eligible for the feat IS meeting the prerequisite.




Being eligible for the _benefit_.

A Fighter with enough ranks in Spellcraft meets the prerequisites for the Practiced Spellcaster feat.  However, since the benefit must be applied to 'a spellcasting class you possess', he is not eligible for the benefit.

A Fighter-2 is eligible for the benefit of Improved Critical (longsword) - there's no reason he can't improve his threat range with the weapon.  But he doesn't meet the prerequisites (BAB +8, for example), so he can't take the feat.

Being eligible for the benefit of a feat, and meeting the prerequisites of a feat, are two completely separate things.

-Hyp.


----------



## Zandel

However you can still take a feat that gives you no imediate benefit as long as you meet the prerequisits.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Anubis said:
			
		

> Not according to the OP from the other thread.




The Sage is Andy Collins.



> SIDE NOTE: About enhancing versus making things worse, please keep in mind that by the book definition of enhance, any change up or down is counted as such.  A longsword -1 has a -1 enhancement.  Yeah, I know it sounds silly, but it makes things simpler to keep track of at least.  Anyway, that's what the book states.  Enhance can be good OR bad.  That's why you can have enhancement penalties.




Penalties in 3.5, with very few exceptions (most of which are cut-and-paste typos) are unnamed.

Example: "–2 Sword, Cursed: This longsword performs well against targets in practice, but when used against an opponent in combat, it causes its wielder to take a –2 penalty on attack rolls."

It's not an enhancement penalty, it's an unnamed penalty.

-Hyp.


----------



## Anubis

Don't you just love how the smarf likes to skip over posts that prove him wrong as mine do?  Look, monks qualify because as per the ability, their unarmed strikes are considered natural weapons for the purposes of such effects.  Saying they don't qualify for the prerequisite is a very silly interpretation of what is otherwise a clearly written rule, and even the designers say so.

Again, they made the rules, so only their interpretation matters when it comes to what's official.  You may choose to go with some other interpretation at your table, but then that is a house rule.  So please just get over it, you've lost.  You're just a player or DM, and the designers have said you are wrong about the official rule, so you are.

EDIT: WHOA!  When did Andy Collins become the Sage?  Last I read Dragon the author of the column was Skip Williams.  Not like it matters, though.  As I said, they're both on the design team anyway.

On the cursed sword, I'm pretty certain that they figure since you already know a +1 sword have a +1 enhancement bonus, you can figure out for yourself the cursed one has an enhancement penalty.  I doubt it's a typo, it's just you misinterpreting things again.  There are several spells that give enhancement penalties as an attack effect, although I couldn't name them all (I rarely use status spells myself because I prefer raw damage).

Still, you keep dodging the issue.  I'm guessing that means you concede, eh?


----------



## Scion

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Being eligible for the benefit of a feat, and meeting the prerequisites of a feat, are two completely separate things.




Being able to 'use' the benefit is something seperate. The fighter 1 could get power attack (assuming a str 13+) but he couldnt use it for anything.

However, that does not apply to the case of the monk. The whole reason that he monk qualifies is 'because' he can gain the benefit.


----------



## Dimwhit

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Being eligible for the _benefit_.
> 
> A Fighter with enough ranks in Spellcraft meets the prerequisites for the Practiced Spellcaster feat.  However, since the benefit must be applied to 'a spellcasting class you possess', he is not eligible for the benefit.
> 
> A Fighter-2 is eligible for the benefit of Improved Critical (longsword) - there's no reason he can't improve his threat range with the weapon.  But he doesn't meet the prerequisites (BAB +8, for example), so he can't take the feat.
> 
> Being eligible for the benefit of a feat, and meeting the prerequisites of a feat, are two completely separate things.
> 
> -Hyp.




Hyp, that makes no sense. The second fighter above is not eligible for the feat because he doesn't have a BAB +8. When he does, he will be eligible for it.

I don't see how you draw the conclusion that you can be eligible for a feat without meeting the prereqs. A fighter isn't eligible for Power Attack unless he has a STR 13. A Wizard isn't eligible for the Craft Wand feet unless he's 5th level. Being eligible and meeting the prereqs are synonymous terms. They serve the same purpose.


----------



## Legildur

Anubis said:
			
		

> <snip>Saying they don't qualify for the prerequisite is a very silly interpretation of what is otherwise a clearly written rule, and even the designers say so.



If you fold the poll responses from those that agree that monks can take INA AFTER the Sage said so then the results are fairly evenly split.  There must be an awful lot of silly people out there......



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> <snip>So please just get over it, you've lost.<snip>



And you may very well be right.  And I'm not 100% convinced either way.  But it has been proved several times already that the Sage (and the FAQ) gets it wrong on occasions and directly contradicts the RAW.  Not exactly confidence inspiring stuff.  And certainly the poll results would indicate nothing conclusive about who has 'lost' or 'won'.


----------



## Artoomis

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Being eligible for the _benefit_.
> 
> A Fighter with enough ranks in Spellcraft meets the prerequisites for the Practiced Spellcaster feat.  However, since the benefit must be applied to 'a spellcasting class you possess', he is not eligible for the benefit.
> 
> A Fighter-2 is eligible for the benefit of Improved Critical (longsword) - there's no reason he can't improve his threat range with the weapon.  But he doesn't meet the prerequisites (BAB +8, for example), so he can't take the feat.
> 
> Being eligible for the benefit of a feat, and meeting the prerequisites of a feat, are two completely separate things.
> 
> -Hyp.




Ah but this case is different.

If a first level fighter had some sort of template that had them considered to have the Mobility Feat and a BAB of +4 for the purposes of effects that allow moving before and after an attack, they'd meet the prerequisites for Spring Attack, right?

Do you agree or not?

The qualifier is not if you are eligible for the benefit but if you meet the prerequisites situationally because of the benefit provided by the feat.  Assuming, of course that you consider the benefits of the feat (or even the feat itself)  to be an "effect."


----------



## Anubis

Legildur said:
			
		

> And you may very well be right.  And I'm not 100% convinced either way.  But it has been proved several times already that the Sage (and the FAQ) gets it wrong on occasions and directly contradicts the RAW.  Not exactly confidence inspiring stuff.  And certainly the poll results would indicate nothing conclusive about who has 'lost' or 'won'.




You don't have to be convinced, this is about what the official rule is.  The FAQ and the Sage and the errata are all around to clarify or correct things that is either printed wrong or disputed interpretation-wise.  The FAQ, the Sage, and the errata all trump the RAW because, you know, typos happen.  Sometimes there is a mistake in the RAW that isn't caught, or maybe that the designers understand but they don't realize some select readers won't understand.  That's where the FAQ, the Sage, and the errata come in.  The errata is for flat-out mistakes.  The Sage is there is clarify things where the RAW may say something that is clear to the designers but is written in a way that some would say is incorrect if viewed a certain way, as some of you have done here.  The FAQ tries to cover any other questions that arise.  Since they all come from the original source (the designers), that is why their word trumps the RAW in all cases.  Even then, you're in the minority in thinking the RAW don't allow the monk to take the feat, because I (and many others) see what the designers are saying and aren't confused in the least by it.  What makes us right is that one of the designers personally validated our view on it and clarified it in an official way that leaves absolutely no room for dispute over the official rule.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> If a first level fighter had some sort of template that had them considered to have the Mobility Feat and a BAB of +4 for the purposes of effects that allow moving before and after an attack, they'd meet the prerequisites for Spring Attack, right?
> 
> Do you agree or not?




If the fighter has Dex 13 and Dodge as well, then yes, he could then take Spring Attack, no doubt about it.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> The second fighter above is not eligible for the feat because he doesn't have a BAB +8.




There are situations in which someone can acquire a feat without needing to meet the prerequisites.  Racial bonus feats; the monk's bonus feats like Improved Trip; etc.

But I didn't say he's eligible for the feat.  I said he's eligible for the benefit of the feat.  He doesn't get the benefit unless he has the feat, but if he has the feat, the benefit can apply.

Contrast this with Practiced Spellcaster, where even if the fighter has the feat, he isn't eligible for the benefit - it cannot apply to him.

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis

Anubis said:
			
		

> You don't have to be convinced, this is about what the official rule is...




Actually not.  I think we all know what the offical rule is, due to the ruling by the Sage.

The question is:

Does the RAW contradict the Sage, support him, or leave it ambiguous?  If the question was only, "What is the offical rule?" then this would be a very short thread indeed.  

To re-phrase.  What is the posiiton of the RAW on the question of whether a monk qualifies for the feat Improve Natural Attack.  I think that is the question we are debating.


----------



## Scion

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> There are situations in which someone can acquire a feat without needing to meet the prerequisites.  Racial bonus feats; the monk's bonus feats like Improved Trip; etc.




this is both true and not true.

While the character does not meet the prereqs listed in the feat he 'does' have an ability which says he gets to ignore those prereqs.

So, in essence, the special ability takes away the prereqs. Or, in another way, qualifies him automatically whether he normally qualifies or not.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Anubis said:
			
		

> On the cursed sword, I'm pretty certain that they figure since you already know a +1 sword have a +1 enhancement bonus, you can figure out for yourself the cursed one has an enhancement penalty.  I doubt it's a typo, it's just you misinterpreting things again.




That's incorrect.  Making penalties unnamed in 3.5 was a deliberate design decision.

As Artoomis says, I've no argument with the fact that the Sage stated that monks qualify for the INA prerequisite.  I won't even contest that this is 'official', in the same way that the rulings in the FAQ that acid damage ignores hardness and that hardness applies to acid damage are 'official'.

My position is that, as written, monks don't qualify for the INA prerequisite, and that the Core Rules and the Sage's ruling are in disagreement on the matter.




			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> If a first level fighter had some sort of template that had them considered to have the Mobility Feat and a BAB of +4 for the purposes of effects that allow moving before and after an attack, they'd meet the prerequisites for Spring Attack, right?




I'd consider that a poorly worded template, if the intention was to allow them to qualify for Spring Attack.

If I'm wearing a cloak that gives a +10ft. enhancement bonus to speed, a +2 competence bonus to initiative, and a +1 competence bonus to Dex checks and Dex-based skill checks, what is the 'effect that increases speed'?  Is it the cloak, or the enhancement bonus?

-Hyp.


----------



## Legildur

Anubis said:
			
		

> You don't have to be convinced, this is about what the official rule is.  The FAQ and the Sage and the errata are all around to clarify or correct things that is either printed wrong or disputed interpretation-wise.  The FAQ, the Sage, and the errata all trump the RAW because, you know, typos happen.  Sometimes there is a mistake in the RAW that isn't caught, or maybe that the designers understand but they don't realize some select readers won't understand.  That's where the FAQ, the Sage, and the errata come in.  The errata is for flat-out mistakes.  The Sage is there is clarify things where the RAW may say something that is clear to the designers but is written in a way that some would say is incorrect if viewed a certain way, as some of you have done here.  The FAQ tries to cover any other questions that arise.  Since they all come from the original source (the designers), that is why their word trumps the RAW in all cases.  Even then, you're in the minority in thinking the RAW don't allow the monk to take the feat, because I (and many others) see what the designers are saying and aren't confused in the least by it.  What makes us right is that one of the designers personally validated our view on it and clarified it in an official way that leaves absolutely no room for dispute over the official rule.
> 
> 
> 
> If the fighter has Dex 13 and Dodge as well, then yes, he could then take Spring Attack, no doubt about it.



Well, Hypersmurf has already quoted one example where the Sage was CLEARLY wrong:



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Firstly, some of Skip Williams' interpretations are extremely loosely-connected to what's written. I'm not sure how you can take something that's written as a one-handed weapon, say "It's a two-handed weapon", and call it 'interpretation'.



So forgive me if I don't jump on the Sage bandwagon without hesitation.

I see where you are coming from, and why you are so adamant about your position, but I think refusing to acknowledge that there may be an alternate view or interpretation is not particularly respectful in a an obviously unclear case (and the many pages of discussion are direct evidence of the lack of clarity).

I'm not saying that the Sage's response aren't official rules in some capacity (but certainly down on the list of merit), I'm just saying there is a possibility that they are wrong.  And there are quite a number of people also holding a similar view.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Scion said:
			
		

> this is both true and not true.




"Sometimes a creature has one or more bonus feats, marked with a superscript B (B). Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat."

It's reasonably clear-cut, no?

-Hyp.


----------



## Scion

yes, and that is exactly what I said, glad you posted the rule I was talking about.


----------



## Borlon

I'm presuming that the rules designers had a reason for giving the interpretation they gave.  Based on their understanding of the way that rules and definitions interact, they said that a human monk qualifies for INA.  What I am interested in is how this judgment can be justified.  I suspect that the only way of justifying from the RAW is to adopt the principle that a feat is considered an effect.

I'm not saying that it is a bad principle, or that it contradicts a principle already given in the RAW (though I might change my mind about this); right now I just think it is a new principle.  I want to understand it so I can see how it will apply in other situations.  That way I can anticipate what the FAQ might say on other questions.

I am not arguing that the designers are wrong.  I am trying to understand how they came to the conclusion they did.


----------



## Borlon

Scion said:
			
		

> Hypersmurf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are situations in which someone can acquire a feat without needing to meet the prerequisites. Racial bonus feats; the monk's bonus feats like Improved Trip; etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> this is both true and not true.
Click to expand...



How is it not true?  

I can see how it is true. Hypersmurf quotes the rule about bonus feat that says "Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat [but] the creature can still use the feat."  You agreed that this is the rule you are thinking of.

So how is Hypersmurf's statement not true?

(Some background: Statements that are both true and not true are rare, if they exist at all, and usually involve self-reference.  "This sentence is false" is probably the best example.  More often someone is just being careless when they say a statement is both true and false.  Could that be the case here?)


----------



## Hypersmurf

Scion said:
			
		

> yes, and that is exactly what I said, glad you posted the rule I was talking about.






You asked earlier for a quote showing that feats _have_ effects (vs feats _are_ effects)?

_You can gain Power Critical multiple times. Each time you take the feat, it may be with a different weapon or the same weapon.  If you take it with the same weapon, the effects of the feats stack._

-Hyp.


----------



## Scion

As the rest of my post stated it is true in that they do not qualify for the prereqs.

But it is also wrong in that the nature of how the feat is gotten allows one to gain the feat anyway. So, in essence, it gets rid of the prereqs. Or, in another way, it makes the person qualify even though they would normally not.

I could have also said that it was true but not the whole story, but I feel that my actual statement was closer to the real fact.


----------



## Scion

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> You asked earlier for a quote showing that feats _have_ effects (vs feats _are_ effects)?
> 
> _You can gain Power Critical multiple times. Each time you take the feat, it may be with a different weapon or the same weapon.  If you take it with the same weapon, the effects of the feats stack._




Feats both are effects and they have effects at the same time. The effect that they have is themselves.

As was shown several times throughout the various threads this has been on.

I am not sure whether you think this is new information or not, but it was already stated in several different places.

I guess it is good to have the information on a new page for those who have missed it before though.

The feat you are quoting however does not contradict anything I have said. It stacks with itself, the effects stack, those are synonimous phrases.


----------



## Artoomis

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> ...I'd consider that a poorly worded template, if the intention was to allow them to qualify for Spring Attack.
> 
> If I'm wearing a cloak that gives a +10ft. enhancement bonus to speed, a +2 competence bonus to initiative, and a +1 competence bonus to Dex checks and Dex-based skill checks, what is the 'effect that increases speed'?  Is it the cloak, or the enhancement bonus?
> 
> -Hyp.




1.  My assumption was that (perhaps) the template was designed WITHOUT Spring Attack in mind but for some other purpose and it just so happened to line up with the effects of Spring Attack as well.  You did not answer as to whether or not this fighter would qualify for Spring Attack.

2.  It don't think it matters.   Wearing the cloak gives you an effect of an increase in speed or an effect of a enhancement bonus to speed which gives you an increase in speed.  Either way should lead to the same result.


----------



## Anubis

If the Sage is one of the designers, how pray tell can he be wrong about what it means?  I think he knows better than you do what the rules are.  I have no idea what you're talking about the one-handed/two-handed crap, so I'll refrain from that.

Any which way, though, you're in the minority in thinking the RAW disagree with the Sage's ruling.  I think you just don't understand the words properly either because you don't like the result or you look way too deep into things.  There's an old saying that fits this.  _Always take the simplest explanation, because that's usually the right one._  This means that although you read the rules one way, the fact that one of the writers of said rules is saying it works this way should eliminate all confusion as to what the RAW mean.  Sometimes the RAW are ambiguous or wrong, that's where the Sage and errata come in.

Either way, when the Sage says something is official, it is unless a greater number of other designers refute him.  No matter how stupid you think his rulings are, it's the word of law in the official D&D world, and if you wanna play otherwise, then house rule it.  You aren't in any place nor do you have any right to say he's wrong, though, because you aren't one of the designers and he is.


----------



## Artoomis

Anubis said:
			
		

> If the Sage is one of the designers, how pray tell can he be wrong about what it means?  I think he knows better than you do what the rules are.  I have no idea what you're talking about the one-handed/two-handed crap, so I'll refrain from that.
> 
> Any which way, though, you're in the minority in thinking the RAW disagree with the Sage's ruling.  I think you just don't understand the words properly either because you don't like the result or you look way too deep into things.  There's an old saying that fits this.  _Always take the simplest explanation, because that's usually the right one._  This means that although you read the rules one way, the fact that one of the writers of said rules is saying it works this way should eliminate all confusion as to what the RAW mean.  Sometimes the RAW are ambiguous or wrong, that's where the Sage and errata come in.
> 
> Either way, when the Sage says something is official, it is unless a greater number of other designers refute him.  No matter how stupid you think his rulings are, it's the word of law in the official D&D world, and if you wanna play otherwise, then house rule it.  You aren't in any place nor do you have any right to say he's wrong, though, because you aren't one of the designers and he is.




Well, now, the whole point of this debate is really an academic one, not a practical one about official intepretations.  I think it's all about having a fun debate on what the rules really say irrespective of the Sage's ruling.  At that level, it's a fun (albeit pointless, perhaps) debate.

So, I am sure most will agree you are right on the mark about the official ruling and I, for one, agree with you about what the RAW says, but others do not and the fun is in trying to convince them that my position is correct while they try and convince me that they have the correct view.

What fun!  I love a good debate!


----------



## Hypersmurf

Scion said:
			
		

> Feats both are effects and they have effects at the same time. The effect that they have is themselves.




From what I can see, the feat is Power Critical, and the effect of the feat is a +4 bonus to attack rolls to confirm a critical.  The feat is not a +4 bonus; the feat provides a +4 bonus.



> It stacks with itself, the effects stack, those are synonimous phrases.




I see a subtle distinction.

-Hyp.


----------



## Legildur

Anubis said:
			
		

> If the Sage is one of the designers, how pray tell can he be wrong about what it means?  I think he knows better than you do what the rules are.  I have no idea what you're talking about the one-handed/two-handed crap, so I'll refrain from that.



I'm not disputing that he SHOULD know better, but the one-handed/two-handed thing (and others) was so contradictary to the rules that it can throw doubt on other clarifications he has made.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> Any which way, though, you're in the minority in thinking the RAW disagree with the Sage's ruling.



That's a very liberal interpretation.  One of the poll options is 'Yes, because of the Sage's ruling'.  You'll note that it neither says 'Yes, because of the Sage's ruling, which agrees with the RAW' or 'Yes, because of the Sage's ruling, even though it disagrees with the RAW'.  And if you ignore the responses to the 'Yes, because of the Sage's ruling' as it is unclear what the underlying position was before that ruling was (but I would think it was 'No' given it took a Sage's response to bring them to that position), then you have 43 no, and 75 yes.  If you include the excluded group, then I believe that the no case would be 76 - about an even split.  In either case not very conclusive, particularly as the sample may be biased (though which way I could not say).



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> There's an old saying that fits this.  _Always take the simplest explanation, because that's usually the right one._  This means that although you read the rules one way, the fact that one of the writers of said rules is saying it works this way should eliminate all confusion as to what the RAW mean.  Sometimes the RAW are ambiguous or wrong, that's where the Sage and errata come in.



Occam's Razor is the name of the saying you are referring to.  And it would equally leave the result that Monks don't qualify.

And contrary to your (continued) speculation, as a monk player, I in fact like the ruling.  I'm just not convinced that the ruling is right.  And there seems to be plenty of people in the same position.

Now on this part I am speculating (based on vague recollections of interviews with designers of some of the books) - maybe not each of the designers worked on the entirety of each of the books?  [_edit: and since confirmed below by Hypersmurf_] If that were the case, then that would undermine the argument of 'designer's intent'.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Anubis said:
			
		

> If the Sage is one of the designers, how pray tell can he be wrong about what it means?




Firstly - it may be a section he didn't design.  'One of', as you note.
Secondly - if what was written is not what was intended, it's not 'interpretation' to change it back.  If I intend to write that the threat range of a dagger is 20, and I write 19-20, I can't interpret it to be 20 again.  I can only correct it in errata.



> Either way, when the Sage says something is official, it is unless a greater number of other designers refute him.




And what happens when one designer says "X" and another says "Y"?

For example, Skip Williams says changing grip from one hand to two hands on a weapon is a free action; Andy Collins says it's a move action.  Which is official?

The FAQ says on one page that acid and sonic damage ignore hardness, and on another page that hardness applies to acid and sonic damage.  Which is official?

If one designer says that invisible creatures cannot flank, and a week later two more designers say "No, that's wrong - there's nothing in the rules that prevents it", does that mean that for one week, invisible creatures could not flank, or does it mean that for one week, the first designer was incorrect about his interpretation?

-Hyp.


----------



## Scion

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> From what I can see, the feat is Power Critical, and the effect of the feat is a +4 bonus to attack rolls to confirm a critical.  The feat is not a +4 bonus; the feat provides a +4 bonus.




The feat both is and provides the +4 bonus.

What provides the bonus? the feat.
What part of the feat provides the bonus? This question makes no sense, it has no meaning. The feat is the feat.

The feat is the bonus, the bonus is the feat. One is the other. There is no seperation.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I see a subtle distinction.




Which, as far as I can tell, is not supported by the rules and it creates problems in other parts of the rules set.

If you look under what the parts of the feat are you get this:


			
				srd said:
			
		

> FEAT NAME [TYPE OF FEAT]
> Prerequisite: A minimum ability score, another feat or feats, a minimum base attack bonus, a minimum number of ranks in one or more skills, or a class level that a character must have in order to acquire this feat. This entry is absent if a feat has no prerequisite. A feat may have more than one prerequisite.
> Benefit: What the feat enables the character (“you” in the feat description) to do. If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.
> In general, having a feat twice is the same as having it once.
> Normal: What a character who does not have this feat is limited to or restricted from doing. If not having the feat causes no particular drawback, this entry is absent.
> Special: Additional facts about the feat that may be helpful when you decide whether to acquire the feat.




This 'is' the feat. All of these parts are the feat. If you take away or change some part of it then it becomes a different feat.

Hence, the prereqs are part of the feat, the benefit is part of the feat, etc. These all make up the overall feat.

Which, according to the raw, is an effect.

The feat provides a benefit, the feat 'is' an effect.

There is no seperation that I can find in the rules. Saying that there is without proof seems a bit off.

Plus, if such a thing were true it would cause problems in the rules set, as we have seen.

As such, I currently see nothing to support the 'seperate' distinction.


As for power critical do you agree that the feats stack? Do you also agree that the effects of the feat stack?

They are the same question, especially in this case. You can have the feat 3 times and you will get +12. It doesnt matter if you say that you have the feat three times or that you have an effect three times and they stack, both mean exactly the same thing.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Artoomis said:
			
		

> 1.  My assumption was that (perhaps) the template was designed WITHOUT Spring Attack in mind but for some other purpose and it just so happened to line up with the effects of Spring Attack as well.  You did not answer as to whether or not this fighter would qualify for Spring Attack.




All right.  I'd say that as written, if the fighter were utilising an effect that allowed moving before and after the attack - like the benefit of the Spring Attack feat - he would gain a +4 Dodge bonus to AC against AoOs provoked by that movement, and for that attack, his BAB would be +4 (instead of whatever it is normally).  

I wouldn't consider the template to allow him to meet the prerequisites for the feat.



> 2.  It don't think it matters.   Wearing the cloak gives you an effect of an increase in speed or an effect of a enhancement bonus to speed which gives you an increase in speed.  Either way should lead to the same result.




But in neither case is _the cloak_ considered to be the effect, yes?

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Scion said:
			
		

> What provides the bonus? the feat.
> What part of the feat provides the bonus? This question makes no sense, it has no meaning.




The benefit of the feat provides the bonus.

You listed the parts of the feat in your quote - Prerequisites, Benefit, Normal, Special.

The Benefit of Power Critical provides the bonus.  The Prerequisites don't.  The Normal section doesn't.



> Hence, the prereqs are part of the feat, the benefit is part of the feat, etc. These all make up the overall feat.




Absolutely.  And the part of the feat that provides the bonus is the Benefit.



> As for power critical do you agree that the feats stack? Do you also agree that the effects of the feat stack?




The effects of the feat stack.  The feat is not a numeric quantity - it doesn't 'stack' because there's no way to add feats together, only the effects of feats.

It's not accurate to say "When using a Hammer of Thunderbolts, Gauntlets of Ogre Power stack with a Belt of Giant Strength".  It's accurate to say "When using a Hammer of Thunderbolts, the bonus from Gauntlets of Ogre Power stacks with the bonus from a Belt of Giant Strength".

-Hyp.


----------



## Scion

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> But in neither case is _the cloak_ considered to be the effect, yes?




The cloak produces the effect in this case. If you take away the bonus to movement it is still a cloak.

If you take away something from the feat it is no longer the feat, it may not even be a feat any longer.

They are completely seperate beasts. They work under different rules.

And really, one is a physical object with something put onto it, it does exist as a seperate entity while the other is a metaphysical something that ceases to exist if you take away what it does, because that is all that it is.


----------



## Scion

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The benefit of the feat provides the bonus.




No, the 'feat' provides the bonus. The bonus it provides is listed under the benefits section of the feat.

The feat provides the bonus, the feat 'is' the bonus.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The Benefit of Power Critical provides the bonus.  The Prerequisites don't.  The Normal section doesn't.




Completely unimportant. All of them make up the feat, they are the feat.

If you have a cheeseburger with various components it is cheeseburger type X. You cannot say that the burger part is the cheeseburger, it isnt, it is merely one of the components making up the cheeseburger.

Asking what benefits the prereqs provide simply has no meaning. The 'feat' provides the benefit, and the prereqs are part of the feat, so the prereqs in turn are part of the benefit, which is the feat.




			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The effects of the feat stack.  The feat is not a numeric quantity - it doesn't 'stack' because there's no way to add feats together, only the effects of feats.




So you are saying that I cannot say that I have improved critical 3 times and so get a bonus of +12? It sounds to me that one means the other. They are saying 'exactly' the same thing.

The effects of the feat stack. The feat itself 'is' the effect. The feats stack.

All of these are saying exactly the same thing.


I still havent seen you provide anything saying the opposite of the quotes that I have provided.

Merely some suppositions which do not make any actual sense when asked. The questions literally have no meaning because the questions themselves are meaningles.




			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It's not accurate to say "When using a Hammer of Thunderbolts, Gauntlets of Ogre Power stack with a Belt of Giant Strength".  It's accurate to say "When using a Hammer of Thunderbolts, the bonus from Gauntlets of Ogre Power stacks with the bonus from a Belt of Giant Strength".




You are talking about items again. We are discussing two completely seperate types of rules.

It is like one person is talking about aoo rules and someone else comes in and says that is all wrong because fireball does fire damage.

How much fire damage does failing a concentration check do anyway? Generally speaking, this question is completely nonsensical, and it is the same sort of thing that asking what the benefit of a prereq is, there is simply no basis to ask the question.

Completely orthogonal basis sets.


----------



## Dimwhit

Hyp, I don't agree that the feat grants the benefit. It's not like a character goes to a store, buys the feat in the form of a notorized paper, and that note grants benefit. The character gains experience, and after a certain point has a new ability. It's called a feat because, well, you gotta call it something.


----------



## Scion

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Hyp, I don't agree that the feat grants the benefit. It's not like a character goes to a store, buys the feat in the form of a notorized paper, and that note grants benefit. The character gains experience, and after a certain point has a new ability. It's called a feat because, well, you gotta call it something.




Yes.

It isnt an 'item' called 'Feat X', it is a benefit in a package that is called 'Feat X' for ease of use.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Scion said:
			
		

> If you take away something from the feat it is no longer the feat, it may not even be a feat any longer.




The Elusive Target feat takes something away from the Power Attack feat - the bonus to damage.  The Power Attack feat is still 'the feat', and is certainly still 'a feat'.  The effect of the Power Attack feat is altered in relation to the opponent with Elusive Target, but the feat is still Power Attack; the feat is the same, but the effect of the feat is different.

-Hyp.


----------



## Scion

That is not true, the feat allows the person to ignore the benefit of another feat, not taking away the ability of some other feat. They could still use the feat just fine against someone who does not have ellusive target and is not placing dodge on them.

The feat is worded in a way to make it simple, which is nice.

Unless you feel that a +1 sword takes away the benefit of the dodge feat?

Nothing about elusive target changes power attack in any way for the person with the feat (except their choice about how much of it to use, but that is outside of the feat itself).

But of course none of this has anything to do with my statement. If you take the power attack feat and modify it so that it requires dex 13+ instead of str 13+ it is now a completely different feat. It is no longer 'power attack' anymore.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Scion said:
			
		

> So you are saying that I cannot say that I have improved critical 3 times and so get a bonus of +12?




Absolutely, you can!  You have the feat three times, and the effects of the feats stack!



> You are talking about items again.




I'm talking about the difference between "X stacks" and "the effect of X stacks".

The effect of Gauntlets of Ogre Power is a +2 enhancement bonus to Str.  Gauntlets of Ogre Power are not a +2 enhancement bonus to Str.

The effect of Power Critical is a bonus to attack rolls to confirm a crit.  Power Critical is not a bonus to attack rolls to confirm a crit.

A bonus can stack.  A feat cannot.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Scion said:
			
		

> But of course none of this has anything to do with my statement. If you take the power attack feat and modify it so that it requires dex 13+ instead of str 13+ it is now a completely different feat. It is no longer 'power attack' anymore.




True.  But neither does that mean that "Str 13+" _is_ Power Attack.

Just because changing "Str 13+" changes Power Attack doesn't mean that Power Attack _is_ the prerequisite.

Similarly, just because changing the effect of the feat would change Power Attack doesn't mean that the feat _is_ the effect.

-Hyp.


----------



## Scion

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Absolutely, you can!  You have the feat three times, and the effects of the feats stack!




Exactly, the feats stack.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I'm talking about the difference between "X stacks" and "the effect of X stacks".
> 
> The effect of Gauntlets of Ogre Power is a +2 enhancement bonus to Str.  Gauntlets of Ogre Power are not a +2 enhancement bonus to Str.




And so the when useing the other item the ehancement bonus of the gauntlets stack with the enhancement bonus of the belt stack.

Normally they would not, because they have the same type of name, but the other item overrides that rule.

Still though, the item 'does' call out the gauntlets and the belt specificaly. You cant use a headband of str (I cant find the wording of the item, so I am going from memory) and expect it to do anything, it has a specific call.




			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The effect of Power Critical is a bonus to attack rolls to confirm a crit.  Power Critical is not a bonus to attack rolls to confirm a crit.




Power critical is indeed the bonus. When you have power critical you get +4 to specific rolls.

Which is exactly the same as having a 14 str and getting the +2 modifier. One does not cause the other, they are both two ways of expressing exactly the same thing (the fact that d&d rounds down fractions so that 15 is not +2.5 is unimportant to this discussion however).



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> A bonus can stack.  A feat cannot.




Sure they can, and they do.

Saying that the effects of a feat stack is *exactly the same* as saying that the feats stack.

The feat is the effect, the effect is the feat, there is no seperation.

If you have feat X 3 times you know exactly what that means, you get benefit Y 3 times (assuming that the feats stack of course, as not all do).


----------



## Artoomis

I'm really enjoying this debate.  The only thing that frustrates me is that I cannot move Hyp off of his position.

Ah, well.  Perhaps I'll think of some other way of stating my argument that will sway him.  I doubt it, but that probably won't prevent me from trying.  

I do appreciate that Hyp at least does see that the rule is ambiguous because two sides have pretty strong positions and both are based upon a reasonable reading of the RAW (even if both sides claim the other side is reading it incorrectly).  I'm not putting words in your mouth, am I Hyp?


----------



## Scion

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> True.  But neither does that mean that "Str 13+" _is_ Power Attack.




Exactly! which is why the question some people have been asking is meaningless. They are asking a question that simply has no basis in reality. 

The prereq is 'part of' the feat, it is not 'the feat'.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Just because changing "Str 13+" changes Power Attack doesn't mean that Power Attack _is_ the prerequisite.




Umm.. no, power attack is the feat. One is not the other. One is a part of the other.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Similarly, just because changing the effect of the feat would change Power Attack doesn't mean that the feat _is_ the effect.




No, it doesnt.

But then I am not even sure what you are argueing here.

I have shown from a different part of the rules that feats are effects, so claiming that changing power attack doesnt mean that the feat is an effect seems again to be stating nothing.


----------



## Artoomis

<no delete button?>


----------



## Rystil Arden

> The feat is the effect, the effect is the feat, there is no seperation.




So if my character gets some Exalted feats (from the BoED) and then fails to follow the Exalted code, losing the effects of the feats, are you saying that he doesn't have the feats anymore Scion?


----------



## Scion

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> So if my character gets some Exalted feats (from the BoED) and then fails to follow the Exalted code, losing the effects of the feats, are you saying that he doesn't have the feats anymore Scion?




??



			
				BoED said:
			
		

> A character who willingly and willfully commits an evil act loses all benefits from all of his exalted feats




So, he still has the feats, but he no longer gains any benefit from them.

Much like loseing the prereq from any feat. You still have it, it is just nonfunctional.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

For the record (in case it matters at this point):

I'm with the crowd that says monks qualify.  The PHB says a monk's unarmed strikes count as natural weapons for spells & effects- that's all I need to know when I see a Feat that applies to natural weapons.

HOWEVER, I would limit this to a monks-only (or equivalent class, should any be published) rule: mere martial artists (PCs with IUS feat) don't get to qualify.  Think of it as an extraordinary ability- if the class says its unarmed strikes count as blah blah blah...then they do, end of story.

After all, Rangers qualify for certain feats even if they don't have all the prereq's, as long as they don't wear heavy armor.  Its the same kind of thing- a class-specific benefit.

That the Sage (one of the game's designers) has weighed in on this just reinforces my reading.  When you are trying to interpret a law, your first guide is the law as it is written.  Your second guide is the legislative intent.  Here, we have one of the "legislators" speaking fairly clearly.

Can a legislator or designer be wrong?  Of course- any form of cooperative rules-making is fraught with differing understanding.


----------



## Rystil Arden

> So, he still has the feats, but he no longer gains any benefit from them.




Exactly.  Thus proving that the feat is not the same as the effect.



> Much like loseing the prereq from any feat.




It is somewhat similar to losing a prereq, but unfortunately for the feat==effect line of thought, this is not listed in the prerequisites, nor is it listed anywhere in the feat.  Thus, it is an instance of losing the effects of the feat while keeping the feat, which undisputably proves that they are not the same.  Also, importantly, unlike losing a prerequisite, you can still take non-Exalted feats with the Exalted feat as a prerequisite.


----------



## Artoomis

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> So if my character gets some Exalted feats (from the BoED) and then fails to follow the Exalted code, losing the effects of the feats, are you saying that he doesn't have the feats anymore Scion?




See, this is the whole problem of trying to argue that feats are effects, which is not necessary for monks to qualify.

If the effect of the feat would meet a trigger condition that allowed one to be considered to meet the prerequisite, then one meets the prerequisite.

It is not correct to think that one must look at the prerequisite independent of whether the feat effects might cause one to be considered to meet the prerequisites.  When a character has conditional properties, then one must look to see if the effect granted would allow one to be considered to have that prerequisite - that is, does the effect for which you need the prerequisite meet the condition for the character to be considered to have that prerequisite?

Whew - that sounds much more complicated than it is.  In this case, it means that for a monk to meet the prerequisite of having a natural weapon then one must look to see if the effect for which they are attempting to qualify is one than enhances natural weapons.

In other words, I again submit that the question of whether a monk has a natural weapon is meaningless out of context.  The context here is whether they have it to meet the prerequisite for an effect that will enhance a natural weapon.  The answer to that query is that the effect does indeed enhance a natural weapon, so the monk meets the requirement of having a natural weapon for that effect.

Note that it makes no difference whether you consider a feat an effect or whether it grants an effect, so long as an "effect" is involved.

I wonder if I've managed to put that any better than I have before.


----------



## Rystil Arden

> See, this is the whole problem of trying to argue that feats are effects, which is not necessary for monks to qualify.




I disagree with you, but I do agree that while your position is based on a different interpretation than the one I use, it does not include a claim that is patently false.  I'll agree to disagree with you on this, and I respect your opinion (especially since I picked the choice where I would allow this one even though I don't think it's allowed by the RAW).

I was only arguing against the feat==effect crowd, really with that post.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Artoomis said:
			
		

> See, this is the whole problem of trying to argue that feats are effects, which is not necessary for monks to qualify.




No, no, no!  It is _absolutely_ necessary!  It is _only_ if the feat as a whole, including the prerequisite, is an 'effect that improves or enhances a natural weapon', that the unarmed strike can be considered a natural weapon for the purpose of the feat as a whole, and hence for the prerequisite.

If the feat as a whole is not an effect, and rather the benefit is the effect, then the unarmed strike is not considered a natural weapon for the purpose of the prerequisites.



> When a character has conditional properties, then one must look to see if the effect granted would allow one to be considered to have that prerequisite - that is, does the effect for which you need the prerequisite meet the condition for the character to be considered to have that prerequisite?




That's backwards.

That's like saying "I need BAB +5 to enter this PrC, and the first level will give me one more point to make +5, therefore I satisfy the requirement."

You can't gain the effect unless you already meet the prerequisite _before_ the effect is granted.

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis

Legildur said:
			
		

> If you fold the poll responses from those that agree that monks can take INA AFTER the Sage said so then the results are fairly evenly split.  There must be an awful lot of silly people out there......
> 
> And you may very well be right.  And I'm not 100% convinced either way.  But it has been proved several times already that the Sage (and the FAQ) gets it wrong on occasions and directly contradicts the RAW.  Not exactly confidence inspiring stuff.  And certainly the poll results would indicate nothing conclusive about who has 'lost' or 'won'.





Okay, Poll anaylsis time, such as it is.

Total votes:  118

Not per RAW:  28
Per RAW: 71

Leaving 19 votes unnaccounted for.

There is no way to know how the other 19 would have voted here - they apparently did not realize the intent was to vote Yes or No AND vote again on another choice. 

This makes the range of "No" votes to be from 47 to 28, or between 40% and 24%, a clear majority for "Yes, per the RAW"  *For what it's worth.*

It's interesting to note the 33 "Yes, because of the Sage's ruling."  I would normally assume that to mean that 33 of the "No" votes agree that the Sage is offical but that the RAW does not support him, but I hesitate to draw that conulsion here.

It is also interesting no note that there seem to be quite a few folks who think the rules disallow it but they'll allow it anyway - of course that could partially be because of the Sage's ruling, so the survey is too flawed there to make any real conclusions.


----------



## TheEvil

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> And bowing out early makes the other side correct?




Unequivocally.    

I do apologize for my statement.  It was uncalled for an added nothing to the debate.

Slight highjack of possible relavence:

Does a goliath monk strike as a medium or large creature?


----------



## Scion

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> Exactly.  Thus proving that the feat is not the same as the effect.




Umm.. no.. it proves that if you lose the benefit that you no longer have the benefit.

The feat is the effect, by the raw, but if you no longer qualify then you no longer gain the benefit from the feat.

much like if you picked a feat with no benefit line for some reason. Or being in a situation where the feat cannot, or does not, apply.



			
				Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> It is somewhat similar to losing a prereq, but unfortunately for the feat==effect line of thought, this is not listed in the prerequisites, nor is it listed anywhere in the feat.




It is part of the [exalted] descriptor of the feat.

So, it is indeed listed as part of the feat.


----------



## Artoomis

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> ...
> That's like saying "I need BAB +5 to enter this PrC, and the first level will give me one more point to make +5, therefore I satisfy the requirement."
> 
> You can't gain the effect unless you already meet the prerequisite _before_ the effect is granted.
> 
> -Hyp.




You are both right and wrong here.  You are right as far as the BAB example, but, in this case, if the effect (the feat's effect, in this case) grants a bonus to natural weapons then a monk is considered to have natural weapons for the effect (or for qualifying for the effect, same thing, really).  That's practically the wording from the class description and has nothing to do with having to have the effect before you meet the prerequisite, which seems to be what you think is required, which of course would be disallowed.

This has ONLY to do with considering the prerequisite _in context_.  The context being a monk who gets to be considered as having a natural weapon for effects that enhance natural weapons.

This is completely different than the BAB +1 example you bring out.  There is NO CONTEXT in which you get to be considered as having a BAB +1 before you actually have a BAB +1.  Well, none that I know of, anyway.

I fail to be even a little bit swayed by the argument that you get to get the effects of this feat only if you somehow qualify as having a natural weapon by some other means than being a monk.  Either the special attacks is considered to be with a natural weapon for teh purpose of this feat or it is not.  Simple as that.

So, thw questions go like this:

Q.  Does this feat grant an effect that enhances a natural weapon?
A.  Yes

That's it.  A monk is considered to have a natural weapon for effect granted.

If a monk is considered to have a natural weapon for the effect that is granted, then logically they must also be considered to have it for meeting the prerequisite for that effect.  If not, then it has no meaning to say they are considered to have a natural attack for these spells and effects, at least for any that states the obvious "you must have a natural attack before you can have this effect."


----------



## Scion

TheEvil said:
			
		

> Does a goliath monk strike as a medium or large creature?




They have this right?



			
				srd said:
			
		

> Powerful Build: The physical stature of half-giants lets them function in many ways as if they were one size category larger.
> Whenever a half-giant is subject to a size modifier or special size modifier for an opposed check (such as during grapple checks, bull rush attempts, and trip attempts), the half-giant is treated as one size larger if doing so is advantageous to him.
> A half-giant is also considered to be one size larger when determining whether a creature’s special attacks based on size (such as improved grab or swallow whole) can affect him. A half-giant can use weapons designed for a creature one size larger without penalty. However, his space and reach remain those of a creature of his actual size. The benefits of this racial trait stack with the effects of powers, abilities, and spells that change the subject’s size category.




It is pretty clearly laid out. He can use weapons designed for a creature of a larger size, but it does not say that his natural weapons or unarmed strikes or anything else like that are treated as being larger.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Scion said:
			
		

> Umm.. no.. it proves that if you lose the benefit that you no longer have the benefit.
> 
> The feat is the effect, by the raw, but if you no longer qualify then you no longer gain the benefit from the feat.
> 
> much like if you picked a feat with no benefit line for some reason. Or being in a situation where the feat cannot, or does not, apply.
> 
> 
> 
> It is part of the [exalted] descriptor of the feat.
> 
> So, it is indeed listed as part of the feat.



 I think that your post had enough internal inconsistency that there is nothing more I need to say here.  It is clear that you are never going to change your mind on this issue, and the evidence is there (from Hypersmurf's posts, my own, and even yours) for anyone else to see.  I see no need to continue an argument here.  More interesting and of note is Hypersmurf and Artoomis's conversation.


----------



## Scion

Artoomis said:
			
		

> If a monk is considered to have a natural weapon for the effect that is granted, then logically they must also be considered to have it for meeting the prerequisite for that effect.  If not, then it has no meaning to say they are considered to have a natural attack for these spells and effects, at least for any that states the obvious "you must have a natural attack before you can have this effect."




Definately. I do not understand how one can have something for purposes of but not be counted as having it for purposes of.


----------



## Dimwhit

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> I think that your post had enough internal inconsistency that there is nothing more I need to say here.  It is clear that you are never going to change your mind on this issue, and the evidence is there (from Hypersmurf's posts, my own, and even yours) for anyone else to see.  I see no need to continue an argument here.  More interesting and of note is Hypersmurf and Artoomis's conversation.



 You can say it's clear all you want, but that doesn't make it so. You guys are giving feats same imaginary sentience that makes no sense.

But yeah, it's been interesting...


----------



## Scion

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> I think that your post had enough internal inconsistency that there is nothing more I need to say here.  It is clear that you are never going to change your mind on this issue, and the evidence is there (from Hypersmurf's posts, my own, and even yours) for anyone else to see.  I see no need to continue an argument here.  More interesting and of note is Hypersmurf and Artoomis's conversation.




::shrugs::

So far the only arguements against my reading of the rules are people making up rules that not only do not exist, but also go against other rules that have have been quoted.

If you feel that saying that if you have something that counts as X for purpose Y and yet when purpose Y comes up you do not have something that counts as X.. well... Something is so horrible inconsistant with that it just defies logic.

Which is apparently what others are stating. Something that is so nonsensical that it defies all rational thought.

I am still waiting for them to have any rules to back up their statements.

Usually hypersmurf is good at coming up with rules. It is very odd for him to use none.


If people want to claim that the prereq line is somehow not part of the feat that they are called out for then they should provide rules to back it up.


----------



## FireLance

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> So if my character gets some Exalted feats (from the BoED) and then fails to follow the Exalted code, losing the effects of the feats, are you saying that he doesn't have the feats anymore Scion?



As one of the "feats are effects" camp, I'll try and answer this.

To me, at least, the effects listed under the benefits section of a feat are only part of the overall effect that is the feat. So, even if you no longer gain the effects listed under the "benefit" section of the feat, the feat can still have other effects - serving as a prerequisite for other feats, for example. Say, a pure-classed bard takes the Silent Spell feat. He cannot use it to modify his spells, but he can use it to qualify for a metamagic feat that has "any another metamagic feat" as a prerequisite.

Would it make a difference if we consider magic items? Let's say you have an ability that allows you to be treated as a dwarf for the purpose of all spells and effects. Can you use a magic item as if you were a dwarf, e.g. get the additional enhancement bonus and returning special ability from a _dwarven thrower_? Is the prerequisite being a dwarf to get extra benefits from the magic item an effect or not?


----------



## Hypersmurf

Artoomis said:
			
		

> So, thw questions go like this:
> 
> Q.  Does this feat grant an effect that enhances a natural weapon?
> A.  Yes
> 
> That's it.  A monk is considered to have a natural weapon for effect granted.




That's true.  But that question doesn't answer the other question, which is "Does the monk satisfy the prerequisites of the feat?"

If the feat _is_ an effect that enhances a natural weapon, then for purposes of the feat, the monk's unarmed strike is a natural weapon.

If the feat _grants_ an effect that enhances a natural weapon, then for purposes of _what the feat grants_, the monk's unarmed strike is a natural weapon.

Prerequisites are part of the feat, but they are not part of what the feat grants.

Scion maintains the feat is an effect that enhances; I claim the feat grants an effect that enhances.

-Hyp.


----------



## Scion

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Scion maintains the feat is an effect




Well, that _is_ what the rules say.


----------



## Dimwhit

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> I claim the feat grants an effect that enhances.
> 
> -Hyp.




And I claim that a feat doesn't grant anything. It's simply the name given to an ability that is gained as a character levels, provided that character qualifies for the feat. It's like saying a Level grants more hit points, etc. A level is just a way of measuring a character's power and experience. It is nothing in and of itself. Feats are the same.


----------



## Artoomis

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> That's true.  But that question doesn't answer the other question, which is "Does the monk satisfy the prerequisites of the feat?"
> 
> If the feat _is_ an effect that enhances a natural weapon, then for purposes of the feat, the monk's unarmed strike is a natural weapon.
> 
> If the feat _grants_ an effect that enhances a natural weapon, then for purposes of _what the feat grants_, the monk's unarmed strike is a natural weapon.
> 
> Prerequisites are part of the feat, but they are not part of what the feat grants...
> -Hyp.




Wait a minute here...  If, "for purposes of _what the feat grants_, the monk's unarmed strike is a natural weapon," then how can they not meet the prerequisite of having a natural attack for the purposes of getting the effect that the feat grants?!?


----------



## Borlon

Hypersmurf,

Couldn't both alternatives be true?  That the feat is an effect (of leveling up) that enhances a natural attack by means of a granted effect (the benefit line of the feat?)

In the same way a magic item (like the cloak you mention) would be the effect of an item creation feat, but would itself have an effect; an enhancement movement to speed, perhaps.


----------



## Legildur

Artoomis said:
			
		

> <snip>It's interesting to note the 33 "Yes, because of the Sage's ruling."  I would normally assume that to mean that 33 of the "No" votes agree that the Sage is offical but that the RAW does not support him, but I hesitate to draw that conulsion here.



Which is a very similar comment to my later post (you quoted one of my earlier posts where I was too lazy to crunch the results).  Let's assume, for the sake of argument (and I think we both agree the following is a reasonable conclusion), that the 33 votes were 'no' votes, then the numbers become a whole lot more interesting and don't provide a clear majority to either side! 



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> It is also interesting no note that there seem to be quite a few folks who think the rules disallow it but they'll allow it anyway - of course that could partially be because of the Sage's ruling, so the survey is too flawed there to make any real conclusions.



I feel a new, revised poll coming on


----------



## Zandel

You know hyp I think dimwit does have a point there but i'm sure there are exceptions to the feat=effect thought........Craft feats for example are not in them selves effects but knowledge and experience like skills.

There are some feats that are effects such as toughness that feat is an effect that adds 3 hp to your character.


----------



## Hypersmurf

FireLance said:
			
		

> Let's say you have an ability that allows you to be treated as a dwarf for the purpose of all spells and effects.




Excellent question!

Half-orcs have the 'Orc Blood' racial feature, that states that "For all effects related to race, a half-orc is considered an orc".

In Races of Faerun, there are two feats.  Blood of the Warlord has a prerequisite: Orc.  Headlong Rush has a prerequisite: Orc or Half-Orc.

Satisfying a "be this race" prerequisite for a feat is apparently not an "effect related to race".

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis

Legildur said:
			
		

> Which is a very similar comment to my later post (you quoted one of my earlier posts where I was too lazy to crunch the results).  Let's assume, for the sake of argument (and I think we both agree the following is a reasonable conclusion), that the 33 votes were 'no' votes, then the numbers become a whole lot more interesting and don't provide a clear majority to either side!
> 
> I feel a new, revised poll coming on




Nope.  My analysis showed the MAXIMUM possible votes for "no" was 40% because the TOTAL number of votes is shown - even if all 33 were "no" it can only add 19 to the "no" vote column at the most.  Some folks chose not to vote "yes" or "no" - 19 of them, in fact.
  We are trying yo guess which way they would have voted, whihc is a bit silly, perhaps, but even still cannot sway the total to more than 40% of the total voters to the "no" side, but likely not that many.


----------



## Anubis

MOderator's Notes:
Anubis, the idea behind your three-day vacation was that you'd have a chance to cool down and review board rules.  If three days wasn't enough, we're happy to make this vacation longer.

Everyone else, I'd appreciate it if you'd edit his comments out of your posts where you responded to them.  I don't want this thread going down in flames, too.

Daniel


----------



## Artoomis

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Excellent question!
> 
> Half-orcs have the 'Orc Blood' racial feature, that states that "For all effects related to race, a half-orc is considered an orc".
> 
> In Races of Faerun, there are two feats.  Blood of the Warlord has a prerequisite: Orc.  Headlong Rush has a prerequisite: Orc or Half-Orc.
> 
> Satisfying a "be this race" prerequisite for a feat is apparently not an "effect related to race".
> 
> -Hyp.




Best evidence for you to date, though it is more evidence of poor rule-writing than anything else, I think.  Of course, with excellent rules-writing we wouldn't get to have the really cool debates, now, would we.


----------



## Scion

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Half-orcs have the 'Orc Blood' racial feature, that states that "For all effects related to race, a half-orc is considered an orc".
> 
> In Races of Faerun, there are two feats.  Blood of the Warlord has a prerequisite: Orc.  Headlong Rush has a prerequisite: Orc or Half-Orc.
> 
> Satisfying a "be this race" prerequisite for a feat is apparently not an "effect related to race".




So you are saying that being thorough in listing, possibly trying to keep down questions of this nature, is evidence 'against' them being effects?

I disagree.


----------



## Borlon

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> And I claim that a feat doesn't grant anything. It's simply the name given to an ability that is gained as a character levels, provided that character qualifies for the feat. It's like saying a Level grants more hit points, etc. A level is just a way of measuring a character's power and experience. It is nothing in and of itself. Feats are the same.




You could say the same thing about ability scores and hit points, couldn't you?  That they are nothing but an abstraction representing the character's competence in a particular area of expertise.  Ability scores represent the ability to engage in different kinds of mental and physical activities, hit points to avoid harm in combat situations (which are also highly abstract) and so on.  Spell slots too; they are just a mechanic for book-keeping.  But then you could say that combat, magic, and all other mental and physical activities are just abstractions and book-keeping aids, not real in themselves, ...

Where do you stop?  If for any element of the game you could say that it is nothing in itself, then the content of the rules-set is completely vacuous, and you would have no reason to bother arguing about it.

If, on the other hand, there are game elements which are basic, real, and irreducible, what are they?  And if feats can be understood in terms of these basic elements, are they not themselves also real?

Neither alternative is particularly appealing; it seems to be a genuine dilemma.


----------



## Scion

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Best evidence for you to date, though it is more evidence of poor rule-writing than anything else, I think.  Of course, with excellent rules-writing we wouldn't get to have the really cool debates, now, would we.




I dont think that stating 'too much' information is bad generally.

They could have even said, 'orcs, halforcs, or any creature with the 'orcs blood' feature' to be even more thorough.

But, having said that would not suddenly mean that other parts of the raw are incorrect, merely that they said more than was needed (or were redundant, if you prefer).


----------



## Zandel

I still say some feats are effects and others are NOT effects.....

scion could you explain how craft construct for example could possibly be an effect?


----------



## Scion

It is a pile of knowledge and training. The effect is that you are able to make constructs. The feat is merely a representation of that training in a convinient form.

So, instead of saying, 'I am able to make constructs useing process X over Y through Z' you can simply say, 'I have craft construct' and people know what you mean. You have the ability to make constructs.

In much the same way that a skill is representative of training in some skill or knowledge.


----------



## Zandel

My point exactly skills are not effects. they allow you to make use of certain effects but they themselves are not effects. Some feats are like that too, such as craft construct.


----------



## Dimwhit

Zandel, I think you're getting hung up on what an 'effect' is. In D&D, it has no real meaning. All an effect is is something that changes or occurs as a result of an action or some other cause (dictionary definition). D&D doesn't give 'effect' any in-game meaning. Skills are effects because, for example, your character can tumble better because he gained a level. Or he can figure out what spell is being cast because of his spellcraft skill. The effect is that he got better at something as a result of leveling up. There's really nothing more to it than that. I think our debate over feats being effects have confused that issue.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Scion said:
			
		

> So you are saying that being thorough in listing, possibly trying to keep down questions of this nature, is evidence 'against' them being effects?




So does a half-orc, in your opinion, qualify for Blood of the Warlord?

The two prerequisites ('Orc' and 'Orc or Half-Orc') are written differently.  

-Hyp.


----------



## Scion

Feats are effects though.

If you dont feel that gaining knowledge through leveling is not an effect of leveling I cannot help you.

If you do not feel that being able to make a construct is not an effect I cannot help you.

Feats both are effects and have effects. They 'are' what they 'do'. One cannot be divorced from the other.

When you take that feat you are able to craft constructs. The effect of having the feat is that you can craft constructs. The effect is being able to craft constructs. That means that the effect 'is' the feat.

You are able to craft constructs, that is the effect, which is the feat, which is the effect, which is the feat, which is the effect.. etc etc.


----------



## Legildur

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Nope.  My analysis showed the MAXIMUM possible votes for "no" was 40% because the TOTAL number of votes is shown - even if all 33 were "no" it can only add 19 to the "no" vote column at the most.  Some folks chose not to vote "yes" or "no" - 19 of them, in fact.
> We are trying yo guess which way they would have voted, whihc is a bit silly, perhaps, but even still cannot sway the total to more than 40% of the total voters to the "no" side, but likely not that many.



Funny, I come up with a different conclusion.  The poll (as I write this) stands at:

No, not per the Rules as Wriiten (RAW).    29
Yes, per the RAW.    71
Yes, because of the Sage's recent ruling.    33
No, but I'll allow it in my games.    16
Yes, but I'll disallow it in my games.    6

To me, the 33 are people that would have voted No, except that the Sage has come out and said that it is okay, otherwise they just would have polled 'Yes, per the RAW'.

So, if we accept that the Sage's answer is potentially flawed, then the No case has 78(29+33+16) votes, and the Yes case with 77 votes.

However, I will entertain the possibility that SOME of the 33 votes may have thought 'Yes, per the RAW', but felt that the 'Yes/Sage' was a more affirmative position.  Although I suspect that there would not be many cases.

Either way, I dispute the claim that there is a clear majority either way.

And while Anubis has taken his 'problems' elsewhere, I will agree with him that Hypersmurf's line of argument (and the counterarguments) hurts my head, too!   

And just to restate for the record, I like the ruling, but disagree with it.


----------



## Scion

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So does a half-orc, in your opinion, qualify for Blood of the Warlord?
> 
> The two prerequisites ('Orc' and 'Orc or Half-Orc') are written differently.




I do not have this book. What do you mean by 'written differently'?


----------



## Caliban

Yawn....


----------



## Hypersmurf

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Wait a minute here...  If, "for purposes of _what the feat grants_, the monk's unarmed strike is a natural weapon," then how can they not meet the prerequisite of having a natural attack for the purposes of getting the effect that the feat grants?!?




Because the two are not intrinsically linked.

Let's say there's a bar.  You're only allowed in if you're a member, or a guest of a member.  Drinks are free for members, and cost a dollar for guests.

I have a card that says that for the purpose of obtaining drinks, I am considered a member.

Once I'm inside the bar, I don't have to pay for my drinks.  But I can't actually get _into_ the bar by myself - I can only get in as the guest of a member.

For the purpose of what being in the bar grants, I'm considered a member.  But for the purpose of gaining entry to the bar, I'm not.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Scion said:
			
		

> I do not have this book. What do you mean by 'written differently'?




The prerequisite for one feat is 'Orc'.  The prerequisite for the other feat, in the same book, is 'Orc or Half-Orc'.

Do you feel that a Half-Orc qualifies for both feats, or only the second one?

-Hyp.


----------



## Rystil Arden

Legildur--you forget that some people voted for more than one option though   I may not agree with Artoomis about the monk, but he's absolutely right about the poll numbers.


----------



## Zandel

You'd have to say only the feat that says 'orc' or 'half-orc'.


----------



## Scion

I think I found the part you were refering to.

We have this:


			
				srd said:
			
		

> Orc Blood: For all effects related to race, a half-orc is considered an orc




So, is the feat in question something that relates to the race?

The feat is an effect already, so now we just have to figure out if the feat is related to the race. If it isnt then it is not an effect related to the race.

I could easily see someone making the arguement that if it says orc in it somewhere that it is related to being an orc. Which would make sense.


This is less cut and dried since ina specifically improves a natural weapon and so it qualifies no matter what at that point.

But it is less clear when you are talking about what 'related to race' means. Does it mean things that only interact with it such as your orc blood being stronger, or does it mean anytime it asks for an orc do you get to be an orc.

I would go with anytime something talks about benefit/detriment to an orc that the halforc would qualify because of his orcish blood.


----------



## Scion

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> For the purpose of what being in the bar grants, I'm considered a member.  But for the purpose of gaining entry to the bar, I'm not.




In other words, for the comparison with ina, you are currently missing the +4 BAB requirement so even though you qualify as having a natural weapon you still cant pick it up yet. But if you could somehow bypass the +4 BAB requirement you would be home free.


----------



## Artoomis

Legildur said:
			
		

> Funny, I come up with a different conclusion.  The poll (as I write this) stands at:
> 
> No, not per the Rules as Wriiten (RAW).    29
> Yes, per the RAW.    71
> Yes, because of the Sage's recent ruling.    33
> No, but I'll allow it in my games.    16
> Yes, but I'll disallow it in my games.    6
> 
> To me, the 33 are people that would have voted No, except that the Sage has come out and said that it is okay, otherwise they just would have polled 'Yes, per the RAW'.
> 
> ...




You forget that folks can vote for more than one thing and the total voters was 120.  120 - (29+71) = 120 - 100 leaving only 20 votes for "Yes" or "No" unaccounted for.

That means, at most, 49 folks would have voted "No" had everone voted "Yes" or "No."  A clear majority for "Yes," (71) for whatever that's worth.

Does that make sense now?


----------



## Artoomis

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Because the two are not intrinsically linked.
> 
> Let's say there's a bar.  You're only allowed in if you're a member, or a guest of a member.  Drinks are free for members, and cost a dollar for guests.
> 
> I have a card that says that for the purpose of obtaining drinks, I am considered a member.
> 
> Once I'm inside the bar, I don't have to pay for my drinks.  But I can't actually get _into_ the bar by myself - I can only get in as the guest of a member.
> 
> For the purpose of what being in the bar grants, I'm considered a member.  But for the purpose of gaining entry to the bar, I'm not.
> 
> -Hyp.




So close, but wrong analogy.

The right analogy is if you are considered a member of a bar if the bar grants benefits to you.  If the bar does not give members benefits, then you are not considered a member of that bar - not that it really matters to you.

Essentially, you are given a free membership.  This is quite similar - essentially, the monk is given a "natural weapon" without the drawbacks that having a natural weapon might bring - no iterative attacks for high level, etc.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Scion said:
			
		

> I would go with anytime something talks about benefit/detriment to an orc that the halforc would qualify because of his orcish blood.




So why does one feat consider 'Orc' and 'Half-Orc' to be separate prerequisites?  If Orc Blood allows half-orcs to satisfy a prerequisite of 'Orc', then why the inconsistency?

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Essentially, you are given a free membership.




No, I'm not.  I'm given free drinks, _as if I were a member_, but I'm not a member for purposes of entry to the bar.  Once I'm in the bar, I can benefit from the privilege of membership, but I'm not considered a member for the step of actually getting inside.

Once I am subject to an effect that improves or enhances natural weapons, my unarmed strike can benefit from it... but they aren't considered natural weapons for anything preceding that.

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> ...Once I am subject to an effect that improves or enhances natural weapons, my unarmed strike can benefit from it... but they aren't considered natural weapons for anything preceding that.
> 
> -Hyp.




That might make some sense if the feat did ANYTHING other than that for which a monk qualifies as having a natural weapon.

About my bar comment - that appled only to my modified (and more correct, if still imperfect) analogy.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Artoomis said:
			
		

> That might make some sense if the feat did ANYTHING other than that for which a monk qualifies as having a natural weapon.




Being a member does two things.  It allows you to get to the barman, and get free drinks from him.

Having a natural weapon does two things.  It allows you to qualify for INA, and it allows you to apply INA's benefit to improve your natural weapon.

My associate membership card counts as a membership for the purpose of getting free drinks, but it doesn't count as a membership for the purpose of getting to the barman.

My unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon for the purpose of effects that improve natural weapons, but it doesn't count as a natural weapon for the purpose of acquiring something that grants such an effect.

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> ...My unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon for the purpose of effects that improve natural weapons, but it doesn't count as a natural weapon for the purpose of acquiring something that grants such an effect.
> 
> -Hyp.




Ah, but it does when the "something that grants such an effect" does NOTHING ELSE but grant that effect.   In such a case the distinction between getting the effect and acquiring something that grants such an effect becomes meaningless.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Ah, but it does when the "something that grants such an effect" does NOTHING ELSE but grant that effect.   In such a case the distinction between getting the effect and acquiring something that grants such an effect becomes meaningless.




That's where we disagree.

-Hyp.


----------



## Legildur

Artoomis said:
			
		

> You forget that folks can vote for more than one thing and the total voters was 120.  120 - (29+71) = 120 - 100 leaving only 20 votes for "Yes" or "No" unaccounted for.
> 
> That means, at most, 49 folks would have voted "No" had everone voted "Yes" or "No."  A clear majority for "Yes," (71) for whatever that's worth.
> 
> Does that make sense now?



 Ahhhh, I see the light (actually, I'm too lazy to revisit it personally, but I see the sense in your argument)!  Thanks to both you and Rystil Arden.  I concede, your maths-shui is superior to mine    So, roughly speaking, a 2:1 majority.  Still don't make it right   

(and I missed the part where people could vote for more than one option.... stupid poll   :\ )


----------



## Artoomis

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> That's where we disagree.
> 
> -Hyp.




I guess so.  

I'd be more inclined to your point of view if the feat granted, say, a natural armor bonus as well.  In that case, I think that the prerequisite would NOT be met (maybe) - the argument gets MUCH more interesting then.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I'd be more inclined to your point of view if the feat granted, say, a natural armor bonus as well.  In that case, I think that the prerequisite would NOT be met (maybe) - the argument gets MUCH more interesting then.




While I can see (and disagree with) Scion's interpretation, I can't see how this one works.

Either both feats are effects that improve a natural weapon (as Scion maintains) - in which case the monk qualifies for both Improved Natural Attack, and your hypothetical Improved Improved Natural Attack with the armor bonus.

Or both feats grant an effect that improves a natural weapon (as I maintain) - in which case the monk qualifies for neither.

I can't see how it's possible to rule that the monk qualifies for Improved Natural Attack and yet does not qualify for Improved Improved Natural Attack.

-Hyp.


----------



## glass

Artoomis said:
			
		

> A prerequisite is not a thing by itself, it's what qualifies you to take a feat.  If a monk has a natural weapon for the purpose of reaping the benefits of INA, then they must be meeting the prerequisite of having a natural weapon.



Do you not see the problems with 'A prerequisite is not a thing by itselft, it's...'? Either a prerequisite is _something_, or it's not. And if it's not something, it doesn't exist and can't be used to qualify you for anything.


glass.


----------



## glass

FoxWander said:
			
		

> Since swords are *NOT* "physically a part of a creature" (see the _first sentence_ of the "natural weapon" definition) then they are NOT natural weapons, and thus, obviously, do not qualify for INA. However, a monk's fists/elbows/knees/feet are clearly "physically a part of" him and so *DO* fit the definition thus qualifying for INA.



You never mention being part of you, first time around. You said natural weapons threatened and could attack with provoking an AoO, so I pointed out (slightly facetiously) that the same was true of manufactured weapons.


> So the analogy should be: (coming from a monk or person with IUS feat) My fists are part of me, I am considered to be armed with them and don't provoke AoO when I attack with them. Natural weapons are part of a creature, make that creature to be considered armed and don't provoke AoO when used to attack. My fists are natural weapons.



This makes more sense, but unfortunately it is still wrong. Unarmed strikes are explicitly not the same as natural weapons, whether you have IUS or not.


glass.


----------



## glass

_EDIT: Quote removed at moderator's request_.

You haven't proved anything. Restating the same position over and over again and calling anyone who disagrees 'silly' does not constitute proof.


glass.


----------



## moritheil

Anubis said:
			
		

> (deleted justification that Skip and Andy wrote the rules and are thus infallible)




If I write a poem, I get asked to recite it before a school, and I misquote the poem, does the written poem change?  I think not.  My being the author of the poem has no bearing on whether or not I am in fact reciting it correctly.  It only changes whether or not people believe I am reciting it correctly.

Similarly, Skip and Andy may be on the design team - but so what?  The rules are already written, and it is therefore possible for them to be right or wrong.


----------



## moritheil

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Hyp, that makes no sense. The second fighter above is not eligible for the feat because he doesn't have a BAB +8. When he does, he will be eligible for it.
> 
> I don't see how you draw the conclusion that you can be eligible for a feat without meeting the prereqs. A fighter isn't eligible for Power Attack unless he has a STR 13. A Wizard isn't eligible for the Craft Wand feet unless he's 5th level. Being eligible and meeting the prereqs are synonymous terms. They serve the same purpose.




No, you think of being eligible as one thing.  Hyp is showing that there are two logical parts to being eligible "for" a feat - being eligible to TAKE the feat, and being eligible to BENEFIT from the feat.


----------



## moritheil

Artoomis said:
			
		

> 2.  It don't think it matters.   Wearing the cloak gives you an effect of an increase in speed or an effect of a enhancement bonus to speed which gives you an increase in speed.  Either way should lead to the same result.




This is incredibly imprecise.  If someone is killed by fire, there's still a difference between getting hit by a fireball and getting hit by a scorching ray.  Either way, the dead guy may not care - he's dead - but that doesn't render the distinction nonexistent.


----------



## moritheil

Scion said:
			
		

> Definately. I do not understand how one can have something for purposes of but not be counted as having it for purposes of.




That's the fundamental problem.  Suppose I have arcade tokens.  They count as money for the purposes of paying for games.  They do not count as money for the purposes of paying, say, my taxes.  So they are not _really_ money, they just sometimes can be used as money, when in the arcade.  Does this make sense?


----------



## moritheil

Artoomis said:
			
		

> So close, but wrong analogy.
> 
> The right analogy is if you are considered a member of a bar if the bar grants benefits to you.  If the bar does not give members benefits, then you are not considered a member of that bar - not that it really matters to you.
> 
> Essentially, you are given a free membership.  This is quite similar - essentially, the monk is given a "natural weapon" without the drawbacks that having a natural weapon might bring - no iterative attacks for high level, etc.




There are two stages to this, though.  The stage at which the benefit is getting inside the bar - where you fail - and the stage at which you would be able to get free drinks - where you would pass, if only it weren't a moot point.

You're cramming the two things together because they are both benefits, and that's where the problem arises.

Let's try another example.

In FFTA, the "swordbreaker" weapon grants a thief the "Steal Weapon" ability.

My character is a thief.  He can therefore benefit from the swordbreaker.

But, I can't buy the swordbreaker early in the game.  I only run across it being wielded by enemies.

If I could only GET the swordbreaker, I could benefit from it and gain the "Steal Weapon" ability.  Alas, I cannot get the ability, because I cannot get the swordbreaker.  Getting the swordbreaker would mean that I would have to steal the weapon from an enemy, and I do not have the Steal Weapon ability.

I am "cleared" for the benefit of the ability if I have the Thief job.  However, it's a moot point, because I lack the means to obtain the swordbreaker.

Is it obvious, in THIS example at least, how it is conceptually possible to benefit from something and yet be unable to attain it?


----------



## FireLance

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Excellent question!
> 
> Half-orcs have the 'Orc Blood' racial feature, that states that "For all effects related to race, a half-orc is considered an orc".
> 
> In Races of Faerun, there are two feats.  Blood of the Warlord has a prerequisite: Orc.  Headlong Rush has a prerequisite: Orc or Half-Orc.
> 
> Satisfying a "be this race" prerequisite for a feat is apparently not an "effect related to race".
> 
> -Hyp.



Good catch! 

However, there seems to be some inconsistency about what it means to have orc or human blood, or the orc or human subtype, when it comes to qualifying for feats and prestige classes.

The sidebar on p. 150 of Races of Destiny states that humanoids with the human subtype "qualify as human for the purpose of meeting a prerequisite for a feat or a prestige class".

Either this is a special case that applies only for humanoids with the human subtype, or it is possible to generalize this rule so that humanoids with the orc subtype (including half-orcs) also qualify as orcs for the purpose of meeting a prerequisite for a feat or a prestige class.

My admittedly hazy recollection of the phrasing of the sidebar inclines me toward the second interpretation, as think it was something along the lines of "humanoid with the human subtype ... means ... you qualify as human for the purpose of meeting a prerequisite for a feat or a prestige class" - I will need to check this against the book.

In the meantime, I'll re-state my original question: If you have an ability that allows you to be treated as a dwarf for the purpose of all spells and effects, can you use a magic item as if you were a dwarf, e.g. get the additional enhancement bonus and returning special ability from a _dwarven thrower_? Is the prerequisite of being a dwarf for the purpose of gaining extra benefits from the magic item an effect or not?

EDIT: Just to clarify, the description of the _dwarven thrower_ in the SRD states:


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> *Dwarven Thrower:* This weapon commonly functions as a +2 warhammer. In the hands of a dwarf, the warhammer gains an additional +1 enhancement bonus (for a total enhancement bonus of +3) and gains the returning special ability. It can be hurled with a 30-foot range increment. When hurled, it deals an extra 2d8 points of damage against giants or an extra 1d8 points of damage against any other target.


----------



## moritheil

FireLance said:
			
		

> In the meantime, I'll re-state my original question: If you have an ability that allows you to be treated as a dwarf for the purpose of all spells and effects, can you use a magic item as if you were a dwarf, e.g. get the additional enhancement bonus and returning special ability from a _dwarven thrower_? Is the prerequisite of being a dwarf for the purpose of gaining extra benefits from the magic item an effect or not?




Is the enhancement bonus a spell or effect?  Is the special ability a spell or effect?

Note, however, that being treated as a dwarf for ALL spells and effects is different from being treated as a dwarf for ONLY spells and effects that, say, increase your damage.

EDIT: A prerequisite is not an effect, so by a more careful reading, you are not actually a dwarf, and as such, issues arise.  I was reading "all spells and effects" as "for all intents and purposes," when it doesn't say that.


----------



## Pinotage

Wee! That took a long time to wade through. Go to bed and the whole world explodes with three pages of debate. Excessive literalism is making my head hurt!   

Pinotage


----------



## moritheil

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Wee! That took a long time to wade through. Go to bed and the whole world explodes with three pages of debate. Excessive literalism is making my head hurt!
> 
> Pinotage




When bad writers create rules and situations, literalism is the only resort.  Otherwise you don't have "What do the rules say?" discussions, but rather, "What is a sane, logical way to run my game?"


----------



## FireLance

moritheil said:
			
		

> A prerequisite is not an effect, so by a more careful reading, you are not actually a dwarf, and as such, issues arise.  I was reading "all spells and effects" as "for all intents and purposes," when it doesn't say that.



So, your position is that a human who is treated as a dwarf for the purpose of all spells and effects will not get the additional benefits when he uses a _dwarven thrower_?


----------



## moritheil

FireLance said:
			
		

> So, your position is that a human who is treated as a dwarf for the purpose of all spells and effects will not get the additional benefits when he uses a _dwarven thrower_?




My position is that, by a literal reading, if the exact text wording is "for all spells and effects," then, absent an explicit statement that he can gain those benefits, he will not.

Of course, I would house rule it otherwise, as a DM, because of what I think of the INTENT of the rules, but by a LITERAL reading of the rules, he does not appear to qualify.

This is, of course, ASSUMING that using the dwarven thrower is considered neither a spell nor an effect.


----------



## Pinotage

moritheil said:
			
		

> When bad writers create rules and situations, literalism is the only resort.  Otherwise you don't have "What do the rules say?" discussions, but rather, "What is a sane, logical way to run my game?"




I never said I was against literalism. I just said that I was having to think carefully to get my head around all the arguments.

Pinotage


----------



## FireLance

moritheil said:
			
		

> This is, of course, ASSUMING that using the dwarven thrower is considered neither a spell nor an effect.



I'm not going to argue that it is a spell, but isn't this portion of the magic item description "In the hands of a dwarf, the warhammer gains an additional +1 enhancement bonus (for a total enhancement bonus of +3) and gains the returning special ability" an effect? If not, why not?


----------



## moritheil

FireLance said:
			
		

> I'm not going to argue that it is a spell, but isn't this portion of the magic item description "In the hands of a dwarf, the warhammer gains an additional +1 enhancement bonus (for a total enhancement bonus of +3) and gains the returning special ability" an effect? If not, why not?




Ah, that's what I asked you above.  It really depends on your answer to whether or not "in the hands of a dwarf" is an effect, because that's the part that concerns qualification.


----------



## FireLance

moritheil said:
			
		

> Ah, that's what I asked you above.  It really depends on your answer to whether or not "in the hands of a dwarf" is an effect, because that's the part that concerns qualification.



Well, my answer is yes, it is an effect. Or rather, the whole portion of the magic item description "In the hands of a dwarf, the warhammer gains an additional +1 enhancement bonus (for a total enhancement bonus of +3) and gains the returning special ability." is an effect. Determining whether or not the wielder is a dwarf is an integral part of the effect. If yes, he gets the benefit. If no, he does not.


----------



## Hypersmurf

FireLance said:
			
		

> However, there seems to be some inconsistency about what it means to have orc or human blood, or the orc or human subtype, when it comes to qualifying for feats and prestige classes.




Yeah... the RoD sidebar says that a half-elf qualifies for elf-only PrCs... but again, the Core Rules example of such a class (Arcane Archer) has a requirement of 'Elf or Half-Elf'... as do the Champion of Corellon and the Wildrunner in RotW...

Can a Half-Elf take Elf substitution levels as well as Half-Elf substitution levels?

Regarding the Dwarven Thrower - one of the examples given in the PHB of a benefit of Elf Blood is the ability to use 'magic items that are only usable by elves', so I would assume that a template that caused a character to be 'considered a dwarf for all effects related to race' would allow the use of a Dwarven Thrower.

-Hyp.


----------



## moritheil

FireLance said:
			
		

> Well, my answer is yes, it is an effect. Or rather, the whole portion of the magic item description "In the hands of a dwarf, the warhammer gains an additional +1 enhancement bonus (for a total enhancement bonus of +3) and gains the returning special ability." is an effect. Determining whether or not the wielder is a dwarf is an integral part of the effect. If yes, he gets the benefit. If no, he does not.




AHA!  Determining that is an integral part of the EFFECT, but the EFFECT is not an integral part of the DETERMINING.  So by a very literal (and admittedly pedantic) reading, no, the DETERMINING is not an effect, and as such, he is not a dwarf for the purposes of the determining.  Of course, we're splitting hairs, but this is how I read the rules taken literally.


----------



## moritheil

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Regarding the Dwarven Thrower - one of the examples given in the PHB of a benefit of Elf Blood is the ability to use 'magic items that are only usable by elves', so I would assume that a template that caused a character to be 'considered a dwarf for all effects related to race' would allow the use of a Dwarven Thrower.
> 
> -Hyp.




She did not say it was a template that allowed the use of magic items only usable by dwarves, just that it was an arbitrary ability that allowed someone to be considered a dwarf for 'all spells and effects.'  The parallel is therefore imperfect.


----------



## Pielorinho

MOderator's Notes:
Anubis, the idea behind your three-day vacation was that you'd have a chance to cool down and review board rules. If three days wasn't enough, we're happy to make this vacation longer.

Everyone else, I'd appreciate it if you'd edit his comments out of your posts where you responded to them. I don't want this thread going down in flames, too.

Daniel


----------



## FireLance

moritheil said:
			
		

> AHA!  Determining that is an integral part of the EFFECT, but the EFFECT is not an integral part of the DETERMINING.  So by a very literal (and admittedly pedantic) reading, no, the DETERMINING is not an effect, and as such, he is not a dwarf for the purposes of the determining.  Of course, we're splitting hairs, but this is how I read the rules taken literally.



As long as we recognize we are splitting hairs, here . My particular hair-split is that since the determining is part of the effect, anything that affects the effect also affects the determining.


> She did not say it...



He, by the way.


----------



## moritheil

FireLance said:
			
		

> As long as we recognize we are splitting hairs, here . My particular hair-split is that since the determining is part of the effect, anything that affects the effect also affects the determining.
> He, by the way.




Ah, sorry.  It's past 6am here.

Let me put it another way.  You agree that the determining is part of the effect, and not the effect.  A similar situation is: my tires are part of my car.  However, they are not themselves a car.  I do not put a lisence plate on my tires.

You state that "anything that affects the effect also affects the determining."  But what we have here is that the effect is not what is affected; it is what is effected!  The affect should be a result of him qualifying, not the other way around.

I.e. the dwarven thrower rules state that:

IF the guy is dwarven
THEN (bonus damage effect happens.)

You seem to be stating that:
THEN (bonus damage effect)
Therefore the guy is dwarven.

But this seems backwards to me.

If you wanted to state that the IF portion was an effect, I would agree that he would qualify as dwarven.  That is, if the act of the dwarven warhammer checking to see if the guy is dwarven is ITSELF an "effect," which is possible, then the guy counts as dwarven, because it is an effect.

Hence my asking whether or not you considered the checking itself to be its own effect.


----------



## FoxWander

glass said:
			
		

> You never mention being part of you, first time around. You said natural weapons threatened and could attack with provoking an AoO, so I pointed out (slightly facetiously) that the same was true of manufactured weapons.



Ok, I REALLY don't want to get into a "I said, you said" argument but I have to point that I DID mention the "being part of you" bit- I just didn't underline it. If you'll re-read my original post the first sentence of the first quote has the "part of you" bit.

Anyway, that's besides the point... I shouldn't have bothered in the first place because I _knew_ the iterative attacks part of that definition would throw the whole thing off. Of course I didn't expect it to draw comparisons to using your own children as "natural weapons", because that's just an inconceivably bizarre argument to make.   

So here are two quick arguments for "unarmed strikes ARE natural weapons"...


			
				page 51 of Complete Warrior said:
			
		

> _Imbuing natural weapons_: The process for imbuing a kensai's natural weapons (such as his fists)...



 See: fists -- natural weapons.

And here's an even simpler one, perhaps THE simplest...
UNARMED STRIKES ARE LISTED ON THE *WEAPONS* TABLE!!!!!!


----------



## FoxWander

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Either both feats are effects that improve a natural weapon (as Scion maintains) - in which case the monk qualifies for both Improved Natural Attack, and your hypothetical Improved Improved Natural Attack with the armor bonus.
> 
> Or both feats grant an effect that improves a natural weapon (as I maintain) - in which case the monk qualifies for neither.
> -Hyp.




Emphasis my own, of course. Hyp- I really don't understand the difference you are trying to qualify with these two statements. How does 'being' an effect vs. 'granting' an effect matter for the purpose of monks and INA?

A monk's unarmed strikes are considered natural weapons for the purpose of spells or effects that enhance or improve natural weapons. INA both _grants_ and _is_ an effect that improves natural weapons, therefore a monk's unarmed strikes are considered natural weapons for this purpose, thus fulfilling the "natural weapon" prerequisite for the feat and allowing monk's, with a +4 BAB as well, to take the feat. All that seems quite clear to me. How does "granting" the effect vs. "being" the effect change how it applies to monks?

If "granting" an effect made a difference then monks could not benefit from, say, a _potion of Magic Fang_. The potion is not a spell it is (per the SRD) "a magic liquid that produces its effect when imbibed" and so must go the 'effect' route to benefit a monk. Clearly the potion "grants" an effect (that effect being a +1 to natural weapons) rather than "being" the effect, but I doubt anyone would dispute that a monk benefits from drinking it.

What am I missing in your "grants" vs. "is" argument?


----------



## glass

FoxWander said:
			
		

> Ok, I REALLY don't want to get into a "I said, you said" argument but I have to point that I DID mention the "being part of you" bit- I just didn't underline it. If you'll re-read my original post the first sentence of the first quote has the "part of you" bit.



Ah yes, it was in you SRD quote, my apologies.



> Anyway, that's besides the point... I shouldn't have bothered in the first place because I _knew_ the iterative attacks part of that definition would throw the whole thing off.



If you already knew that iterative attacks 'would throw the whole thing off', why did you and do you persist in arguing that they are.



> So here are two quick arguments for "unarmed strikes ARE natural weapons"...
> 
> 
> 
> Complete Warrior said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Imbuing natural weapons: The process for imbuing a kensai's natural weapons (such as his fists)...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See: fists -- natural weapons.
Click to expand...


Your fists can be a natural weapon (if say, you have a slam attack). That doesn't make unarmed strikes a natural weapon, although I do agree the wording could be better.



> And here's an even simpler one, perhaps THE simplest...
> UNARMED STRIKES ARE LISTED ON THE *WEAPONS* TABLE!!!!!!



The simplest way to torpedo your own point. Yes they are listed on the weapon table with all the _manufactured_ weapons, because they are treated as manufactured weapons for (almost) all purposes.


glass.


----------



## glass

FoxWander said:
			
		

> Emphasis my own, of course. Hyp- I really don't understand the difference you are trying to qualify with these two statements. How does 'being' an effect vs. 'granting' an effect matter for the purpose of monks and INA?



_Au contraire_, in the opinion of most of those arguing in this thread (on both sides) it is at the very heart of the argument.



> A monk's unarmed strikes are considered natural weapons for the purpose of spells or effects that enhance or improve natural weapons. INA both _grants_ and _is_ an effect that improves natural weapons, therefore a monk's unarmed strikes are considered natural weapons for this purpose, thus fulfilling the "natural weapon" prerequisite for the feat and allowing monk's, with a +4 BAB as well, to take the feat. All that seems quite clear to me. How does "granting" the effect vs. "being" the effect change how it applies to monks?
> 
> If "granting" an effect made a difference then monks could not benefit from, say, a _potion of Magic Fang_. The potion is not a spell it is (per the SRD) "a magic liquid that produces its effect when imbibed" and so must go the 'effect' route to benefit a monk. Clearly the potion "grants" an effect (that effect being a +1 to natural weapons) rather than "being" the effect, but I doubt anyone would dispute that a monk benefits from drinking it.
> 
> What am I missing in your "grants" vs. "is" argument?



All of it, basically. In your potion example, the potion provides the effect ('grants' if you like), which is an effect which enhances or improved natural weapons. Therefore the monk benefits from it, just like it would benefit from INA if it had it.

However, what if the monk couldn't drink the potion for some reason? (maybe it is of an exotic rece that does not drink). Obviously it would still be eligable for the potions effects, but that is irrelevant if it can't drink the potion.

Those of us on the 'No' side of the argument believe that not having a mouth for the purposes of drinking potions and not having a natural weapon for the purposes of taking INA are analogous. In either case, the fact that you could benefit from it is irrelevant.

The reason the 'grants' verses 'is' argument is significant is that if a feat is 'an effect that enhances natural weapons' (as opposed to granting/providing/having 'an effect that enhances natural weapons'), then it is possible to argue that the prerequisite of the feat are also part of the 'an effect that enhances natural weapons', and the monks ability allows him to take the feat.

Is that a fair summary, everyone?

FWIW, I personally don't believe it follows. Even if the feat as a whole is 'an effect that enhances natural weapons' (which I don't believe it is), I don't believe the feat's prerequisites necesarily are.




glass.


----------



## Artoomis

moritheil said:
			
		

> That's the fundamental problem.  Suppose I have arcade tokens.  They count as money for the purposes of paying for games.  They do not count as money for the purposes of paying, say, my taxes.  So they are not _really_ money, they just sometimes can be used as money, when in the arcade.  Does this make sense?




Ah, but if the prerequisite was "money" to get into the Arcade and "tokens" count as "money" for the purposes of paying for arcade games, you gain admission by presenting "tokens" because they count as "money."

A very nice analogy.  Thank you.



			
				moritheil said:
			
		

> In FFTA, the "swordbreaker" weapon grants a thief the "Steal Weapon" ability.
> 
> My character is a thief. He can therefore benefit from the swordbreaker.
> 
> But, I can't buy the swordbreaker early in the game. I only run across it being wielded by enemies.
> 
> If I could only GET the swordbreaker, I could benefit from it and gain the "Steal Weapon" ability. Alas, I cannot get the ability, because I cannot get the swordbreaker. Getting the swordbreaker would mean that I would have to steal the weapon from an enemy, and I do not have the Steal Weapon ability.
> 
> I am "cleared" for the benefit of the ability if I have the Thief job. However, it's a moot point, because I lack the means to obtain the swordbreaker.
> 
> Is it obvious, in THIS example at least, how it is conceptually possible to benefit from something and yet be unable to attain it?




I never argued against that.  I argue that when an ability is situational, than the presence or lack of that ability (or characteristic, if you prefer) can ONLY be determined in context.

PC:  I'd like to take the INA feat.  I have BAB +4 now.
DM:  Does your monk have a natural weapon?
PC:  Are you asking in the context of an effect that enhances natural weapons?
DM:  No, only as a prerequisite.
PC:  Um... prerequisite for what?  I cannot answer yes or no to your question without knowing the context in which the monk would be using his special attack.
DM: The context is qualifying as having a natural weapon.
PC:  Again, I have to know the total context.  If it is in the context of qualifying for an effect that will grant a enhancement to a natural attack, then yes, my monk has a natural weapon.

Now here are possible scenarios that take it from there:

1.  DM:  Hmmm.. the prerequisite is for getting an effect that only enhances a natural weapon, so I guess that's the context and you have a natural weapon and may take INA.

2.  DM:  The context does not matter, either you have a natural weapon or you do not.  Since your monk doe not have a natural weapon for all purposes, you fail to meet the prerequisites and cannot take INA.

I think number 2 is ludicrous, as it ignores context completely when the "have a natural weapon" characterstic of a monk is completely context-driven.

Now, assuming number 1, here’s a possible scenario for the fictional "Improved Improved Natural Attack" that also grants a Natural Armor bonus.

3.  DM:  Hmmm… the prerequisite is for getting an effect that enhances a natural weapon AND grants a natural armor bonus.  Since you _have a natural weapon_ for the purpose of an effect that enhances a natural weapon and _do not have a natural weapon_ for the purpose of an effect that enhances a natural armor, I'm going to rule you do not qualify as qualifying would grant you an effect that your character is not entitiled to have.

*Context is everything for situational characteristics* such as a monk having natural weapons.


----------



## Borlon

FoxWander said:
			
		

> A monk's unarmed strikes are considered natural weapons for the purpose of spells or effects that enhance or improve natural weapons. INA both _grants_ and _is_ an effect that improves natural weapons, therefore a monk's unarmed strikes are considered natural weapons for this purpose, thus fulfilling the "natural weapon" prerequisite for the feat and allowing monk's, with a +4 BAB as well, to take the feat. All that seems quite clear to me. How does "granting" the effect vs. "being" the effect change how it applies to monks?
> 
> If "granting" an effect made a difference then monks could not benefit from, say, a _potion of Magic Fang_. The potion is not a spell it is (per the SRD) "a magic liquid that produces its effect when imbibed" and so must go the 'effect' route to benefit a monk. Clearly the potion "grants" an effect (that effect being a +1 to natural weapons) rather than "being" the effect, but I doubt anyone would dispute that a monk benefits from drinking it.
> 
> What am I missing in your "grants" vs. "is" argument?




When you cast _magic fang_ two conditions have to satisfied for the creature to get the benefit.  One, it has to be a living creature, and two, it has to have a natural weapon.  These two conditions are different.  A creature has to be alive to be a valid target, but you can cast the spell on a living creature that lacks a natural weapon.  A druid might cast it on herself, and then wildshape into a bear, for instance; at the moment the spell is cast it has no effect, but the effect kicks in when a natural weapon is acquired by wildshaping.  You can't cast it on an zombie (even one that has natural weapons) because undead aren't alive.  Even if you used a _wish_ to restore the wolf to life, the _magic fang_ spell would still be wasted; you have to bring the wolf back to life first, then cast _magic fang_.

In other words, the _magic fang_ checks its target once to see if it is an eligible recipient of the spell; then it checks continuously to see if it is an eligible recipient of the spell effect.  It checks to see if the target is alive, and then it checks for natural weapons.  If the first check is failed, the spell fails.  If the second check fails, the spell hangs around and waits to see if the subject of the spell acquires some natural weapons.

Look at the INA feat.  There are also two conditions it checks.  First it checks to see if the creature has a natural weapon; if the creature doesn't have a natural weapon, it can't take the feat.  This is a continuous check; just like a creature could have a strength penalty that prevents them from benefiting from _power attack_, so too could a creature stop benefiting from INA if it stopped having a natural weapon.  The second check is to see if the creature has a natural weapon; if it does, they are enhanced.

See the possibility for confusion?  The two conditions for _magic fang_ are satisfied in different ways.  The first condition of _magic fang_ is satisfied by the target being alive, the second by the target having natural weapons.  In the case of INA, the first condition is the same as the second condition, and it is very tempting to think of them as one condition.  But they are resolved separately.

The RAW, it is argued, says that there is an exception for monks that allow them to be treated as having natural weapons, but only when the second condition is checked.  The RAW, it is argued, are silent about the first condition, and so the monk's unarmed attack is treated normally, as a manufactured weapon.  The fact that the second condition is satisfied means nothing; a zombie wolf has a natural weapon, and so satisfies the second condition of _magic fang_ but it does not satisfy the first condition of _magic fang_, and so the spell doesn't work.

Similarly a monk satisfies the second condition of INA; when the feat looks to enhance a natural weapon, it is satisfied by the monk's unarmed attack.  But it is argued that the first condition is not satisfied by the monk's unarmed attack.  Why?  Because the special rule about monks' unarmed attacks counting as natural weapons applies only to spells and effects that enhance those attacks.  And meeting the first condition doesn't enhance the natural attacks, only the second one does.  Remember the druid that casts _magic fang_ on herself; being a living creature makes her an eligible target, but doesn't provide any benefit.  Satisfying the first condition doesn't provide any benefit, only the second one does.  So only the second condition treats the monk as having a natural weapon, not the first.

Hypersmurf's example of an associate membership card to an exclusive club is a good one.  If you are a full member (or accompanied by a full member) you can enter the club, and you can use your card to get cheap drinks.  But the card doesn't get you in the door.

The question about human monks and INA is whether they can "get in the door."  We agree that they could "get cheap drinks" once they were in, but we are saying that their card won't gain them admission.  The card satisfies the bartender that they should be treated as members, but it doesn't satisfy the bouncer.  And if the bouncer is not satisifed, they won't even see the bartender.

With INA the "associate membership card" is the rule that a monk's unarmed attack is treated as a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance natural weapons.  Those beneficial effects are the cheap drinks, and the benefit part of the feat is the bartender.  But the card doesn't satisfy the bouncer (the prerequisite part of the feat), and so they don't get the effects; they don't even see the bartender.

For _magic fang_ the bouncer checks to see if the target is a living creature; the bouncer is the target line of the spell.  The effect line of the spell checks to see if the target has natural weapons; that's the bartender, and the drinks are the bonus that _magic fang_ provides.  But you don't get to see the bartender or get any drinks unless you pass the bouncer.

For INA, the argument goes, a human monk can't get past the bouncer, so no drinks.

This is the argument if the INA feat grants effects, rather than *is* an effect.

If INA *is* an effect, then the argument is much simpler.  INA enhances a monk's unarmed attacks, and so it treats monks as having natural weapons.  It is like having a trial membership in the club.  Even though you haven't paid your dues, you are treated as a full member; the bouncer lets you in, and the bartender gives you cheap drinks.  Monks are treated as having natural weapons for the purposes of INA, and so a human monk can take the feat as soon as the BAB prerequisite is satisfied.

The argument is then whether the rule about a monk's unarmed attacks etc. is like an associate membership card (that doesn't get you past the bouncer) or like a trial membership card (which does).  The rule will be like an associate membership card if INA grants effects, and it will be like a trial membership if INA is an effect.

So that's how "grants" and "is" are different, and why the difference is important.


----------



## glass

Artoomis said:
			
		

> PC:  I'd like to take the INA feat.  I have BAB +4 now.
> DM:  Does your monk have a natural weapon?
> PC:  Are you asking in the context of an effect that enhances natural weapons?
> DM:  No, only as a prerequisite.
> PC:  Um... prerequisite for what?  I cannot answer yes or no to your question without knowing the context in which the monk would be using his special attack.
> DM: The context is qualifying as having a natural weapon.
> PC:  Again, I have to know the total context.  If it is in the context of qualifying for an effect that will grant a enhancement to a natural attack, then yes, my monk has a natural weapon.



Since I posted a reasonable fictional conversation in response to you first unreasoable one, continuing to post further unreasonable fictional conversation does will not prove that the IAN-No rule is unreasonable. And even if the rule is unreasonable, that doesn't preclude it from being the rule.



> Now here are possible scenarios that take it from there:
> 
> 1.  DM:  Hmmm.. the prerequisite is for getting an effect that only enhances a natural weapon, so I guess that's the context and you have a natural weapon and may take INA.
> 
> 2.  DM:  The context does not matter, either you have a natural weapon or you do not.  Since your monk doe not have a natural weapon for all purposes, you fail to meet the prerequisites and cannot take INA.



3.  DM:  The context matters. Does the ability say you have a natural weapon for the purposes of meeting prerequisites? No? Then you don't have a natural weapon for the purposes of meeting prerequisites even though you have one for the purposes of effects.


glass.


----------



## Borlon

glass said:
			
		

> Even if the feat as a whole is 'an effect that enhances natural weapons' (which I don't believe it is), I don't believe the feat's prerequisites necesarily are.




I am uneasy about the feat as a whole being considered an effect.  An effect of leveling up.  I wouldn't dispute the fact that INA enhances natural weapons, though.  I take it, then, that you share my discomfort with taking feats as effects.  Could you share the reasons for your discomfort?  I haven't been able to get beyond the feeling stage, myself, and I can't find solid (or even tenuous) arguments for feats not being effects.

The arguments Hypersmurf raises about racial prerequisites have caught my attention.  A half-orc is considered an orc for all effects that involve race, but some feats list "orc or half-orc" as the prerequisite, and others list "orc" as pre-requisite.  Suggesting that a feat's racial prerequisites are not an effect involving race.  The application to INA is pretty clear; if "counts as X" doesn't satisfy the prerequiste "must have/be X" then a monk's unarmed attack can count as a natural weapon, but won't satisfy a prerequiste that demands a natural weapon.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, though.  Perhaps you have different reasons for thinking that a feat could treat a monk as having a natural weapon, but not the feat's prerequisites.


----------



## Artoomis

glass said:
			
		

> ...3.  DM:  The context matters. Does the ability say you have a natural weapon for the purposes of meeting prerequisites? No? Then you don't have a natural weapon for the purposes of meeting prerequisites even though you have one for the purposes of effects...glass.




A prerequisite for WHAT?  Context matters.


----------



## Infiniti2000

FireLance said:
			
		

> Good catch!



 What most people don't realize is that Hyp has a team of high school students doing rules research for him 24/7.


----------



## glass

Artoomis said:
			
		

> A prerequisite for WHAT?  Context matters.



But it only matters when it suits your arguments, but not when it suits mine?

I have demonstrated why I don't think a prerequisite is an effect. Unless you can bring a counter argument as to why it is, then it doesn't matter what it is a prerequisite for because it is not an effect (or a spell), and the monk's ability deals with spells and effects.


glass.


----------



## Borlon

Artoomis said:
			
		

> 3. DM: Hmmm… the prerequisite is for getting an effect that enhances a natural weapon AND grants a natural armor bonus. Since you have a natural weapon for the purpose of an effect that enhances a natural weapon and do not have a natural weapon for the purpose of an effect that enhances a natural armor, I'm going to rule you do not qualify as qualifying would grant you an effect that your character is not entitiled to have.




From A&B you may validly deduce A.  If an effect enhances a natural weapon and grants a natural armor bonus, then it enhances a natural weapon.  The effect is therefore an effect that enhances a natural weapon.  The monk therefore is treated as having a natural weapon by the effect.  There is no relevant difference between this example and INA.

If the rule was that the monk's unarmed attacks count as natural weapons for spells and effects that do nothing else except enhance natural attacks, then the reasoning quoted above would be correct.  But I don't think the underlined text can be legitimately read in.


----------



## glass

Borlon said:
			
		

> I am uneasy about the feat as a whole being considered an effect.  An effect of leveling up.  I wouldn't dispute the fact that INA enhances natural weapons, though.  I take it, then, that you share my discomfort with taking feats as effects.  Could you share the reasons for your discomfort?  I haven't been able to get beyond the feeling stage, myself, and I can't find solid (or even tenuous) arguments for feats not being effects.



I would say that gaining a feat is an effect of levelling up, not the specific feat. After all, you could have levelled up but not chosen that particular feat.

If a feat is an effect, what causes it?


glass.


----------



## glass

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> What most people don't realize is that Hyp has a team of high school students doing rules research for him 24/7.



He does give that impression, doesn't he?


glass.


----------



## Artoomis

glass said:
			
		

> But it only matters when it suits your arguments, but not when it suits mine?
> 
> I have demonstrated why I don't think a prerequisite is an effect. Unless you can bring a counter argument as to why it is, then it doesn't matter what it is a prerequisite for because it is not an effect (or a spell), and the monk's ability deals with spells and effects.
> 
> 
> glass.




A prerequisite is clearly, to me, not an effect.  I grant you that, although it does not matter because a prerequisite is NOTHING by itself - it is only an expression of qualifications for receiving the effects of a feat.  They can ONLY be taken in context.  Normally, the context does not matter.  For example, do you have BAB for the purpose of getting an effect that enhances natural armor could be asked, but it's silly because you either have BAB +4 or you do not.  Not so for a monk's natural weapon.

Since a monk specifically has a natural weapon for qualifying for effects that enhance natural weapons, they meet the prerequisite.


----------



## Artoomis

Borlon said:
			
		

> From A&B you may validly deduce A.  If an effect enhances a natural weapon and grants a natural armor bonus, then it enhances a natural weapon.  The effect is therefore an effect that enhances a natural weapon.  The monk therefore is treated as having a natural weapon by the effect.  There is no relevant difference between this example and INA.
> 
> If the rule was that the monk's unarmed attacks count as natural weapons for spells and effects that do nothing else except enhance natural attacks, then the reasoning quoted above would be correct.  But I don't think the underlined text can be legitimately read in.




Well, perhaps so.  I only mean to point out that if the feat granted more than just an enhancement to a natural weapon the whole debate shifts.


----------



## Artoomis

glass said:
			
		

> ...If a feat is an effect, what causes it?
> 
> glass.




Leveling combined with a choice by a player causes it.

Of course, I don't think it matters if one considers a feat an effect or not.  I do understand the reasoning of those who think it is critical to this argument, I just do not agree and think that it is good enough if a feat grants effects.


----------



## Lamoni

Artoomis said:
			
		

> A prerequisite for WHAT?  Context matters.



Well the prerequisite to be considered an elf is that you are an elf.
The prerequisite to being an elf is to have elvish parents.
The prerequisite of having elvish parents is to have elvish grandparents.

We could go on and on.  You can state that there are prerequisites for the prerequisites for the prerequisites.  Is a prerequisite a seperate and unique term in D&D?  Or is it just describing what is required.

The prerequisite for a fictitional feat is that you must be an elf.
You are a human, but as part of a prestige class you are considered an elf for spells and for effects.
Hmm... the word prerequisite doesn't sound like the word effect.  So no.  That won't work for feats.
Wait, couldn't you also say that the *prerequisite* for the ficticious spell 'alter elf' is that the subject be an elf?  Let's see, you are considered an elf for the spell or the effect, but you can't have the spell cast on you because you aren't really an elf and the prestige class ability doesn't count for *prerequisites*.  Isn't that ridiculous?

Moving closer to home.  The *prerequisite* for a spell that improves a natural weapon is that the subject must have a natural weapon.  The spell won't work if you try to cast it on a sword.  The monk's ability counts as a natural weapon for spells and effects, BUT it didn't really count for a *prerequisite*.  Therefore, the spell can't be cast on the monk because the monk doesn't fulfill the *prerequisite*.  However, everyone is in agreement that if the spell was able to be cast, it would benefit the monk.

In conclusion, I see the difference in the arguments as how people are viewing the prerequisites.  Is a prerequisite a D&D term?  Or can we just replace it with its english definition?

*prerequisite:* Required or necessary as a prior condition, as a course that is required prior to taking an advanced course.

If we replace it with its definition, there is no problem.  The feat works fine.  If prerequisite has a different and distinct meaning like feat, skill, or spell, then there is a problem.  The feat can't be taken.


----------



## Artoomis

Lamoni said:
			
		

> ...If we replace it with its definition, there is no problem.  The feat works fine.  If prerequisite has a different and distinct meaning like feat, skill, or spell, then there is a problem.  The feat can't be taken.




Exactly.  And, of course, a prerequisite does not have a different and distinct meaning like feat, skill, or spell, so there is no problem and a monk can take INA.


----------



## Infiniti2000

Lamoni said:
			
		

> *prerequisite:* Required or necessary as a prior condition, as a course that is required prior to taking an advanced course.
> 
> If we replace it with its definition, there is no problem.  The feat works fine.  If prerequisite has a different and distinct meaning like feat, skill, or spell, then there is a problem.  The feat can't be taken.



 If you replace 'prerequisite' with it's definition, the feat INA in fact *doesn't* work fine for a human monk.  Good argument, false conclusion.  Note that in your definition example, context does not even matter.  Your definition itself proves our position unless you mean to say that you cannot take the prerequisite course unless you are planning to take the advanced course (but obviously that can't be guaranteed and therefore is not necessarily true).


----------



## Dimwhit

Lamoni said:
			
		

> In conclusion, I see the difference in the arguments as how people are viewing the prerequisites.  Is a prerequisite a D&D term?  Or can we just replace it with its english definition?




I've been saying that for pages, Lamoni. You are absolutely correct, but others just can't see it.


----------



## Artoomis

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> If you replace 'prerequisite' with it's definition, the feat INA in fact *doesn't* work fine for a human monk.  Good argument, false conclusion.  Note that in your definition example, context does not even matter.  Your definition itself proves our position unless you mean to say that you cannot take the prerequisite course unless you are planning to take the advanced course (but obviously that can't be guaranteed and therefore is not necessarily true).




Extending tnat further, you would fail to quaify for potentially pretty much ANY spell or effect because you don't actually have a natural weapon until AFTER the effect is in place, but it can't be put in place because it requires one to have a natural weapon for it to work upon.

This is known as a "catch-22" and is what your side of the argument seems to be proposing is the case.


----------



## Pinotage

Given that a lot of the debate around here centers on the word 'effect' which is not a game term, I thought I'd search the SRD to see where the word effect is used. These are the things you learn about effects:

Spells have effects
Fear is an effect
Non-spell effects exist
A decrease in an ability score is considered an effect
A reduction in attacks, saves, ability checks and skill checks is an effect
Effects can be permanent
Effects can be created
Dazed, paralyzed, weakened and killed are all effects
Effects can be cumalative
Force effects exist
Effects can be affected by spell effects
Creatures can be immune to effects
Gaining deflection bonus or resistance bonuses to saves is considered an effect
Gaining concealment is an effect

And so on and so forth. An effect isn't defined. It can be anything. Just based on the above list I can't see how within the core rules you can even argue if anything is or is not an effect, because quite obviously, the word effect is used to describe so many things it has absolutely no firm definition within the core rules. So, is a feat an effect - there cannot possibly be an answer to that question, given that wild use of the word 'effect' in the core rules. If you say a feat is an effect, then you have to consider the word effect against all the criteria that defines what an effect is. The same goes if you say a feat is not an effect. The only thing you can admit is that the benefit of the feat is an effect, but that's an admittance based simply on a seeming similarity between a feat's benefit and what is typically an effect.

Pinotage


----------



## Infiniti2000

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Extending tnat further, you would fail to quaify for potentially pretty much ANY spell or effect because you don't actually have a natural weapon until AFTER the effect is in place, but it can't be put in place because it requires one to have a natural weapon for it to work upon.



 No, because none of them have 'natural weapon' as a prerequisite.  If the Target were 'natural weapon' I'd agree that that spell wouldn't work on a human monk.  But, e.g. magic fang does not have that as a Target and thus has no limiting prerequisite.

I swear this was already covered, but this is only the 3rd or 4th revolution of similar arguments.


----------



## glass

Artoomis said:
			
		

> A prerequisite is clearly, to me, not an effect.  I grant you that, although it does not matter because a prerequisite is NOTHING by itself - it is only an expression of qualifications for receiving the effects of a feat.



How can it be nothing, and be 'an expression of qualifications for receiving the effects of a feat'? Surely that's something?



> They can ONLY be taken in context.  Normally, the context does not matter.  For example, do you have BAB for the purpose of getting an effect that enhances natural armor could be asked, but it's silly because you either have BAB +4 or you do not.  Not so for a monk's natural weapon.



Are you saying that it is impossible to consider a feats prerequisites seperately from it's effects? So is it impossible to consider a cars tyres separately from it's steering wheel?



> Since a monk specifically has a natural weapon for qualifying for effects that enhance natural weapons, they meet the prerequisite.



You are adding in extra words that aren't there. It doesn't say anything about 'qualifying'. If it did, we wouldn't have been arguing about this for 16 pages. Or at least, I'd have been on a different side.


glass.


----------



## Lamoni

Sorry I didn't read all the pages.  I started the thread late, then jumped to the last page to see how the argument could have possibly gone on for so long.

Exactly Artoomis.  If you use prerequisite as an English word and not a D&D term, you will either say that the monk ability is completely useless and NEVER works for anything... or you can reason that it MUST work for something or they wouldn't have written it in the rules.  If that is the case, you have to make the exact same jump for it to work for the feat as you have to for it to work for spells since the spells also have prerequisites.

I don't want the Monk's ability to be completely useless, so I say it also works for taking feats.  You are perfectly within your right to argue that the Monk's ability IS useless and should be scratched from the rules in the next eratta/next edition.


----------



## Artoomis

glass said:
			
		

> ..You are adding in extra words that aren't there. It doesn't say anything about 'qualifying'. If it did, we wouldn't have been arguing about this for 16 pages. Or at least, I'd have been on a different side.
> 
> 
> glass.




Okay, you got me on that one.  I didn't really think that would slide by.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Lamoni said:
			
		

> Exactly Artoomis.  If you use prerequisite as an English word and not a D&D term, you will either say that the monk ability is completely useless and NEVER works for anything...




Disagree.  



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Magic Fang
> Transmutation
> Level: Drd 1, Rgr 1
> Components: V, S, DF
> Casting Time: 1 standard action
> Range: Touch
> *Target: Living creature touched*
> Duration: 1 min./level
> Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)
> Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless)
> 
> Magic fang gives *one natural weapon of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus* on attack and damage rolls. The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon. (The spell does not change an unarmed strike’s damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage.)
> 
> Magic fang can be made permanent with a permanency spell.




EDIT:

The target is a living creature.  A human monk is a living creature and is therefore a valid target for the spell.

The effect of the spell is "+1 enhancement bonus to a natural weapon."  This is an "effect which improves ... a natural weapon."  Therefore, a monk qualifies to receive this bonus.

A vampire monk, similarly, would qualify for the effect - he's still got all his monk abilities - but would not qualify as a valid target of the spell.  He doesn't "meet the prereqs."

Similarly, a human monk would qualify for the effect of the INA feat, but does not qualify to take the feat.  He doesn't "meet the prereqs."


----------



## Artoomis

Pinotage said:
			
		

> ...So, is a feat an effect - there cannot possibly be an answer to that question, given that wild use of the word 'effect' in the core rules. If you say a feat is an effect, then you have to consider the word effect against all the criteria that defines what an effect is. The same goes if you say a feat is not an effect. The only thing you can admit is that the benefit of the feat is an effect, but that's an admittance based simply on a seeming similarity between a feat's benefit and what is typically an effect.
> 
> Pinotage




Well, I have to agree.  The word "effect" is extremeley general and, in at least one instance, feast are referred to as "permament effects," but in another instacne as granting effects.

I think a feat should be considered an effect at least for the purpose of determining if a monk has a natural weapon.


----------



## glass

> If that is the case, you have to make the exact same jump for it to work for the feat as you have to for it to work for spells since the spells also have prerequisites.



Spells do not have prerequisites, and in any case, spells are 'spells' so do not need to be covered by the 'effects' part of 'spells and effects'.



			
				Lamoni said:
			
		

> Exactly Artoomis.  If you use prerequisite as an English word and not a D&D term, you will either say that the monk ability is completely useless and NEVER works for anything... or you can reason that it MUST work for something or they wouldn't have written it in the rules.



It does work for something, see the Magic Fang example that keeps coming up. Just because it doesn't work the way you think it does, doesn't mean it doesn't work at all.


glass.


----------



## Lamoni

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> No, because none of them have 'natural weapon' as a prerequisite.  If the Target were 'natural weapon' I'd agree that that spell wouldn't work on a human monk.  But, e.g. magic fang does not have that as a Target and thus has no limiting prerequisite.
> 
> I swear this was already covered, but this is only the 3rd or 4th revolution of similar arguments.



I'm sorry if it is just being rehashed.  

Magic Fang can be cast on any creature.  Magic Fang also states... "Magic fang gives one natural weapon of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls."  Let's see, I'd say that the prerequisite for the Magic fang to give a natural weapon an enhancement bonus is that the creature have a natural weapon.  Hey, I just gave it a prerequisite.  The monk's abilities don't work for qualifying for prerequisites so it doesn't really help.

Now, I expect the counter argument to completely destroy this argument (as it should).  Now, take that counterargument and apply it to the feat also... you may need to replace the word spell with the word effect.

You can continue to view it as you see fit.  If a prerequisite is your hangup though, I can add prerequisites to any spell or effect.  I wouldn't change the meaning, but once the word prerequisite is in there, it must not work just like taking the feat doesn't work.

I agree this has been going on too long.  Sorry I didn't join the thread sooner so my ideas would seem fresh rather than rehashing what has already been stated.  I'll move on to other topics now.


----------



## glass

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Well, I have to agree.  The word "effect" is extremeley general and, in at least one instance, feast are referred to as "permament effects," but in another instacne as granting effects.



They are included in a list that implies that they are 'permanent effects', in a piece of text talking about something else entirely. Hardly conclusive proof.



> I think a feat should be considered an effect at least for the purpose of determining if a monk has a natural weapon.



What you think _should be_ the case has no bearing on what _is_ the case.


glass.


----------



## glass

Lamoni said:
			
		

> I'm sorry if it is just being rehashed.
> 
> Magic Fang can be cast on any creature.  Magic Fang also states... "Magic fang gives one natural weapon of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls."  Let's see, I'd say that the prerequisite for the Magic fang to give a natural weapon an enhancement bonus is that the creature have a natural weapon.  Hey, I just gave it a prerequisite.  The monk's abilities don't work for qualifying for prerequisites so it doesn't really help.



Except nowhere in the Magic Fang spell does it mention having a prerequisite.



> You can continue to view it as you see fit.  If a prerequisite is your hangup though, I can add prerequisites to any spell or effect.  I wouldn't change the meaning, but once the word prerequisite is in there, it must not work just like taking the feat doesn't work.



Sure, you can houserule spells to have prerequisites, just like you can houserule INA not to, but at that point you are no longer talking about the RAW.


glass.


----------



## Pinotage

glass said:
			
		

> Except nowhere in the Magic Fang spell does it mention having a prerequisite.
> 
> Sure, you can houserule spells to have prerequisites, just like you can houserule INA not to, but at that point you are no longer talking about the RAW.
> 
> glass.




Can I just quickly ask something to make sure I understand the basis of your argument:

You're saying that a feat is not an effect, but that the benefit is, and as such, given that the monk can qualify for the benefit, but not the prerequisite, that implies the monk can't take INA? Is that correct?

If it is, how do you justify that a feat is not an effect?

Pinotage


----------



## Dimwhit

glass said:
			
		

> They are included in a list that implies that they are 'permanent effects', in a piece of text talking about seomthing else entirely. Hardly conclusive proof.glass.






> IMPROVED CRITICAL [GENERAL]
> Choose one type of weapon.
> Prerequisite: Proficient with weapon, base attack bonus +8.
> Benefit: When using the weapon you selected, your threat range is doubled.
> Special: You can gain Improved Critical multiple times. The *effects* do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.
> This *effect* doesn’t stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon.
> A fighter may select Improved Critical as one of his fighter bonus feats.






> EXTRA TURNING [GENERAL]
> Prerequisite: Ability to turn or rebuke creatures.
> Benefit: Each time you take this feat, you can use your ability to turn or rebuke creatures four more times per day than normal.
> If you have the ability to turn or rebuke more than one kind of creature each of your turning or rebuking abilities gains four additional uses per day.
> Normal: Without this feat, a character can typically turn or rebuke undead (or other creatures) a number of times per day equal to 3 + his or her Charisma modifier.
> Special: You can gain Extra Turning multiple times. Its *effects* stack. Each time you take the feat, you can use each of your turning or rebuking abilities four additional times per day.






> GREATER SPELL FOCUS [GENERAL]
> Choose a school of magic to which you already have applied the Spell Focus feat.
> Benefit: Add +1 to the Difficulty Class for all saving throws against spells from the school of magic you select. This bonus stacks with the bonus from Spell Focus.
> Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its *effects* do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new school of magic to which you already have applied the Spell Focus feat.




The list goes on. They all mention 'effects.' Feats are effects and should be included in that long list.


----------



## glass

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> The list goes on. They all mention 'effects.' Feats are effects and should be included in that long list.



Congratulations, you have demonstrated that feats have effects. Does not prove that feats are effects though.


glass.


----------



## Pinotage

glass said:
			
		

> Congratulations, you have demonstrated that feats have effects. Does not prove that feats are effects though.
> 
> 
> glass.




It doesn't prove they aren't either. I'll await you answer to my earlier post, but I've yet to see an argument that prooves that feats aren't effects. And yes, I've seen the 'we don't have to prove it' but I really want to see a proof here that they are not to be considered effects.

Pinotage


----------



## Artoomis

Bottom line:

I, and others, think that under the RAW a monk qualifies for INA.
Others think the opposite.

How many think the rules are ambigous based upon lengthy arguments presented on both sides?  I'm very interestesd in those who think the rules are clear and unambigous - not just that they think their position is correct, but that the opposing side's argument has no basis in the rules whatsoever.


----------



## glass

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Can I just quickly ask something to make sure I understand the basis of your argument:
> 
> You're saying that a feat is not an effect, but that the benefit is, and as such, given that the monk can qualify for the benefit, but not the prerequisite, that implies the monk can't take INA? Is that correct?



Well, I'd prefer to term it that a monk can benefit from the feats effect due to his ability, but does not meet the prerequisites because of it (although he may do so in other ways). _EDIT: But essentially yes, that is my position._



> If it is, how do you justify that a feat is not an effect?





			
				dictionary.com said:
			
		

> Something brought about by a cause or agent; a result.
> The power to produce an outcome or achieve a result; influence:



These are the relevant clauses from dictionary.com. A feat fits either of those definitions, so it is not an effect.


glass.


----------



## Artoomis

Pinotage said:
			
		

> It doesn't prove they aren't either. I'll await you answer to my earlier post, but I've yet to see an argument that prooves that feats aren't effects. And yes, I've seen the 'we don't have to prove it' but I really want to see a proof here that they are not to be considered effects.
> 
> Pinotage




Given the very general nature of the way "effects" is used in D&D in the rule books I think it is indeed incumbent upon the "No" camp to show how feats are NOT effects rather than the other way around.

We already know that feats have effects, but that does not in any way deny that a feat itself is an effect, which, given the vague nature of the word "effect," needs to be done to deny allowing a monk to qualify for INA.

This is really different from my primray argument, but nonetheless true.


----------



## Pinotage

glass said:
			
		

> Well, I'd prefer to term it that a monk can benefit from the feats effect due to his ability, but does not meet the prerequisites because of it (although he may do so in other ways).
> 
> These are the relevant clauses from dictionary.com. A feat fits either of those definitions, so it is not an effect.
> 
> 
> glass.




Thanks, at least now I'm clear on that. So, in other words, your argument has no basis in the RAW given the need to invoke a dictionary reference? Whereas the other side has at least some evidence that it is an effect given a rules quote that states feats are permanent effects. Is that correct?

Pinotage


----------



## Artoomis

glass said:
			
		

> ...
> These are the relevant clauses from dictionary.com. A feat fits either of those definitions, so it is not an effect.
> 
> 
> glass.




Huh?  Did you state that backwards from your position?  Did you not quote the defintion of "effect" and then state that a feat fits that defintion, or did I read that wrong?

P.S.: A feat is the result of a player decision made when the PC levels up.  Since it is "something brought about by a cause or agent; a result." it is an effect.  The "cause or agent" is either leveling up or the player's decision  (or PC's decision, if you want to think about it that way).


----------



## Scion

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So why does one feat consider 'Orc' and 'Half-Orc' to be separate prerequisites?  If Orc Blood allows half-orcs to satisfy a prerequisite of 'Orc', then why the inconsistency?




My guess? the person who wrote the one who only said 'orc' realized the orc blood would take care of the halforc while the one who wrote the other did not realize that.

Or, they forgot about orc blood completely.

Either of those are possible, neither contradicts the raw. Providing 'too much' info is not evidence against.


----------



## Infiniti2000

Lamoni said:
			
		

> I'm sorry if it is just being rehashed.



 No problem.  



			
				Lamoni said:
			
		

> Magic Fang can be cast on any creature.  Magic Fang also states... "Magic fang gives one natural weapon of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls."  Let's see, I'd say that the prerequisite for the Magic fang to give a natural weapon an enhancement bonus is that the creature have a natural weapon.  Hey, I just gave it a prerequisite.  The monk's abilities don't work for qualifying for prerequisites so it doesn't really help.
> 
> Now, I expect the counter argument to completely destroy this argument (as it should).  Now, take that counterargument and apply it to the feat also... you may need to replace the word spell with the word effect.
> 
> You can continue to view it as you see fit.  If a prerequisite is your hangup though, I can add prerequisites to any spell or effect.  I wouldn't change the meaning, but once the word prerequisite is in there, it must not work just like taking the feat doesn't work.
> 
> I agree this has been going on too long.  Sorry I didn't join the thread sooner so my ideas would seem fresh rather than rehashing what has already been stated.  I'll move on to other topics now.



 You have me confused.  You are exactly arguing in my favor, i.e. that a human monk cannot take Improved Natural Attack.   Right?


----------



## Scion

moritheil said:
			
		

> That's the fundamental problem.  Suppose I have arcade tokens.  They count as money for the purposes of paying for games.  They do not count as money for the purposes of paying, say, my taxes.  So they are not _really_ money, they just sometimes can be used as money, when in the arcade.  Does this make sense?




tokens are money in the arcade but not outside of the arcade, of course.

But then, if they are always considered money inside then you could use them to buy other things than just video games. Or, you could even use them for more than one video game.

As long as you are inside of the arcade it is treated exactly the same as money.

Just like as long as you are trying to qualify for something that needs a natural weapon then it is ok, as long as it enhances of course.

You couldnt qualify as a natural weapon just because, only in specific cases. Just like the tokens, they dont always qualify as money, just in special cases.


----------



## glass

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Given the very general nature of the way "effects" is used in D&D in the rule books I think it is indeed incumbent upon the "No" camp to show how feats are NOT effects rather than the other way around.



Can you show any example of where the word effect is used in D&D for something which is not an effect by the dictionary.com definition I have provided? If so, then you might have a point there.



> We already know that feats have effects, but that does not in any way deny that a feat itself is an effect, which, given the vague nature of the word "effect," needs to be done to deny allowing a monk to qualify for INA.



Not necesarily, even if a feat is an effect, it's prerequisite is not necessarily an effect (or at least, and effect that enhances natural weapons). 


glass.


----------



## Infiniti2000

I say we line up everyone in the No camp on one side and the Yes camp on the other and play Red Rover.


----------



## Artoomis

glass said:
			
		

> Can you show any example of where the word effect is used in D&D for something which is not an effect by the dictionary.com definition I have provided? If so, then you might have a point there.
> 
> 
> Not necesarily, even if a feat is an effect, it's prerequisite is not necessarily an effect (or at least, and effect that enhances natural weapons).
> 
> glass.




Actually, I just showed (above) how a "feat" fits that defintion.

If a feat is an effect, then a monk qualifies for INA because they get a natural weapon for effects.  I thought everyone was agreeing on that.


----------



## Scion

Pinotage said:
			
		

> It doesn't prove they aren't either. I'll await you answer to my earlier post, but I've yet to see an argument that prooves that feats aren't effects. And yes, I've seen the 'we don't have to prove it' but I really want to see a proof here that they are not to be considered effects.




Definately.

I would like to see a point by point proof of how a feat is not an effect as well.

Until then, the rules quote that says feats *are* effects rules over all.


----------



## glass

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Huh?  Did you state that backwards from your position?  Did you not quote the defintion of "effect" and then state that a feat fits that defintion, or did I read that wrong?



You read it wrong. I have consistantly stated that I do not believe a feat is an effect, although I have also noted that even if it is, it does not necesarily allowa monk to take INA.



> P.S.: A feat is the result of a player decision made when the PC levels up.  Since it is "something brought about by a cause or agent; a result." it is an effect.  The "cause or agent" is either leveling up or the player's decision  (or PC's decision, if you want to think about it that way).



Gaining a feat in the abstract sense is an effect of leveling up. A specific feat is not: they still exist as concepts that can be discussed and options that can potentially be slected later even if the are not selected, which preculdes their being and effect of leveling up or selection.



glass.


----------



## Artoomis

glass said:
			
		

> ..Gaining a feat in the abstract sense is an effect of leveling up. A specific feat is not: they still exist as concepts that can be discussed and options that can potentially be slected later even if the are not selected, which preculdes their being and effect of leveling up or selection.
> 
> glass.




You lost me there.  How can gaining a feat be an effect of leveling up but a specific feat not be an effect of leveling up?  I don't mind if they are considered an effect of leveling up plus making certain decisions - that's still an "effect" per the dictionary definition of an "effect."


----------



## Dimwhit

glass said:
			
		

> Gaining a feat in the abstract sense is an effect of leveling up. A specific feat is not: they still exist as concepts that can be discussed and options that can potentially be slected later even if the are not selected, which preculdes their being and effect of leveling up or selection.




Uh, no. Specific feats are results of levels. We've illustrated this many times. A character gains experience, and at some point (designated as gaining a level) that character gains a SPECIFIC ability (natural weapon does more damage, he can now craft wands, he can strike for more power at the expense of accuracy, etc.).

Specific feats, whatever is chosen, are the direct results of gaining experience and level. Ergo, the are the effect of that level gain.


----------



## Infiniti2000

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Uh, no. Specific feats are results of levels. We've illustrated this many times. A character gains experience, and at some point (designated as gaining a level) that character gains a SPECIFIC ability (natural weapon does more damage, he can now craft wands, he can strike for more power at the expense of accuracy, etc.).
> 
> Specific feats, whatever is chosen, are the direct results of gaining experience and level. Ergo, the are the effect of that level gain.



 And what happens when you gain a feat not as part of gaining experience?  Gaining INA is not solely part of levelling up, so you can't categorically state it as an effect of levelling up.


----------



## Dimwhit

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> And what happens when you gain a feat not as part of gaining experience?  Gaining INA is not solely part of levelling up, so you can't categorically state it as an effect of levelling up.



 How else would you gain a feat?


----------



## Artoomis

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> And what happens when you gain a feat not as part of gaining experience?  Gaining INA is not solely part of levelling up, so you can't categorically state it as an effect of levelling up.




Okay, then, what IS gaining INA a result of, if it is not leveling up and associated decisions?

When do you gain a feat *not* as part of gaining experience?

Edit:  It does not really matter what a feat is the result of - if it is the result of ANYTHING then it is an effect per the dictionary definition.


----------



## Scion

Artoomis said:
			
		

> It does not really matter what a feat is the result of - if it is the result of ANYTHING then it is an effect per the dictionary definition.




Exactly.


----------



## Dimwhit

Artoomis and Scion...if we form an alliance, then as soon as we win this challenge, we can vote one of the others off, right?


----------



## Artoomis

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Artoomis and Scion...if we form an alliance, then as soon as we win this challenge, we can vote one of the others off, right?




You've been watching too much TV.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Okay, then, what IS gaining INA a result of, if it is not leveling up and associated decisions?
> 
> When do you gain a feat *not* as part of gaining experience?




Pick your favorite MM creature.  Find a feat with the superscript "B" notation.

Examine the Magebred feat in the ECS.

There are many ways to gain feats that are not direct results of leveling up.


----------



## Dimwhit

The point isn't that they're effects of leveling up, but that they're effects of something. Leveling up is just the most common for characters is all. Some feats are an effect of birth or race. I'm sure there are other examples. But they're the direct effect of something.


----------



## Artoomis

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Pick your favorite MM creature.  Find a feat with the superscript "B" notation.
> 
> Examine the Magebred feat in the ECS.
> 
> There are many ways to gain feats that are not direct results of leveling up.




Okay, but gaining feats is still a result of _something_, right?  In which case they are "effects."


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Okay, but gaining feats is still a result of _something_, right?  In which case they are "effects."




If by "something" you mean "birth" or possibly "creature design," sure.

But then, so is your Intelligence score, so I'm not sure that's a productive line of argument.


----------



## Dimwhit

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> If by "something" you mean "birth" or possibly "creature design," sure.
> 
> But then, so is your Intelligence score, so I'm not sure that's a productive line of argument.



 Actually it is. The point we're try to make is that everything is an effect of something. That's why it's pointless arguing over whether a feat is an effect. Everything is, from feets to skill to your intelligence. 

Now had Wizards given an in-game definition for effect, we wouldn't be having this argument, but they didn't. As such, we go with the standard meaning for effect, which is an incredibly generic term.


----------



## Pinotage

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Thanks, at least now I'm clear on that. So, in other words, your argument has no basis in the RAW given the need to invoke a dictionary reference? Whereas the other side has at least some evidence that it is an effect given a rules quote that states feats are permanent effects. Is that correct?
> 
> Pinotage




Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. I realise my post was horribly not what I wanted to say. So I'm just correcting here.

The text as written is unclear, one of the reasons being that the word 'effect' is not defined. There are different ways of interpreting this word as we've all illustrated over three threads. So from a rules as written perspective, i.e. interpreting what's written, I don't think that there is a direct answer as to what exactly the text says.

So, one the one hand, we have those that interpret the text to imply that it cannot be taken by human monks, but on the other hand there are those that do think it applies to human monks. Both are using purely literal readings and english understanding, dictionary, if you will, to state their cases.

Except, that the side that support monks being able to take INA has supporting evidence from the RAW that says feats are permanent effects. I'm trying to understand how that is somehow not valid and can be handwaved, but I'm failing miserably.

If you just look at the text, forget the arguments and discussion that has been presented, draw a conclusion merely based on this:

A monk's unarmed strikes are considered natural weapons for the purposes of effects that improve natural weapons.

...feats, and other permanent effects.

Feats are, by RAW rules, not dictionary definition, effects, i.e. a monk can take INA. Forget trying to interpret the written text in terms of benefits and prerequisites and just focus on the two sentences above. Those are the rules as written and they clearly state that feats are effects and allow monks to use INA. Please explain to me how I'm wrong about this? If you asked a total stranger on the street what he would make of the sentences above what do you think he'd say?

Pinotage


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Actually it is. The point we're try to make is that everything is an effect of something.




Which makes the statement "for purposes of spells and effects" a perfectly ridiculous statement - since there isn't anything that isn't one of the two (and, in fact, spells are included within the set of effects).  By your reasoning, it really means "for all purposes."

No, I think that there is a game definition of "effect" which is different from the dictionary definition of "effect."

For instance, "this is a Fear effect" implies this.

The fact that we haven't nailed it down yet does not mean it doesn't exist.


----------



## Artoomis

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> If by "something" you mean "birth" or possibly "creature design," sure.
> 
> But then, so is your Intelligence score, so I'm not sure that's a productive line of argument.




The point is that effects are defined within D&D so poorly that feats definately fall into the realm of "effects" because they meet the dictionary definition of "something brought about by a cause or agent; a result."  So long as getting a feat is brought about by some other cause (leveling up, etc.) they are "effects."

Of course, I think arguing over whether a feat is an effect is silly because a feat does not have to be an effect for a monk to qualify for INA, by my way of thinking.

Still, by dictionary definition, feats are indeed "effects."  If a creature has a feat at birth, then the cause of them having the feat is being a certain creature.  Still meets the defintion of "effect."  Without an actual game definition of effect, on ecan really only go by the dictionary.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Except, that the side that support monks being able to take INA has supporting evidence from the RAW that says feats are permanent effects. I'm trying to understand how that is somehow not valid and can be handwaved, but I'm failing miserably.




Because, with exactly as strong support, we have rules text that implies that "for effects" does not include prerequisites - the "orc or half-orc" feat pre-req.

That's been hand-waved away, it seems, so we are equally as able to hand-wave away this other particular evidence.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Artoomis said:
			
		

> The point is that effects are defined within D&D so poorly that feats definately fall into the realm of "effects" because they meet the dictionary definition of "something brought about by a cause or agent; a result."




Whereas I will tell you that the benefit of a feat is its "effect," and the feat is the "agent" which brings it about.

EDIT:

In other words, either every single thing within the D&D ruleset is an "effect" - being brough about, if nothing else, than by the course of human history - or "effect" *is* a D&D term of art, however poorly defined, referring to things like the bonuses provided by magic items, the results of spells, etc.

In short, I suspect there are five kinds of effects in D&D: Spell, Spell-Like, Supernatural, Natural, and Extraordinary.

Feats provide Natural or Extraordinary effects, unless otherwise stated.


----------



## Artoomis

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Whereas I will tell you that the benefit of a feat is its "effect," and the feat is the "agent" which brings it about.




I agree with you.  But, in turn, the feat itself is also brought about by some other agent, and so the feat itself in also an "effect."


----------



## Artoomis

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Because, with exactly as strong support, we have rules text that implies that "for effects" does not include prerequisites - the "orc or half-orc" feat pre-req.
> 
> That's been hand-waved away, it seems, so we are equally as able to hand-wave away this other particular evidence.




I agree that all the rule citations you refer to about "effects" and "prerequisites" have been incredibly weak on BOTH sides.

And?  What's the "effect"  of knowing that?  Not a thing except perhaps force us to look even more strongly to the dictionary definition of "effects."


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

And the level-up was also brought about by some other agent - the XP gained - which was brough about by some other agent - the creature - which was brought about by some other agent - the creature's parents - which, eventually, were brought about by some other agent - the DM - who was brough about be some other agent - the DM's parents - who were, eventually, brought about by some other agent - God or primordial soup or both, take your pick.

This way lays madness.


----------



## Dimwhit

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Which makes the statement "for purposes of spells and effects" a perfectly ridiculous statement...




And this suprises you because... ? 




> By your reasoning, it really means "for all purposes."
> 
> No, I think that there is a game definition of "effect" which is different from the dictionary definition of "effect."
> 
> For instance, "this is a Fear effect" implies this.




Well, how else would you word it? Effect just happens to be the right word for it. What that statement is trying to bring out is the word 'Fear' so that we know what can counter it, etc. The word 'effect' is there, well, because it's an effect.



> The fact that we haven't nailed it down yet does not mean it doesn't exist.




And as soon as you can find an in-game definition for 'effect' I'm all ears. True, the fact that you haven't nailed it down yet does not mean it doesn't exist. But it's not exactly helping your argument, either.


----------



## Pinotage

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Because, with exactly as strong support, we have rules text that implies that "for effects" does not include prerequisites - the "orc or half-orc" feat pre-req.
> 
> That's been hand-waved away, it seems, so we are equally as able to hand-wave away this other particular evidence.




Well, I'd argue that the specific rules text that states feats are permanant effects takes precedence since the above to me seems like an oversight, and the point you're arguing for is infered rather than stated. I'd go with a clear statement rather than an infered statement, but unless somebody does a complete SRD search for the word effect, I'm not sure if the debate can progress any further. Of course, we can always argue about what is considered primary source and what is considered secondary source!   

Pinotage


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Well, I'd argue that the specific rules text that states feats are permanant effects




... is also an oversight?


----------



## Artoomis

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> ...In other words, either every single thing within the D&D ruleset is an "effect" - being brough about, if nothing else, than by the course of human history - or "effect" *is* a D&D term of art, however poorly defined, referring to things like the bonuses provided by magic items, the results of spells, etc.
> 
> In short, I suspect there are five kinds of effects in D&D: Spell, Spell-Like, Supernatural, Natural, and Extraordinary.
> 
> Feats provide Natural or Extraordinary effects, unless otherwise stated.




Unfortunately (or fortunately) "effects," in this context, do seem to include just about everything within D&D.  So it becomes that a monk has a natural weapon for the purpose of anything that enhances natural weapons.  

This is a result of the lack of a real D&D definition for "effect."  

See below:



			
				Pinotage said:
			
		

> Given that a lot of the debate around here centers on the word 'effect' which is not a game term, I thought I'd search the SRD to see where the word effect is used. These are the things you learn about effects:
> 
> Spells have effects
> Fear is an effect
> Non-spell effects exist
> A decrease in an ability score is considered an effect
> A reduction in attacks, saves, ability checks and skill checks is an effect
> Effects can be permanent
> Effects can be created
> Dazed, paralyzed, weakened and killed are all effects
> Effects can be cumalative
> Force effects exist
> Effects can be affected by spell effects
> Creatures can be immune to effects
> Gaining deflection bonus or resistance bonuses to saves is considered an effect
> Gaining concealment is an effect
> 
> And so on and so forth. An effect isn't defined. It can be anything. Just based on the above list I can't see how within the core rules you can even argue if anything is or is not an effect, because quite obviously, the word effect is used to describe so many things it has absolutely no firm definition within the core rules. So, is a feat an effect - there cannot possibly be an answer to that question, given that wild use of the word 'effect' in the core rules. If you say a feat is an effect, then you have to consider the word effect against all the criteria that defines what an effect is. The same goes if you say a feat is not an effect. The only thing you can admit is that the benefit of the feat is an effect, but that's an admittance based simply on a seeming similarity between a feat's benefit and what is typically an effect.
> 
> Pinotage


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Unfortunately (or fortunately) "effects," in this context, do seem to include just about everything within D&D.




Except it still fits whithin the stuff I outlined above:



			
				Pinotage said:
			
		

> Spells have [Sp] effects
> Fear is an [Sp, SL, Su, Ex] effect
> Non-spell effects [SL, Su, Ex, Na] exist
> A decrease in an ability score is considered an effect [Sp, SL, Su, Ex (Poison)]
> A reduction in attacks, saves, ability checks and skill checks is an effect [Same]


----------



## IanB

To clarify, or possibly confuse, the poll numbers a little, I voted for both "Yes, per RAW" and "Yes, because the Sage said so" because I felt both were true. I think it is possible I am not the only one who voted this way.


----------



## Artoomis

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Except it still fits whithin the stuff I outlined above:




Even if your list IS exhaustive, "effects" STILL covers everything in D&D, including feats and/or effects that feats give.  It really adds nothing in determining if a feat is an effect or not.

Edit:  What about " Effects of Hit Point Damage: Damage doesn't slow you down until you current hit points reach 0..."  Being dead, disabled or dying are all "effects" of hit point damage.

So getting damage produces effects.  And on and on...  These sorts of things don't fit your categories.

Edit (again):  Note that in many places the rules refer to "magic effects," "psionic effects" or other qualifiers, but that's not the case here, leaving it totally open.  I think this was intentional so as not to miss anything


----------



## moritheil

Scion said:
			
		

> tokens are money in the arcade but not outside of the arcade, of course.
> 
> But then, if they are always considered money inside then you could use them to buy other things than just video games. Or, you could even use them for more than one video game.
> 
> As long as you are inside of the arcade it is treated exactly the same as money.
> 
> Just like as long as you are trying to qualify for something that needs a natural weapon then it is ok, as long as it enhances of course.
> 
> You couldnt qualify as a natural weapon just because, only in specific cases. Just like the tokens, they dont always qualify as money, just in special cases.




They are NOT money; they merely count as money.  You cannot redeem them freely for an equivalent value in USD, for example.  Imprecise statements aside, I see that we do understand this much, at least.

In this case, your statement of the terms under which IUS is a natural weapon is imprecise, and it is this lack of distinction between feats and effects of feats that leads to your assertion that "something that needs a natural weapon" that "it is ok" for includes feats.


----------



## IanB

It should be pointed out that we cannot assume that the word 'effect' means the same thing every time it appears in a D&D book (cf. _level_.)


----------



## moritheil

IanB said:
			
		

> It should be pointed out that we cannot assume that the word 'effect' means the same thing every time it appears in a D&D book (cf. _level_.)




Well said.


----------



## Artoomis

moritheil said:
			
		

> They are NOT money; they merely count as money.  You cannot redeem them freely for an equivalent value in USD, for example.  So I see that we do understand this much, at least....




But if the prerequisite for admission was to have money, they'd count because they count as money for the arcade, even though they can't be used until you actually get inside.


----------



## moritheil

Artoomis said:
			
		

> But if the prerequisite for admission was to have money, they'd count because they count as money for the arcade, even though they can't be used until you actually get inside.




No.  I cannot pay bus fare to the arcade in arcade tokens.  I can only play the games inside with them.


----------



## Artoomis

<whoops>


----------



## Nail

Wow.


----------



## Artoomis

moritheil said:
			
		

> No.  I cannot pay bus fare to the arcade in arcade tokens.  I can only play the games inside with them.




Oh, please.  I did not say the prerequisite to get transportation to get to the arcade, but to get in - that is, get past the security guard who makes sure that only folks with money get in.

Since the tokens count as money for arcade purposes, you meet the prerequisite of having money and are allowed through the doors into the arcade.

That's a nice analogy to the INA feat and monks.


----------



## moritheil

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Oh, please.  I did not say the prerequisite to get transportation to get to the arcade, but to get in - that is, get past the security guard who makes sure that only folks with money get in.
> 
> Since the tokens count as money for arcade purposes, you meet the prerequisite of having money and are allowed through the doors into the arcade.




I don't feel that accurately reflects the IUS situation.

Let me elaborate: IUS is not fundamentally a natural attack.

It's like the door guard is saying, "This arcade is not for kids, because it includes graphic violence.  You're 14, and you need to be 16 according to the law that Congress just passed.  Go to the other arcade down the street."

And you're saying, "But, I'm in advanced math, with all the 16 year olds!  I game just as well as 16 year olds, too!"

The guard will say, "Yeah, but, you're not actually 16.  Sorry."


----------



## Artoomis

moritheil said:
			
		

> I don't feel that accurately reflects the IUS situation.




No?  Are your refering to IUA, INA and monks?  If so, it's a directly applicable analogy, though it might be easier to stick with the examination of feats as effects than dealing with the issue of meeting prerequisites even if feats are NOT effects.


----------



## Artoomis

moritheil said:
			
		

> I don't feel that accurately reflects the IUS situation.
> 
> Let me elaborate: IUS is not fundamentally a natural attack.
> 
> It's like the door guard is saying, "This arcade is not for kids, because it includes graphic violence.  You're 14, and you need to be 16 according to the law that Congress just passed.  Go to the other arcade down the street."
> 
> And you're saying, "But, I'm in advanced math, with all the 16 year olds!  I game just as well as 16 year olds, too!"
> 
> The guard will say, "Yeah, but, you're not actually 16.  Sorry."




That is not similar because the boy is NOT 16 for the purpose of playing arcade games.

Bad analogy.

I really like the one about tokens, because tokens are fundamentally NOT money, but only count as money in the arcade.  If they can count as money to get past a requirement to have money to get in, that's just like using IUS to count as a natural weapon to take INA.

If they did not count (sorry, you must have actual money only, not just tokens that count as money once you enter), I think there would be court cases ove the legaility of that move.


----------



## moritheil

Artoomis said:
			
		

> That is not similar because the boy is NOT 16 for the purpose of playing arcade games.




He is, where _the games themselves_ are concerned.  That is, when he plays, say, Tekken, the game cannot tell that he is not 16 because his skill level and ability are commensurate with that of a 16 year old.


----------



## Artoomis

moritheil said:
			
		

> He is, where _the games themselves_ are concerned.  That is, when he plays, say, Tekken, the game cannot tell that he is not 16 because his skill level and ability are commensurate with that of a 16 year old.




But his MATURITY LEVEL is not counted as 16, nor does a methododolgy exist for his maturity level to be counted as 16.  His age is never considered 16, only his ability level, perhaps.


----------



## Pinotage

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> ... is also an oversight?




If it is, it's a lot more specific than the implied reference which could've been added simply as additional clarification, as Scion remarked a page or two earlier.   

Pinotage


----------



## Artoomis

Pinotage said:
			
		

> If it is, it's a lot more specific than the implied reference which could've been added simply as additional clarification, as Scion remarked a page or two earlier.
> 
> Pinotage




Yes, well, even though I am on your side, this is hardly covincing evidence, now, is it?


----------



## Scion

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Yes, well, even though I am on your side, this is hardly covincing evidence, now, is it?




Wasnt it the exotic weapon master who had some of his rules state that he was allowed to do 1.5x weapon damage while weilding an exotic weapon in two hands or something like that?

Basically something that could be done anyway.

Should we then assume that the implication is that you could not actually do it before and it is only a special talent of that prc?

Or should we assume that they were giving extra information where it wasnt needed?


----------



## Artoomis

Scion said:
			
		

> Wasnt it the exotic weapon master who had some of his rules state that he was allowed to do 1.5x weapon damage while weilding an exotic weapon in two hands or something like that?
> 
> Basically something that could be done anyway.
> 
> Should we then assume that the implication is that you could not actually do it before and it is only a special talent of that prc?
> 
> Or should we assume that they were giving extra information where it wasnt needed?




Actually I was also refering to the reference about "permanent effect."  I think both cites of the rules are a bit weak in supporting their respective arguments.

This is NOT a criticism of the arguments being made, but merely pointing out that defintive proof within the rules does not exist to support either side of this argument - though the side that supports allowing INA is the stronger argument, naturally


----------



## Scion

well, the rule does specifically state vs the others 'it might imply this', so yeah..

Much like the handcrossbow rule from 3.0 in my mind


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Scion said:
			
		

> Or should we assume that they were giving extra information where it wasnt needed?




Or, should you assume that the creator / editor of that particular PrC just didn't know the rules very well?


----------



## Dimwhit

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Or, should you assume that the creator / editor of that particular PrC just didn't know the rules very well?



 Now you're just talking crazy...


----------



## Scion

Assumption of implications that might be something within part of the RAW somewhere seem to be much less useful than something that is stated explicitly in the RAW


----------



## FireLance

Oh, alright. After posting my _dwarven thrower_ questions, I went to check the Stoneblessed PrC. At 3rd level, it gains the Stoneborn ability, which states:

"At 3rd level, a stoneblessed completes the bond with her chosen race. The stoneblessed gains a permanent +2 increase to her Constitution score. In addition, for all effects related to race, a stoneblessed is considered a member of the race to which she is bonded. For example, dwarf-bonded stoneblessed are just as vulnerable to effects and abilities that affect dwarves as actual dwarves are (such as a ranger's favored enemy ability), and they can use magic items that are usable only by dwarves. The stoneblessed meets any racial prerequisites for prestige classes and feats as if she were a member of her bonded race. Finally, the stoneblessed gets an ability based on her type of racial bond:"

Again, it's not explicitly clear, but the text strongly suggests that meeting prerequisites for prestige classes and feats are effects. The structure of the paragraph, "The stoneblessed... In addition... Finally..." suggests that "The stoneblessed meets any racial prerequisites for prestige classes and feats as if she were a member of her bonded race" is an elaboration of "for all effects related to race, a stoneblessed is considered a member of the race to which she is bonded". If it was not, and it was a function of the Stoneborn ability, the text should have said "The stoneblessed also meets any racial prerequisites for prestige classes and feats as if she were a member of her bonded race" to distinguish it from the previous point. So in this case, at least, it seems that the RAW considers meeting prerequisites for a prestige class or feats to be an effect.

Of course, as was previously discussed with Hyp, the RAW are occasionally inconsistent about what it means to be considered a member of a race for the purpose of meeting prerequisites, and this argument hinges on a fine point of writing and communication. So, I don't think it's going to sway anybody with an entrenched position, but it might persuade those who are undecided.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Firelance said:
			
		

> The structure of the paragraph, "The stoneblessed... In addition... Finally..." suggests that "The stoneblessed meets any racial prerequisites for prestige classes and feats as if she were a member of her bonded race" is an elaboration of "for all effects related to race, a stoneblessed is considered a member of the race to which she is bonded".




I'm going to disagree there 

From the PHB:

_Elven Blood: For all effects related to race, a half-elf is considered an elf. For example, half-elves just as vulnerable to effects and abilities that affect elves as their elf ancestors are, and they can use magic items that are usable only by elves. 

Orc Blood: For all effects related to race, a half-orc is considered an orc. For example, half-orcs just as vulnerable to effects and abilities that affect orcs as their orc ancestors are, and they can use magic items that are usable only by orcs. _

Based on that, I'd divide the paragraph as follows:

_At 3rd level, a stoneblessed completes the bond with her chosen race._ 


_The stoneblessed gains a permanent +2 increase to her Constitution score._ 
_In addition, for all effects related to race, a stoneblessed is considered a member of the race to which she is bonded. For example, dwarf-bonded stoneblessed are just as vulnerable to effects and abilities that affect dwarves as actual dwarves are (such as a ranger's favored enemy ability), and they can use magic items that are usable only by dwarves._ 
_The stoneblessed meets any racial prerequisites for prestige classes and feats as if she were a member of her bonded race._ 
_Finally, the stoneblessed gets an ability based on her type of racial bond._

... keeping the "for all effects" bullet point identical to those in the PHB.

-Hyp.


----------



## moritheil

Artoomis said:
			
		

> But his MATURITY LEVEL is not counted as 16, nor does a methododolgy exist for his maturity level to be counted as 16.  His age is never considered 16, only his ability level, perhaps.




Maturity level doesn't enter into the specifics of the example, except as the nebulous reason why Congress, somewhere far off, passed the law.  It doesn't matter.

What we are dealing with is age and effective age.

Age: 14.  Cannot go in.

Effective Age For Gaming: 16.  He wouldn't have a problem if he could go in, but he can't go in, so he's stuck.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Yep - I'm sticking with Hyp on this one.


----------



## moritheil

I also do not think it constitutes an elaboration.


----------



## FireLance

Which is fine. Like I said, it hinges on a fine point of writing and communication.

What it does mean, however, is that for the _dwarven thrower_ example at least, the character does counts as a dwarf for the purposes of the determining, as well as the purposes of the effect.

From there it is a small step to say that for the purposes of feats, if something counts as a natural weapon for the purposes of the effect, it should also count as a natural weapon for the purposes of the determining - determining whether you can take the feat, in particular.

Apparently, not all of us are prepared to make that small step, though.


----------



## Dimwhit

I was planning on drawing that correlation, too.


----------



## glass

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Thanks, at least now I'm clear on that. So, in other words, your argument has no basis in the RAW given the need to invoke a dictionary reference?



The RAW are written in English. Where else would I go for the definition of a word which is not a D&D term of art?



> Whereas the other side has at least some evidence that it is an effect given a rules quote that states feats are permanent effects. Is that correct?



No, they state nothing of the sort. There is one phrase on an unrelated subject which implies that feats are effect, but doesn't have to be read that way. As I have said before, that is far from conclusive proof!  

_EDIT: Pinotage has since clarified that the post I replied to did not say what he inteded to say. Therefore please ignore my response to it._


glass.


----------



## glass

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> I say we line up everyone in the No camp on one side and the Yes camp on the other and play Red Rover.



What's 'Red Rover'?


glass.


----------



## glass

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I agree with you.  But, in turn, the feat itself is also brought about by some other agent, and so the feat itself in also an "effect."



If INA was an effect of levelling up, it wouldn't exist unless you levelled up and selected it. Since it plainly does exist right there in the PHB, whether it is selcted or not, it can not be an effect of feat selection or levelling.

The feat's _effects_ don't exist for a given character unless he takes the feat, but the feat itself still does, waiting to possibly be taken at a later date, or acquired as a bonus feat by shapechanging, or whatever.


glass.


----------



## glass

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Pinotage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I'd argue that the specific rules text that states feats are permanant effects
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... is also an oversight?
Click to expand...


...or contains an implcit 'effects' after the word feat

...or simply can be read as not requiring the feat to be and effect, regardless.


glass.


----------



## glass

Scion said:
			
		

> well, the rule does specifically state vs the others 'it might imply this', so yeah.



Actually, they are both in the 'might imply this' category, with the 'Orc/Half-orc' reference implying it rather more strongly IMO.


glass.


----------



## glass

FireLance said:
			
		

> Which is fine. Like I said, it hinges on a fine point of writing and communication.
> 
> What it does mean, however, is that for the _dwarven thrower_ example at least, the character does counts as a dwarf for the purposes of the determining, as well as the purposes of the effect.
> 
> From there it is a small step to say that for the purposes of feats, if something counts as a natural weapon for the purposes of the effect, it should also count as a natural weapon for the purposes of the determining - determining whether you can take the feat, in particular.
> 
> Apparently, not all of us are prepared to make that small step, though.



The ability does all that because it specifically says it does. Adding similar functions to an ability that does not specifically say it does is not a small step, it's a huge leap.

_EDIT: Woohoo, five replies in a row!_



glass.


----------



## Pinotage

glass said:
			
		

> The RAW are written in English. Where else would I go for the definition of a word which is not a D&D term of art?
> 
> No, they state nothing of the sort. There is one phrase on an unrelated subject which implies that feats are effect, but doesn't have to be read that way. As I have said before, that is far from conclusive proof!
> 
> glass.




Yeah, I'd rephrased this post of mine in the one that followed it, as I realised I'd said something that didn't make as much sense as I'd hoped.

Pinotage


----------



## Pinotage

glass said:
			
		

> The ability does all that because it specifically says it does. Adding similar functions to an ability that does not specifically say it does is not a small step, it's a huge leap.[/i]
> 
> glass.




So the orc/half-orc argument is a huge leap as well? Or any argument referencing other text in the RAW that does not mention the word feat along with effect? I still don't see why people don't believe the rather obvious statement that feats are considered permanent effects. It's quite difficult to justify why that sentence needs to be read in context and can't be used out of the context it's written in. 

Shrug. I guess we're nowhere closer to getting an answer but some of the material from the newer sources is tantalising.

Pinotage


----------



## FireLance

glass said:
			
		

> The ability does all that because it specifically says it does. Adding similar functions to an ability that does not specifically say it does is not a small step, it's a huge leap.



No, the argument is not that it applies to magic items, and hence, it applies to feats. 

The argument is that for the purposes of one effect, i.e. the extra benefits from a magic item, an ability that allows you to be treated as something that gains the extra benefits qualifies you to gain the extra benefits. Hence, for the purposes of other effects, e.g. Improved Natural Attack, an ability that allows you to be treated as something that gains the extra benefits should similarly qualify you to gain the extra benefits.


----------



## Pinotage

Here's another one from Races of Destiny.

A character with the Human Heritage feat:



			
				Races of Destiny said:
			
		

> is considered to have the human subtype for the purpose of adjudicating all effects.




The sidebar states what it means to have the human subtype, and says:



			
				Races of Destiny said:
			
		

> This means that such races qualify as human for the purpose of meeting the prerequisites for a feat or prestige class...




So, if you have the human subtype, when adjudicating all effects, you are considered as human and one of those effects is meeting a prerequisite.

Did I paraphrase that correctly and indicate that meeting prerequisites is considered an effect?

Pinotage


----------



## glass

Pinotage said:
			
		

> So the orc/half-orc argument is a huge leap as well? Or any argument referencing other text in the RAW that does not mention the word feat along with effect?



No, the half-orc/orc argument, consistently with the stonebond (and the INA prerequisite/effect argument), is that abilities do exactly what the say they do and nothing more.



> I still don't see why people don't believe the rather obvious statement that feats are considered permanent effects. It's quite difficult to justify why that sentence needs to be read in context and can't be used out of the context it's written in.



Because there is no such statement. A statement that feats are permenant effects would be something like 'feats are considered permanent effects'. There is no such statement.


glass.


----------



## glass

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Yeah, I'd rephrased this post of mine in the one that followed it, as I realised I'd said something that didn't make as much sense as I'd hoped.



I replied before I read your clarification. I probably ahould have gone back and edited my post. Sorry about that.

I'll do it now.


glass.


----------



## Borlon

I am starting to wonder if a feat is an effect at all.  I wonder if passing references in the rules might be examples of synecdoche- a figure of speech in which the part stands for the whole (or vice versa).  When I look at the text of Improved Spell Resistance, it seems plausible that, to save space, they used "class feature" and "feat" to refer to the effects of class features and feats, etc..  For reference, here's the exact wording:
[sblock]IMPROVED SPELL RESISTANCE [EPIC] 
Prerequisite: Must have spell resistance from a feat, class feature, or other permanent effect. 
Benefit: The character’s spell resistance increases by +2. 
Special: A character can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects stack. [/sblock]

It has been pointed out by Patryn of Elvenshae (post 353 of this thread) that "effect" is such a loose term that *everything* could be considered an effect.  Even rules (caused by the designer).  Even the designer (caused by the designer's parents).  "That way lies madness" says PoE.

Even if you limited the madness by saying that we are talking about effects that have in game causes, there would still seem to be cases of where a feat is not an effect.  If INA is assigned by default to a breed of particularly vicious dogs (as a regular feat, not a bonus feat), then the feat is an effect of DM (or designer) fiat, not an in game cause like leveling up.  And I would hate to have a rules distinction between feats that are due to in game causes and those that aren't.

However, even if a feat is an effect, I'm starting to wonder how it follows that its parts are (specifically the prerequisites).  I mean, if your car is orange, it doesn't follow that your tires are orange.  If a bag of sugar weighs 2 pounds, it doesn't follow that each grain of sugar inside weighs 2 pounds.  If the public overwhelmingly supports a particular policy, it doesn't follow that each segment of the population overwhelmingly supports that policy.

Now maybe there is something about the property "treats a monk's unarmed attack as a natural weapon" that means that if a part of something has this property, the whole has it too, and that if the whole has it, all the parts have it.  If this were the case, then you could deduce that the INA feat "as a whole" treats a monk's unarmed attack as a natural weapon, because its benefit line does.  Then you could deduce that the prerequisite line has this property too.  But we could also deduce that the monk herself treats her unarmed attack as a natural weapon, which means that when it comes time to determine iterative attacks and such, she would (at least at her option) use the rules for natural weapons.  Which is not the case.  So the property "treats a monk's unarmed attack as a natural weapon" is not transitive in the way I described.

What I think right now is that the FAQ has, in effect, issued a stealth erratta that adds "qualifying for" to the rule that a monk's unarmed attack is considered a natural weapon for the purpose of _qualifying for_ spells and effects that enhance a natural weapon.  "Qualifying for" refers to being a valid target and/or a valid prerequisite.

So now I am almost ready to vote!

No, per the RAW
Yes, because of the Sage's recent ruling

Now I have to think about whether I would allow it in a game I DM'd.  I'll have to think about that one some more.


----------



## Borlon

FireLance said:
			
		

> ...for the _dwarven thrower_ example at least, the character does counts as a dwarf for the purposes of the determining, as well as the purposes of the effect.
> 
> From there it is a small step to say that for the purposes of feats, if something counts as a natural weapon for the purposes of the effect, it should also count as a natural weapon for the purposes of the determining - determining whether you can take the feat, in particular.




Two possibilities.  Either you can read the rule for monks as if it said (italics added)


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




or you could make it a general rule that if something "counts as X" for the purpose of being the target of a spell or effect, it also "counts as X" for the purpose of meeting prerequisites.  

The first possibility is better in the sense that it has fewer possible implications.  The latter would imply that a monk could qualify for a monstrous prestige class that requires members to have a natural attack; something which AFAIK is not currently the case.

The second possibility is better in that it construes the Sage as offering a principle of interpretation, which is better than issuing stealth erratta.

Maybe another poll should be started to see which option is preferable?  I'm leaning towards the first one, myself.


----------



## glass

Borlon said:
			
		

> I am starting to wonder if a feat is an effect at all.  I wonder if passing references in the rules might be examples of synecdoche- a figure of speech in which the part stands for the whole (or vice versa).



Ah thank you, that's what I was trying to get at, but I was hampered by not knowing what it was called.


glass.


----------



## Artoomis

glass said:
			
		

> If INA was an effect of levelling up, it wouldn't exist unless you levelled up and selected it. Since it plainly does exist right there in the PHB, whether it is selcted or not, it can not be an effect of feat selection or levelling.
> 
> The feat's _effects_ don't exist for a given character unless he takes the feat, but the feat itself still does, waiting to possibly be taken at a later date, or acquired as a bonus feat by shapechanging, or whatever.
> 
> 
> glass.




A feat "exists" (sort of) by virtue of it being written down, I suppose, but it does come into existence as a reality until a character takes it from leveling up, thus it's an "effect" of leveling up.

Anyway, it's all semantics, isn't it?

My real point to all my arguments is that taken as a whole, a monk qualifies for INA.  It is possible, though to view the rule in such a way as to have them not qualify.  (The other side of the argument is free to turn that sentence around, it won't affect my conclusion in the next sentence).  Therefore, there is no "official" way to look at this from the RAW themselves that is conclusive, so a ruling from WotC was required to create an "official" stance for use at RPGA tournaments and the like.  Of course, this makes no difference to anyone's own game where the DM is free to rule on this either way.

I wonder if, other than maybe turning the first sentence around, anyone really disagrees with THAT statement?


----------



## Borlon

Well, semantics means "the meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form" (dictionary.com) so, yeah, we are arguing about semantics; how to interpret the rules about natural weapons. 

I think you are right about the RAW not giving a conclusive answer to this question.  IMHO many rules are not written precisely enough to bear the weight of close scrutiny.  The variance in the feats with orc/half-orc prerequisites are due, I think, to a lack of precision by the writers and editors of some feats, and not to the fact that "counts as race X" applies only to the race specific effects and not racial prerequisites. The phrasing of Improved Spell Resistance might mean that feats are effects, or it might be a (space saving) figure of speech that says only that feats have effects.  My point being that an argument based on these texts isn't going to be 100% convincing.  

Add the strong suspicion of imprecise language to the fact that ISR is from the epic section of the SRD, and not from the core books; and the orc/half-orc feats are from a Faerun sourcebook, and so wouldn't be authoritative for a "core only" campaign (by core I mean MM, DMG, PHB).

I would think a strict reading of the three core books would say that a human monk would not qualify for INA because they qualify only for the benefits of the feat, but not for the feat's prerequisites.  The arguments for this don't have to be rehashed; suffice to say that they are based on a fine distinction between counting as a valid target and counting as a valid prerequisite.  I made the argument using _magic fang_ as a contrasting example to INA.

However, I don't think the Sage means to say that this distinction should never be made, he's just eliminating the distinction in a rather special case.

Would it be fair to generalize the ruling as follows?

_If X counts as Y for the purposes of checking the validity of targets of effects that do Z, then X also counts as Y when checking the prerequisites for effects that do Z._

The recent ruling would be a special case of this general ruling, with X = "a monk's unarmed attack", Y = "a natural weapon" and Z = "enhance or improve a natural weapon".

[edit]I think a better wording would be 

_When X counts as Y for the purposes of effects that mention Y, then X also counts as Y for the purpose of prerequisites that mention Y._

X and Y as before.  When an effect enhances a natural weapon is when X counts as Y; it doesn't have to be listed in the rule, since it determines when the rule is looked up.

Note that if Y is among the prerequisites of something but is *not* mentioned in the effect, then this principle does not apply.  It applies only when effects mentioning Y kick in. [/edit]


----------



## Artoomis

Borlon said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> _If X counts as Y for the purposes of checking the validity of targets of effects that do Z, then X also counts as Y when checking the prerequisites for effects that do Z._
> 
> The recent ruling would be a special case of this general ruling, with X = "a monk's unarmed attack", Y = "a natural weapon" and Z = "enhance or improve a natural weapon".




That's the essence of my core position (the argument about whether the feat as a whole, including prerequisites, is an effect is secondary for me and, I think, somewhat silly).

I think it might be fair to say that this is what is happening with the Sage's ruling.


----------



## Pinotage

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Therefore, there is no "official" way to look at this from the RAW themselves that is conclusive, so a ruling from WotC was required to create an "official" stance for use at RPGA tournaments and the like.  Of course, this makes no difference to anyone's own game where the DM is free to rule on this either way.




I agree with this.

I'd still like to see the other side's comment regarding the Human Heritage feat from Races of Destiny. The text there, to me, indicated quite clearly what's considered an effect (see post #398), and meeting the prerequisites of a feat is considered an effect. You meet the prerequisites of the feat which causes a result in that you gain the benefit of the feat which causes a result of whatever that benefit might be. Both meeting the prerequisites and the benefit of the feat are effects.

Pinotage


----------



## Dimwhit

Pinotage said:
			
		

> I agree with this.
> 
> I'd still like to see the other side's comment regarding the Human Heritage feat from Races of Destiny. The text there, to me, indicated quite clearly what's considered an effect (see post #398), and meeting the prerequisites of a feat is considered an effect. You meet the prerequisites of the feat which causes a result in that you gain the benefit of the feat which causes a result of whatever that benefit might be. Both meeting the prerequisites and the benefit of the feat are effects.
> 
> Pinotage



 I think it's spot on. Probably why you haven't heard a response.


----------



## Borlon

I think Human Heritage (and sidebar) is an instance of the "Principle of Prerequisite Conversion" (PPC) which is as follows:

_If X counts as Y for the purposes of checking the validity of targets of effects that do Z, then X also counts as Y when checking the prerequisites for effects that do Z._

In the case of the Human Heritage feat, it has X = "the character with the Human Heritage Feat", Y = "human" and Z = "anything".

What distinguishes the "other side" (which I think I am on) is not that the PPC is a bad principle (I think it is kind of elegant, myself), but that it is neither found in nor implied by the rules of the three core books.


----------



## Pinotage

Borlon said:
			
		

> I think Human Heritage (and sidebar) is an instance of the "Principle of Prerequisite Conversion" (PPC) which is as follows:
> 
> _If X counts as Y for the purposes of checking the validity of targets of effects that do Z, then X also counts as Y when checking the prerequisites for effects that do Z._
> 
> In the case of the Human Heritage feat, it has X = "the character with the Human Heritage Feat", Y = "human" and Z = "anything".
> 
> What distinguishes the "other side" (which I think I am on) is not that the PPC is a bad principle (I think it is kind of elegant, myself), but that it is neither found in nor implied by the rules of the three core books.




I can live with this.

Pinotage


----------



## Hypersmurf

Pinotage said:
			
		

> I'd still like to see the other side's comment regarding the Human Heritage feat from Races of Destiny.




That's the one that's prompted me to ask - can my Half-Elf Ranger take Elf Ranger Substitution levels at 1st and 10th, and Half-Elf Ranger Substitution levels at 4th and 13th?

-Hyp.


----------



## Borlon

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> That's the one that's prompted me to ask - can my Half-Elf Ranger take Elf Ranger Substitution levels at 1st and 10th, and Half-Elf Ranger Substitution levels at 4th and 13th?
> 
> -Hyp.




Where are these racial substitution levels from?  If they are from a recent book, I imagine that the Principle of Prerequisite Conversion (PPC) applies, and they can take them.  Unless they specifically exclude half elves, of course.

Do you have any suggestions about how PPC should be worded?


----------



## FireLance

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> That's the one that's prompted me to ask - can my Half-Elf Ranger take Elf Ranger Substitution levels at 1st and 10th, and Half-Elf Ranger Substitution levels at 4th and 13th?



From a rules perspective, it can be argued both ways (as this thread has shown). From a balance perspective, I don't think it would be a problem. Overall, I'm inclined to say yes (I would, wouldn't I? ) as I don't think it's much different from a half-elf being able to take levels in elf paragon (Unearthed Arcana) after he takes at least one level of half-elf paragon. The ability to draw on elements of his human and elven heritage (and the unique characteristics that result from blending the both of them) should be the particular strength of the half-elf, IMO.

Of course, the counter-argument is that a half-elf should be able to take levels in elf paragon even without taking levels in half-elf paragon . However, as has been mentioned, the rules are occasionally inconsistent about what it means to have elven (or orc, or human) blood, or to have the elf (or orc, or human) subtype.


----------



## Hypersmurf

FireLance said:
			
		

> Of course, the counter-argument is that a half-elf should be able to take levels in elf paragon even without taking levels in half-elf paragon .




Actually, there's a specific rule to prohibit it:

_As a general rule, a member of a subrace can take levels in the standard race's paragon class unless a specific paragon class exists for the subrace. For example, aquatic elves, gray elves, wild elves, and wood elves may all advance as elf paragons, but drow elves may not, because drow have a separate paragon class. If you wanted to further differentiate the elven subraces by creating a paragon class for one or more of the subraces, those subraces could not then take levels of elf paragon. _

If the half-elf paragon class _did not exist_, a half-elf could (or could not) take levels in the elf paragon class in exactly the same fashion that he can (or cannot) take elf substitution levels.  But by the 'specific subrace paragon class' clause, the existence of the half-elf paragon class prohibits a half-elf taking levels in elf paragon by using his Elven Blood feature, until he has taken a level in half-elf paragon.

Borlon - racial substitution levels are from the Races Of series - elf substitution levels are found in Races of the Wild, and half-elf substitution levels are found in Races of Destiny.

-Hyp.


----------



## FoxWander

*Holy jumping mother o'God in a side-car with chocolate jimmies and a lobster bib!*

Wow! You guys sure know how to take a fairly simple concept and complicate the heck out of it.  You don’t need to bring in any extra rulings or analogies or complex comparisons- because that’s just giving everyone EVEN MORE to “discuss.” The monk’s unarmed strike rules and the INA feat are ALL that’s needed to figure this out.

These have been quoted ad-nauseum, but I’ll do it one more time just to be sure of what I’m talking about. (Note: I _have_ cut out any reference to manufactured weapons, because they don’t matter for INA, likewise I’ve cut reference to spells since INA is not a spell). So we have this…
*A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for the purpose of  effects that enhance or improve natural weapons.*

Easy enough: if it improves natural weapons then it’ll work on a monk’s unarmed strikes.

Then there’s the Improved Natural Attack feat…
*IMPROVED NATURAL ATTACK [GENERAL]*
*Prerequisite*: Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4.
*Benefit*: Choose one of the creature’s natural attack forms. The damage for this natural weapon increases by one step, as if the creature’s size had increased by one category: 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6. 
A weapon or attack that deals 1d10 points of damage increases as follows: 1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8.

Now here’s what *I* see as the simple part… the end result of this feat is improving a natural weapon. That’s all you need to know- it improves a natural weapon, so it works on a monk’s unarmed strikes. (actually I don’t think anyone has a problem with this up to this point, is that correct? Can we all agree that INA _will work_ on a monk’s IUS?)

Since INA has/grants/becomes/is (whatever your word choice, it makes no difference to my argument) an “effect that enhances or improves a natural weapon,” my first bolded point can be reworded to read: *A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for the purpose of INA*. 

So, as far as _the feat_ is concerned the monk’s unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon. We can now reword that original statement to read: *A monk has a natural weapon for the purpose of INA*. Therefore they meet the prerequisites (assuming a +4 BAB) and can take the feat.

It really is that simple- the feat improves natural weapons, therefore monk’s IUS = natural weapon, resulting in monks, with a +4 BAB also, fulfill the prereqs and can take the feat. 

This makes the question in the title of the post into a simple statement- *Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack!*


----------



## FireLance

Okay, I think this is probably as clear as it will ever get, unless someone finds something else in the rules. The text of Racial Substitution Levels on page 145 of Races of Stone states the following:

"To qualify for a racial substitution level, you must be of the proper race. For instance, to select a racial substitution level of dwarf fighter, you must be a dwarf (or be considered a dwarf; see the stoneblessed prestige class in Chapter 5 for an example of what this means)."

The text doesn't say it explicitly, but it stongly suggests that a stoneblessed has some ability which allows it to be considered a dwarf. This is probably the Stoneborn ability, which is as follows:

"At 3rd level, a stoneblessed completes the bond with her chosen race. 

The stoneblessed gains a permanent +2 increase to her Constitution score.
In addition, for all effects related to race, a stoneblessed is considered a member of the race to which she is bonded. For example, dwarf-bonded stoneblessed are just as vulnerable to effects and abilities that affect dwarves as actual dwarves are (such as a ranger's favored enemy ability), and they can use magic items that are usable only by dwarves.
The stoneblessed meets any racial prerequisites for prestige classes and feats as if she were a member of her bonded race.
Finally, the stoneblessed gets an ability based on her type of racial bond." 

I had argued that points (2) and (3) are actually the same point, and that the stoneblessed's ability to be considered a member of the race to which she is bonded for all effects related to race includes the ability to meet the racial prerequisites for prestige classes and feats as if she was a member of her bonded race. However, some others have disagreed.

The text now strongly implies that a stoneblessed bonded to the dwarven race qualifies for racial substitution levels as if he was a dwarf. Strictly by the rules, a racial substitution level is neither a feat nor a prestige class (point 3). Neither is it a +2 bonus to Constitution (point 1) nor one of the abilities based on the racial bond (point 4 - effectively, Stonecunning, _speak with animals_ and Toughness).

Hence, I conclude that the ability that allows a stoneblessed to qualify for racial substitution levels must be point 2, the ability to be considered a member of the race to which she is bonded for all effects related to race. So, a general interpretation of point 2 is that any ability that allows a character to be considered a member of a race for all effects related to race, such as elf blood or orc blood, allows that character to take racial substitution levels for that race. As such, a half-elf _*can*_ take elf racial substitution levels.

However, separating point 2 and point 3 appears to create a quirk in the rules. A half-elf can qualify for elf racial substitution levels on the strength of his elf blood, but he cannot qualify for elf-only feats and prestige classes unless those feats and prestige classes explicitly allow half-elves to qualify for them (to be fair, most do). This is because qualifying for these feats and prestige classes is not considered an effect related to race, but qualifying for racial substitution levels somehow is.

It's fine to play with that interpretation. However, I choose to adopt a different one. The way I see it, point 2 and point 3 cannot be separated. If you are considered a member of a race for all effects related to race, you should be able to qualify for feats and prestige classes as if you were a member of that race, instead of just racial substitution levels.

So, relating back to the topic at hand, going by the interpretation I support, if a monk's unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon "for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance and improve ... natural weapons" it should also count as a natural weapon for the the purpose of qualifying for feats that improve natural weapons. Such as Improved Natural Attack.


----------



## Hypersmurf

FoxWander said:
			
		

> Since INA has/grants/becomes/is (whatever your word choice, it makes no difference to my argument) an “effect that enhances or improves a natural weapon,” my first bolded point can be reworded to read: *A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for the purpose of INA*.




The word choice, I'm afraid, _does_ make a difference to your argument.

If INA has an effect that enhances etc, your first bolded point can be reworded to read _A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for the purpose of the effect INA has_.

If INA grants an effect that enhances etc, your first bolded point can be reworded to read _A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for the purpose of the effect INA grants_.

If INA becomes an effect that enhances etc, your first bolded point can be reworded to read _A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for the purpose of the effect INA becomes_.

If INA is an effect that enhances etc, your first bolded point can be reworded to read _A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for the purpose of INA_.

The first two would not flow back to the prerequisites - the prerequisites are not a part of the effect INA has, nor the effect INA grants.

The second two would.  The prerequisites are part of INA, so if INA becomes an effect, or is an effect, the prerequisites are part of that effect.

The word choice is integral to the point.

-Hyp.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

When I last posted in this thread, I pointed out that drafter's intent is a source of clarification.  Another source to examine is any other source that uses similar terminology, to see how a term or phrase has been interpreted or used in other contexts.

There* is another source *that supports the "fists as natural weapons" position (thus qualifying for INA).  The PrCl Kensai has the supernatural class ability to enhance his or her signature weapon, and the text is pretty clear:


> *Complete Warrior, p51*
> _Imbuing Natural Weapons_ The process for imbuing a kensai's natural weapons (such as his fists) is the sameas for a manufactured weapon...For example, a human kensai who has Weapon Focus (unarmed strike) may turn his fists into signature weapons...A kensai who imbues a particular kind of natural weapon must imbue all his natural weapons of that type (so a human kensai with two fists must imbue both fists)...




(Note- Andy Collins is one of the 3 designers of this project.)

Clearly, at least one of WOTC's designers explicitly considers fists as natural weapons.

However, like I stated before, I'd say that this is a class feature, and not expand it to all PCs that have taken IUA.

I also think its worth noting that Monte Cook included a Feat called Hands as Weapons in his Arcana Unearthed game that allows the feat taker to gain the benefits of weapon enchantments for his unarmed strikes.  In HIS system, mere fists are not "natural weapons" but may be treated as manufactured weapons with this feat.  He makes the distinction clearly and unavoidably.  Even in the game's Monk-replacing class, the Oathsworn, there is no similar wording to the Monk or Kensai.

Summation: In D&D, mere fists count as natural weapons for purposes of INA and similar spells and effects, but *only* for certain classes and PrCls like the Monk or Kensai where text indicates that they may treat their unarmed attacks as natural weapons.


----------



## Borlon

FireLance said:
			
		

> "To qualify for a racial substitution level, you must be of the proper race. For instance, to select a racial substitution level of dwarf fighter, you must be a dwarf (or be considered a dwarf; see the stoneblessed prestige class in Chapter 5 for an example of what this means)."
> 
> The text doesn't say it explicitly, but it stongly suggests that a stoneblessed has some ability which allows it to be considered a dwarf. This is probably the Stoneborn ability, which is as follows:
> 
> "At 3rd level, a stoneblessed completes the bond with her chosen race.
> 
> The stoneblessed gains a permanent +2 increase to her Constitution score.
> In addition, for all effects related to race, a stoneblessed is considered a member of the race to which she is bonded. For example, dwarf-bonded stoneblessed are just as vulnerable to effects and abilities that affect dwarves as actual dwarves are (such as a ranger's favored enemy ability), and they can use magic items that are usable only by dwarves.
> The stoneblessed meets any racial prerequisites for prestige classes and feats as if she were a member of her bonded race.
> Finally, the stoneblessed gets an ability based on her type of racial bond."
> 
> I had argued that points (2) and (3) are actually the same point, and that the stoneblessed's ability to be considered a member of the race to which she is bonded for all effects related to race includes the ability to meet the racial prerequisites for prestige classes and feats as if she was a member of her bonded race. However, some others have disagreed.




Point 2 seems to be that "counts as race X" applies to effects that apply differently based on race.  Point 3 says the "counts as race X" applies to prerequisites that specify a particular race.  If they were really the same point, I would think they would be together.  But since they are separate, it suggests that qualifying for a race-specific effect is not the same as qualifying for a race specific pre-requisite.



			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> The text now strongly implies that a stoneblessed bonded to the dwarven race qualifies for racial substitution levels as if he was a dwarf. Strictly by the rules, a racial substitution level is neither a feat nor a prestige class (point 3). Neither is it a +2 bonus to Constitution (point 1) nor one of the abilities based on the racial bond (point 4 - effectively, Stonecunning, _speak with animals_ and Toughness).
> 
> Hence, I conclude that the ability that allows a stoneblessed to qualify for racial substitution levels must be point 2, the ability to be considered a member of the race to which she is bonded for all effects related to race. So, a general interpretation of point 2 is that any ability that allows a character to be considered a member of a race for all effects related to race, such as elf blood or orc blood, allows that character to take racial substitution levels for that race. As such, a half-elf _*can*_ take elf racial substitution levels.




I would venture that it is really point 3 which allows them to take racial substitution levels.  I know it doesn't say "racial substitution level" but I think people would just read the part that says "racial prerequisites."  If they noticed that the racial prerequisites are only for feats and prestige classes, they would probably just claim that racial substitution levels are analagous.



			
				Firelance said:
			
		

> However, separating point 2 and point 3 appears to create a quirk in the rules. A half-elf can qualify for elf racial substitution levels on the strength of his elf blood, but he cannot qualify for elf-only feats and prestige classes unless those feats and prestige classes explicitly allow half-elves to qualify for them (to be fair, most do). This is because qualifying for these feats and prestige classes is not considered an effect related to race, but qualifying for racial substitution levels somehow is.




You mean what the PHB says about half-elves and racial effects, right?  That it counts for effects, but not for prerequisites?  That would explain why feats specify "elf or half-elf" but sometimes exclude half-elves.  But I thought that half-elves couldn't take elf racial substitution levels?  Can they?  (I don't have the books, so I can't just look them up.)



			
				Firelance said:
			
		

> It's fine to play with that interpretation. However, I choose to adopt a different one. The way I see it, point 2 and point 3 cannot be separated. If you are considered a member of a race for all effects related to race, you should be able to qualify for feats and prestige classes as if you were a member of that race, instead of just racial substitution levels.




So if you have a collection of feats and prestige classes, and some of them say "elf or half-elf" in the prerequisites, and others say "elf" in the prerequisites, you would say that half-elves would meet the racial prerequisites of all of them?



			
				Firelance said:
			
		

> So, relating back to the topic at hand, going by the interpretation I support, if a monk's unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon "for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance and improve ... natural weapons" it should also count as a natural weapon for the the purpose of qualifying for feats that improve natural weapons. Such as Improved Natural Attack.




That is the basis of my proposed "principle of prerequisite conversion."  My old formulation is inadequate, though, since it suggests that half-elves would always meet racial prerequisites; which is not the case.  Perhaps this version would be better:

_Principle of Prerequisite Conversion: When X counts as Y for the purposes of effects that mention Y, then X also counts as Y for the purpose of prerequisites that mention Y._

You would invoke the PPC when an effect enhances natural weapons is being considered (specifically the INA feat).  Then X = "a monk's unarmed attack" and Y = "a natural weapon".  The effects and prerequisites would both belong to the INA feat.  

However (and this is a trifle rules-lawyery), the PPC doesn't apply when a racial feat, prestige class, racial substitution level or paragon class is being considered.  Poor writing aside, these feats etc. shouldn't mention their particular race when describing their effects; that would be redundant.  And if "elf" is not mentioned in the effect, the "counts as elf" rule doesn't trigger, and so the PPC doesn't trigger.  The result would be that half-elves would have to be specifically mentioned in the pre-requisites.

Does that sound right?  Does the revised PPC account for the Sage's ruling and the rules in the "Races of..." books?


----------



## FoxWander

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The word choice, I'm afraid, _does_ make a difference to your argument.
> 
> If INA has an effect that enhances etc, your first bolded point can be reworded to read _A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for the purpose of the effect INA has_.
> 
> If INA grants an effect that enhances etc, your first bolded point can be reworded to read _A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for the purpose of the effect INA grants_.
> 
> If INA becomes an effect that enhances etc, your first bolded point can be reworded to read _A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for the purpose of the effect INA becomes_.
> 
> If INA is an effect that enhances etc, your first bolded point can be reworded to read _A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for the purpose of INA_.
> 
> The first two would not flow back to the prerequisites - the prerequisites are not a part of the effect INA has, nor the effect INA grants.
> 
> The second two would.  The prerequisites are part of INA, so if INA becomes an effect, or is an effect, the prerequisites are part of that effect.
> 
> The word choice is integral to the point.
> 
> -Hyp.




No, I still think the word choice is unrelated to our "problem". None of your forst three slightly different statements is quite right, but mine still is. A better way to state it would be to say what INA _does_ (improving a natural weapon) is the effect. The effect of INA is to improve a natural weapon, so that makes a monk's unarmed strikes 'natural weapons'. and so, _for the purpose of INA, a monk’s unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon_. 

The prerequisites are seperate from the feat, if only because you must fulfill the prerequisites in order to _take_ the feat. (Which is where your doorman at the club analogy is actually quite good) Considering those prereqs in a vacuum (ie. without looking at the effect of the feat) a monk does not qualify. He may have a +4 BAB, but _without any other considerations_, by the RAW, he does not have a natural weapon. But the monk is different. You can't judge whether he does or does not have natural weapons _without_ considering what an effect does. If the effect would improve a natural weapon, then the monk *does* have natural weapons. So if the prereq of that effect is "natural weapon", then the monk has one and can take the feat.

So the 'doorman' of the feat looks at the monk and says "got the +4 BAB, but no natural weapons- sorry, you can't get in."

Then the monk asks "Does being in your club improve natural weapons?", and the doorman says "yes." So, the monk pulls out his _special IUS trump card_ and says "Well then, for the purpose of what's in your club, I do have natural weapons."

The doorman looks his card over carefully, then nods and let's the monk in.


----------



## Dimwhit

You are correct, FoxWander. Well said.


----------



## Borlon

I think Hypersmurf is very careful in his wording.  If the rest of us were equally careful, this topic might have been resolved several hundred posts ago.

The conclusion you are arguing for is

_A monk's unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for the purpose of INA's prerequisites_

The first step in your argument, the key rule to which we are continually referring, may be stated as the Natural Weapon Equivalency rule.

NWE:A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for the purpose of an effect that enhances or improves a natural weapon.

Now what phrase, related to INA, should be substituted for the cyan words of the NWE?  If INA has an effect that enhances etc. then you could write that the effect that INA has is an effect that enhances etc., and the indicated phrase could be substituted in the monk's equivalency rule.  If INA is an effect that enhances etc. then you could write that the effect that INA is is an effect that enhances etc..  And so on for all of Hypersmurf's examples.  What you say about INA determines what is substituted in the NWE rule.

You are proposing a new phrase.  You say that what INA does is an effect etc..  Substituted it becomes

A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for the purpose of what INA does.

Now you infer that a monk's unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for the purpose of INA's prerequisites.  This would be a valid inference if the following were true:

INA's prerequisites is (some of) what INA does.

But, unfortunately, this does not seem to be true.  So the critical step to arrive at your conclusion does not follow.

Suppose you try each of the parts of INA as the initial substitution in the NWE rule.  i.e.

A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for the purpose of each of the parts of INA.

Then you could reason that 

INA's prerequisites is a part of INA.

and therefore you could infer

A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for the purpose of INA's prerequisites.

However, your premise is shaky.  NWE states that a monk’s unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for the purpose of an effect that enhances or improves a natural weapon.

How could you justify plugging in each of the parts of INA for an effect that enhances or improves a natural weapon?  You would have to show that each of the parts of INA is an effect that enhances or improves a natural weapon.  

In other words, although you could say that an effect that enhances or improves a natural weapon is among the parts of INA, you can't claim the converse to be true for each of the parts.

A third possibility is to say that  the INA feat as a whole is an effect that enhances or improves a natural weapon.  Then you might say that  the INA feat as a whole means all the parts of the INA feat and since INA's prerequisites is among all the parts of the INA feat, then the desired substitution follows.

But that argument is fallacious; it rests on an equivocation in the meaning of the phrase "all the parts" which first means "all the parts taken together" and then is taken to mean "each of the parts taken separately." 

The statement that INA as a whole enhances etc., is true only for INA as a whole; it does not follow that it is therefore true for each of the parts of the feat.  A bag of sugar (as a whole) might weigh 2 pounds, but it does not follow that each of the grains of sugar also weighs two pounds. 

My position is that, without an additional rule (such as my proposed PPC), you can't justify your conclusion on the basis of the RAW; more precisely, arguments justifying your conclusion collapse under careful scrutiny.  I think if you try to carefully present each step of your argument, you will find that there is gap somewhere along the way.  It may seem like a small gap, but unless you can argue your way across it, it is an unbridgeable chasm.


----------



## Borlon

So the 'doorman' of the feat looks at the monk and says "got the +4 BAB, but no natural weapons- sorry, you can't get in."

Then the monk asks "Does being in your club improve natural weapons?", and the doorman says "Yes." So, the monk pulls out his special NWE coupon and says "Well then, for the purpose of what's in your club, I do have natural weapons."

The doorman shakes his head and says "That's a drink coupon.  It's good at the effects bar, but show me where it says it is good for admission."

The monk is silent for a moment, then shakes his head and steps aside so the lizard man (who is next in line) can go in.


----------



## FireLance

Borlon said:
			
		

> Point 2 seems to be that "counts as race X" applies to effects that apply differently based on race.  Point 3 says the "counts as race X" applies to prerequisites that specify a particular race.



 This argument makes the distinction between "effects that apply differently based on race" and "prerequisites that specify a particular race". When a determining whether a dwarf (or a character who is considered a dwarf), gets extra benefits from a _dwarven thrower_, isn't he satisfying a prerequisite that specifies a particular race? Yet, it seems to be covered by point 2.



> If they were really the same point, I would think they would be together.  But since they are separate, it suggests that qualifying for a race-specific effect is not the same as qualifying for a race specific pre-requisite.



The points were not enumerated separately in the text. The original text was a single paragraph which stated:

"At 3rd level, a stoneblessed completes the bond with her chosen race. The stoneblessed gains a permanent +2 increase to her Constitution score. In addition, for all effects related to race, a stoneblessed is considered a member of the race to which she is bonded. For example, dwarf-bonded stoneblessed are just as vulnerable to effects and abilities that affect dwarves as actual dwarves are (such as a ranger's favored enemy ability), and they can use magic items that are usable only by dwarves. The stoneblessed meets any racial prerequisites for prestige classes and feats as if she were a member of her bonded race. Finally, the stoneblessed gets an ability based on her type of racial bond:"

I had previously argued that the structure of the paragraph, "The stoneblessed... In addition... Finally..." suggests that "The stoneblessed meets any racial prerequisites for prestige classes and feats as if she were a member of her bonded race" is an elaboration of "for all effects related to race, a stoneblessed is considered a member of the race to which she is bonded". If it was not, and it was a function of the Stoneborn ability, the text should have said "The stoneblessed also meets any racial prerequisites for prestige classes and feats as if she were a member of her bonded race" to distinguish it from the previous point. It's a fine point of writing and communication, and perhaps I should have also mentioned it my argument in post #416.



> I would venture that it is really point 3 which allows them to take racial substitution levels.  I know it doesn't say "racial substitution level" but I think people would just read the part that says "racial prerequisites."  If they noticed that the racial prerequisites are only for feats and prestige classes, they would probably just claim that racial substitution levels are analagous.



And that's the crux of the argument. The ability to qualify for racial substitution levels should be analogous to the ability to qualify for racial feats and prestige classes. However, the Rules As Written only specify feats and prestige classes. Hence, the ability to qualify for racial substitution levels must be a granted by the ability to be treated as a member of the race "for all effects related to race". And by analogue, the ability to qualify for racial feats and prestige classes must also be granted by the same ability, making point 3 an elaboration of point 2 instead of a separate point in itself. 



> You mean what the PHB says about half-elves and racial effects, right?  That it counts for effects, but not for prerequisites?  That would explain why feats specify "elf or half-elf" but sometimes exclude half-elves.  But I thought that half-elves couldn't take elf racial substitution levels?  Can they?  (I don't have the books, so I can't just look them up.)
> 
> So if you have a collection of feats and prestige classes, and some of them say "elf or half-elf" in the prerequisites, and others say "elf" in the prerequisites, you would say that half-elves would meet the racial prerequisites of all of them?



Yes half-elves qualify to take elf racial substitution levels, feats and prestige classes based on my interpretation of the Rules As Written. You might find it odd, but that's what I think the rules say.


----------



## Muaythaidaddy

*rolls eyes*

Yes, monks can take the feat.  It's even addressed in this month's Dragon Magazine.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Muaythaidaddy said:
			
		

> It's even addressed in this month's Dragon Magazine.




If you'll note in Post 1:
_Keep in mind the recent Sage ruling that monks can take Improved Natural Attack and discuss what you think is the actual position on that issue in the rules._

All eleven pages of the thread have been taking that into account.

-Hyp.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

To continue with that analogy...



> The doorman shakes his head and says "That's a drink coupon. It's good at the effects bar, but show me where it says it is good for admission."




Then that doorman sure as s**t better find someone to bring that monk his drink!

After all, what good is a coupon that lets you get something at the bar if you can't get to the bar?

I'm sure if you showed a judge a coupon that said "free drink at X-Bar" after being denied entry to GET said drink, the remedy would *at least* be a drink from the bar, either delivered or subsequent to admission- assuming, of course, that the coupon's bearer was legally entitled to have the coupon.

Unless there is a condition on the face of the coupon to the contrary, the implication of the coupon is that the bearer will be allowed to obtain it by normal means. A "contrary condition" would be something like "Only club members, may not be transferred to non-club members" and "Normal" in the case of the analogy would be admission to the bar to get the drink- especially if the municipality had laws against public consumption of alcohol (aka drinking on the sidewalk or streets).

Here, the monk was given his coupon by the terms of his class.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> After all, what good is a coupon that lets you get something at the bar if you can't get to the bar?




If a club has a $10 cover charge to get in, and someone has a coupon for a free drink from the bar inside the club, but doesn't have $10, they can't use the coupon.  

I can't see how a judge could stretch the terms of the coupon to include either the entry to the club, or a delivery service...?

-Hyp.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> If a club has a $10 cover charge to get in, and someone has a coupon for a free drink from the bar inside the club, but doesn't have $10, they can't use the coupon.




A cover charge, an age limit...they are all the same- prerequisites for admissions.  That would be something that would be in the normal course of admissions into the bar.  You don't meet the prereqs, no admission.  No shirt, no shoes, no service.

Bars, at least around here, also have a prerequisite that you aren't carrying any firearms- you'll see the little gun circumscribed by a barred red circle everywhere.  However, lawmen have special permission to carry firearms, even into these bars.  Their badge is their trump card.

The assumption was (that is, as the analogy was initially stated) that the monk was being denied admission for 1 reason- the lack of natural weapons, not an inability to pay.

His "Monk's local 453" union card says that he has natural weapons, even if he doesn't have them in the conventional sense (claws, fangs, horns, etc.).  Obviously, his union worked out a special deal.

He gets in...and his buddy, the Kensai, is going in with him.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> His "Monk's local 453" union card says that he has natural weapons, even if he doesn't have them in the conventional sense (claws, fangs, horns, etc.).




Only under certain circumstances.

The associate membership card only considers you a member (and thus eligible for drinks) _while inside the bar_.  Until you get inside, it _doesn't_ consider you such, so you can't use it for the purpose of getting inside.

-Hyp.


----------



## Borlon

FireLance said:
			
		

> This argument makes the distinction between "effects that apply differently based on race" and "prerequisites that specify a particular race". When a determining whether a dwarf (or a character who is considered a dwarf), gets extra benefits from a _dwarven thrower_, isn't he satisfying a prerequisite that specifies a particular race? Yet, it seems to be covered by point 2.




It's the _dwarven thrower_ which is bestowing the extra benefits.  It is the source of the effects, but what the effect is varies according to the nature of the wielder.  I think of prerequisites as being for things which are non-actual until a character selects them; feats and levels, mostly.



			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> The points were not enumerated separately in the text. The original text was a single paragraph which stated:
> 
> "At 3rd level, a stoneblessed completes the bond with her chosen race. The stoneblessed gains a permanent +2 increase to her Constitution score. In addition, for all effects related to race, a stoneblessed is considered a member of the race to which she is bonded. For example, dwarf-bonded stoneblessed are just as vulnerable to effects and abilities that affect dwarves as actual dwarves are (such as a ranger's favored enemy ability), and they can use magic items that are usable only by dwarves. The stoneblessed meets any racial prerequisites for prestige classes and feats as if she were a member of her bonded race. Finally, the stoneblessed gets an ability based on her type of racial bond:"




Ah, thanks for clearing that up.  But you know, if the two were meant to be the same point, what is the example doing between the two sentences?  Shouldn't examples follow the complete statement of an idea?  The fact that there is an illustrative example separating them suggests that the two points are separate.



			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> The ability to qualify for racial substitution levels should be analogous to the ability to qualify for racial feats and prestige classes. However, the Rules As Written only specify feats and prestige classes. Hence, the ability to qualify for racial substitution levels must be a granted by the ability to be treated as a member of the race "for all effects related to race". And by analogue, the ability to qualify for racial feats and prestige classes must also be granted by the same ability, making point 3 an elaboration of point 2 instead of a separate point in itself.




Except the wording of many prerequisites is oddly inconsistent if this is true.  I agree it is a more straightforward interpretation of the rules, but the exceptions that have been pointed out leave me unconvinced that this is what the designers and editors are actually implementing.  I don't have many of the books, though, and I have to rely on what people tell me is in them.  It may be that the inconsistencies with elves/half-elves and orcs/half-orcs is due to rules gaffes by some of the designers, compounded with some editing mistakes.  But it might also mean that the rules were written in a misleading manner to suggest that prerequisites count as effects.  Either way, something was written down poorly, and the RAW won't tell which something.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Borlon said:
			
		

> Ah, thanks for clearing that up.  But you know, if the two were meant to be the same point, what is the example doing between the two sentences?  Shouldn't examples follow the complete statement of an idea?  The fact that there is an illustrative example separating them suggests that the two points are separate.




Here's my reasoning for why the two should be separate points...

-Hyp.


----------



## Trainz

Is it just me or...







... this adds up to 130.47 % ?????


----------



## Pinotage

Trainz said:
			
		

> Is it just me or...
> 
> ... this adds up to 130.47 % ?????




It's a multiple choice poll. You can select more than one option.

Pinotage


----------



## Borlon

I'm going to try this again.     Consider the following argument:


Having a natural weapon satisfies the prerequisites of INA.
Having something that counts as a natural weapon satisfies the prerequisites of INA.
If you do not count as having something that counts as a natural weapon you do not satisfy the prerequisites of INA.
Having a monk’s unarmed strike counts as having a natural weapon if its counting as a natural weapon enhances a natural weapon.
Having a monk's unarmed strike does not count as having a natural weapon if its counting as a natural weapon does not enhance a natural weapon.
Merely having a monk's unarmed attack does not enhance a natural weapon. 
Merely having a monk's unarmed attack does not count as having a natural weapon.
Merely having a monk's unarmed attack means does not satisfy the prerequisites of INA.

Q.E.D.

7 follows from 6 and 5.  8 follows from 7 and 4.  You also need a premise that says that merely having is a kind of having, but that shouldn't be controversial.

The convoluted wording of 4 is intended to represent a situation such as when a monk is the target of a _magic fang_ spell.  If his unarmed attack counts a natural weapon, it is enhanced.  And so it is true to say that some natural weapon is enhanced; the monk's unarmed attack.  But this ability kicks in only when there is an effect that enhances a natural weapon; that's what 5 means.

The stilted phrasing facilitates checking the soundness of the argument.


----------



## Borlon

Thanks, Hypersmurf, for the link.    The thread is starting to get unwieldy.

And while it might seem as if we have done this topic to death, I think there are important points that have not been addressed.  For example, would it be correct to say the following:

You cannot use a feat's effects to satisfy the prerequisites of that feat.​
If so, then the fact that INA improves a natural weapon is irrelevant.  You can't use its effect (which results in the monk's unarmed attack being considered a natural weapon) when you check to see if the monk qualifies for the feat.

I think this observation forestalls the most likely objection to the argument in my previous post, namely that statement 6 misstates the situation; the monk is not just hanging around, he is about to take the INA feat, and since the feat enhances a natural weapon, he is treated as having a natural weapon for the purpose of taking the feat.  I'm saying he is not allowed to consider the feat's effects when taking the feat.

Imagine there's a feat called "Extra Breath Weapon".  It allows a living creature who has a breath weapon use a breath weapon 3 times per day as a supernatural ability; either a 30 foot cone of fire or cold, or a 60 foot line of acid or electricity.  Damage is 1d6/2 hit dice, reflex save for 1/2, save DC is 10 + 1/2 creature's HD + creature's Con modifier.  The details of the effect aren't important, but the feat has, among its prerequisites the following: must have a breath weapon usable at least 1/day.

Could a human monk take the feat?  If he took it, he would have a breath weapon usable more than 1/day, and would meet the prerequisites.  But I don't think anyone would say he could take it unless he had a breath weapon from another source.  

The situation with INA is similar.  If he took it, his taking of the feat would enhance his unarmed attack if his unarmed attack were considered a natural weapon, and so, arguably, his unarmed attack would be considered a natural weapon for the purpose of taking the feat.  But he has to take the feat to satisfy the prerequisite, and that is as illegitimate as using the effect of Extra Breath Weapon to satisfy EBW's prerequisite.

Has this point been raised before and I just didn't notice?  Is there a flaw in my logic, or is this an important argument against the thesis that the RAW allows a human monk to take INA?

[edit]Yep.  Hypersmurf made it in post 208 of this very thread. [/edit]


----------



## FoxWander

Borlon said:
			
		

> Thanks, Hypersmurf, for the link.    The thread is starting to get unwieldy.
> 
> And while it might seem as if we have done this topic to death, I think there are important points that have not been addressed.  For example, would it be correct to say the following:
> 
> You cannot use a feat's effects to satisfy the prerequisites of that feat.​
> If so, then the fact that INA improves a natural weapon is irrelevant.  You can't use its effect (which results in the monk's unarmed attack being considered a natural weapon) when you check to see if the monk qualifies for the feat.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Imagine there's a feat called "Extra Breath Weapon".  It allows a living creature who has a breath weapon use a breath weapon 3 times per day as a supernatural ability; either a 30 foot cone of fire or cold, or a 60 foot line of acid or electricity.  Damage is 1d6/2 hit dice, reflex save for 1/2, save DC is 10 + 1/2 creature's HD + creature's Con modifier.  The details of the effect aren't important, but the feat has, among its prerequisites the following: must have a breath weapon usable at least 1/day.
> 
> Could a human monk take the feat?  If he took it, he would have a breath weapon usable more than 1/day, and would meet the prerequisites.  But I don't think anyone would say he could take it unless he had a breath weapon from another source.
> 
> The situation with INA is similar.  If he took it, his taking of the feat would enhance his unarmed attack if his unarmed attack were considered a natural weapon, and so, arguably, his unarmed attack would be considered a natural weapon for the purpose of taking the feat.  But he has to take the feat to satisfy the prerequisite, and that is as illegitimate as using the effect of Extra Breath Weapon to satisfy EBW's prerequisite.




In regards to the bit I've underlined above... *WHAT!?!?!?!?!*  
The fact that INA improves a natural weapon is, in fact, the *ONLY* things that's relevant!! The feat improves a natural weapon, then for the purposes of the feat a monk HAS a natural weapon. This is all very clear according to the monk's NWE rule. (Nicely named, by the way. Writing out that whole bit was getting cumbersome.  ) 

It is just that simple! Does A improve B, then monk's have B for the purpose of A. That's it! Why is this even being argued?

Can monk's benefit from _Magic Fang_- it only works on natural weapons? The answer is- of course they benefit from it. _Magic Fang_ improves natural weapons then by NWE monk's have natural weapons and benefit from the spell.

Can monk's benefit from _Magic Weapon_- it only works on manufactured weapons? But because of MWE monk's have manufactured weapons too, at least for things that improve manufactured weapons. So monk's benefit from the spell.

It is exactly the same for INA as it is for _Magic Fang_. You have to have a natural weapon to "get" either one, but since both are effects that improve natural weapons the monk's NWE kicks in, and he qualifies- he _*CAN*_ get either one!

In fact, concerning your EBW feat. If the monk had a class ability which stated "A monk’s [non-existant breath weapon] is treated as [having a breath weapon usable at least 1/day] for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve [breath weapons]", then yes, he could take the EBW feat because the monk would have BWE (Breath Weapon Equivalency).


----------



## Borlon

I'm glad you like the NWE TLA (three letter acronym).     I like how you've generalized it for manufactured weapons and breath weapons.  How do you like my numbered proof?  It's a lot easier to follow than the color coded stuff, isn't it?

Anyways, back to the question at hand.... 

NWE kicks in after _magic fang_ is cast on the monk.  Not before.

NWE is not activated until there is an actual effect that is looking for a natural weapon.  Then it kicks in.  Not before.

INA doesn't have any effect until you take it.  INA doesn't trigger NWE until you take it.  Until NWE is triggered, the monk is not considered to have a natural weapon. To take INA you need to meet the prerequisites.  Having a natural weapon is one of the prerequisites of INA.  If NWE is not triggered, the monk can't take INA.  Before the monk takes INA he can't take INA.  In other words, the monk can't take INA. 

The example of EBW is to illustrate the fact that an effect of a feat cannot be used to satisfy the prerequisites of the very same feat.


----------



## Hypersmurf

FoxWander said:
			
		

> In fact, concerning your EBW feat. If the monk had a class ability which stated "A monk’s [non-existant breath weapon] is treated as [having a breath weapon usable at least 1/day] for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve [breath weapons]", then yes, he could take the EBW feat because the monk would have BWE (Breath Weapon Equivalency).




Is a feat that grants a breath weapon an effect that enhances or improves breath weapons?  The feat doesn't alter an existing breath weapon in any way.

The other question, of course, goes back pages and pages... is a feat that grants a breath weapon an effect?

-Hyp.


----------



## Borlon

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The other question, of course, goes back pages and pages... is a feat that grants a breath weapon an effect?
> 
> -Hyp.




If a feat is an effect, surely it is not an effect until you take it.  And so before you take it, you can't use it to satisfy any prerequisites.

I thought that was *your* point back on 208.  Did I misunderstand, or did you just let that line of argument drop?


----------



## FireLance

Borlon said:
			
		

> It's the _dwarven thrower_ which is bestowing the extra benefits.  It is the source of the effects, but what the effect is varies according to the nature of the wielder.  I think of prerequisites as being for things which are non-actual until a character selects them; feats and levels, mostly.



I think that may be another important difference in the way we look at the issue. The way I see it, even if the feats and classes are themselves non-actual, the prerequisites are, and have a definite effect, namely, the effect of allowing or denying a character to take the feat or prestige class. So, to continue the doorman analogy, the doorman is himself an effect which should be bypassed by a "I am a member for the purpose of all effects" card.


> Ah, thanks for clearing that up.  But you know, if the two were meant to be the same point, what is the example doing between the two sentences?  Shouldn't examples follow the complete statement of an idea?  The fact that there is an illustrative example separating them suggests that the two points are separate.



I see it as a continuation or further elaboration of the example. So, the complete statement of the idea is "for all effects related to race, a stoneblessed is considered a member of the race to which she is bonded", and what follows are the examples and elaborations of what this means.


> Except the wording of many prerequisites is oddly inconsistent if this is true. I agree it is a more straightforward interpretation of the rules, but the exceptions that have been pointed out leave me unconvinced that this is what the designers and editors are actually implementing.  I don't have many of the books, though, and I have to rely on what people tell me is in them.  It may be that the inconsistencies with elves/half-elves and orcs/half-orcs is due to rules gaffes by some of the designers, compounded with some editing mistakes.  But it might also mean that the rules were written in a misleading manner to suggest that prerequisites count as effects.  Either way, something was written down poorly, and the RAW won't tell which something.



No, it doesn't come out and say it explicitly, or we wouldn't have had this very long thread (and two others). However, I and several others have been attempting to creatively interpret the rules to show what we want them to say.  Whoever of us has been most convincing is up to you, the gentle reader.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Borlon said:
			
		

> If a feat is an effect, surely it is not an effect until you take it.




Huh.  Now, there's something I hadn't actually considered.

A prepared spell is not an effect, and has no effect.  The wording used for the end of the casting time of a spell, in fact, is 'when the spell comes into effect'.  Until it is cast, it is not an effect; it is merely a _potential_ effect.

Similarly, if one chooses to consider a feat an effect - whether from the Improved Spell Resistance prerequisites, or some hypothetical harder evidence - that definition only applies to a feat that has been taken.  A feat that has not been taken is not an effect; it's merely a description of something that might eventually become an effect if someone takes it.

Huh.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf

FireLance said:
			
		

> The way I see it, even if the feats and classes are themselves non-actual, the prerequisites are, and have a definite effect, namely, the effect of allowing or denying a character to take the feat or prestige class.




Ick.

That's... pretty tortured wording.

And even if - eek - even if we allow that prerequisites are effects that have the effect of permitting an effect, if brings us back to Races of Faerun...

If a prerequisite is an effect, then a prerequisite of 'Orc' is an 'effect related to race', which means a half-orc qualifies for that prerequisite by virtue of Orc Blood...

... so the distinction between prerequisites of 'Orc' and 'Orc or Half-Orc' raises its head once more...

-Hyp.


----------



## Borlon

FireLance said:
			
		

> gentle reader




A fan of Miss Manners, perchance?  As am I.   For a thread to go on so long and contentiously without needing to be closed requires a good deal of etiquette, I think.



			
				Firelance said:
			
		

> I think that may be another important difference in the way we look at the issue. The way I see it, even if the feats and classes are themselves non-actual, the prerequisites are, and have a definite effect, namely, the effect of allowing or denying a character to take the feat or prestige class. So, to continue the doorman analogy, the doorman is himself an effect which should be bypassed by a "I am a member for the purpose of all effects" card.




If a non-actual feat or prestige class can have effects, then what prevents a character from taking a feat or class whose prerequisites can be met only by effects of that feat or class?

Let's talk about that monk again.  Say he wants to start a Natural Weapons Club.  He goes to the zoning commission to get permission.  They tell him "Sorry, you have to already be a member of a Natural Weapons Club before you can start a new one."

The monk replies "But if I start one, I'll be its first member.  My NWE card will see to that.  Doesn't that count?"

What would the zoning commission say?

"Starting the club" is analogous with taking the INA feat.  "Being a member already" means already having a natural weapon.  If the monk is allowed to get the feat his unarmed attacks will count as natural weapons for the purpose of the feat; if he starts the club, he'll be a member of a natural weapons club.  But my argument is that this alone won't qualify him to start the club.  Until the club actually exists, the criterion of being a member won't be satisfied.

I don't think it is a catch-22.  It just means that he has to satisfy the natural weapon requirement some other way.


----------



## Artoomis

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Ick.
> 
> That's... pretty tortured wording.
> 
> And even if - eek - even if we allow that prerequisites are effects that have the effect of permitting an effect, if brings us back to Races of Faerun...
> 
> If a prerequisite is an effect, then a prerequisite of 'Orc' is an 'effect related to race', which means a half-orc qualifies for that prerequisite by virtue of Orc Blood...
> 
> ... so the distinction between prerequisites of 'Orc' and 'Orc or Half-Orc' raises its head once more...
> 
> -Hyp.




If there was truly a distiction then what would be the real advantage of having Orc Blood be?


----------



## Hypersmurf

Artoomis said:
			
		

> If there was truly a distiction then what would be the real advantage of having Orc Blood be?




The ability to use orc-only magic items.  The ability to benefit from spells have special effects for orcs.  And so on.

-Hyp.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Lets look at the Ranger for a second- they are treated as having certain feats even if they don't qualify (like TWF or Rapid Shot).  They can take feats that have those feats as prerequisites.  However, they only benefit from those "virtual feats" if they meet the requirement of wearing nothing more than light armor.  This class feature can negate a whole chain of feats if the guy dons a breastplate.

The Monk, in contrast, has unarmed attacks that are considered "both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapons" for spells and effects- no other condition negates this.  This ability is ALWAYS in effect.

As I have pointed out, at least one other class, the Kensai PrCl from Complete Warrior, explicitly calls the fist a natural weapon.

In fact, the text of the 3.5 version of Magic Fang does as well:



> PHB p250
> "Magic Fang gives one natural weapon...The spell can affect a slam attack, *fist*, bite or other natural weapon."



 (emphasis mine)

Clearly, the fist is considered a natural weapon, ESPECIALLY if its the fist of a Monk or Kensai.

IMHO, end of story.


----------



## Infiniti2000

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Clearly, the fist is considered a natural weapon, ESPECIALLY if its the fist of a Monk or Kensai.
> 
> IMHO, end of story.



 So, then, in your opinion, clearly the monk cannot make iterative attacks with his unarmed strike (fist)?  Though, he could with, say, unarmed strike (headbutt) or unarmed strike (kick), etc.

This line of reasoning has already been handled and despite any wording in the Kensai PrC to the contrary (I don't have the book so I cannot comment), an unarmed strike is not a natural weapon.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> So, then, in your opinion, clearly the monk cannot make iterative attacks with his unarmed strike (fist)? Though, he could with, say, unarmed strike (headbutt) or unarmed strike (kick), etc.




The class gives the monk the ability to make iterative attacks with their unarmed strikes, and explicitly states that, as far as the rules are concerned, there is no distinction between the monk's fists and other appendages & limbs:



> PHB p41
> A monk's attacks may be with either fist interchangeably, or even from elbows, knees, and feet.  This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full.






> This line of reasoning has already been handled...




Obviously not to my satisfaction.

As I pointed out, there are at least 2 other sources that (RAW) refer to fists as natural weapons- Magic Fang and the Kensai.  I mean, not only does the Monk section explicitly say that it qualifies for Magic Fang, Magic Fang explicitly says that a fist is a natural weapon.

For me to accept that the description of the Monk's unarmed attacks somehow makes them NOT natural weapons would require a discussion of how those other 2 sources are incorrect in their descriptions of fists as natural weapons.

For your benefit, I re-post:



> Complete Warrior, p51
> _Imbuing Natural Weapons _The process for imbuing a kensai's natural weapons (such as his fists) is the same as for a manufactured weapon...For example, a human kensai who has Weapon Focus (unarmed strike) may turn his fists into signature weapons...A kensai who imbues a particular kind of natural weapon must imbue all his natural weapons of that type (so a human kensai with two fists must imbue both fists)...




and:



> PHB p250
> "Magic Fang gives one natural weapon...The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite or other natural weapon."




The Kensai quote is in a section entitled Imbuing Natural Weapons AND uses a human as the example in particular.  Meanwhile, the spell explicitly categorizes the fist as one of a bunch of different kinds of natural weapons.

Where is my misunderstanding?


----------



## Hypersmurf

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The class gives the monk the ability to make iterative attacks with their unarmed strikes...




So if we have a fighter (not a monk) with a longsword, does he make his unarmed strike as an offhand attack, or as a secondary natural attack?

Note that the rules for Two-Weapon Fighting state "_If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (*An unarmed strike is always considered light.*)_"

If an unarmed strike is a natural weapon, why is it referred to in the rules for Two-Weapon Fighting, which are not used by natural weapons?

If we have a fighter (not a monk) without a longsword, can he make iterative attacks with his unarmed strike?

-Hyp.


----------



## FireLance

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If a prerequisite is an effect, then a prerequisite of 'Orc' is an 'effect related to race', which means a half-orc qualifies for that prerequisite by virtue of Orc Blood...
> 
> ... so the distinction between prerequisites of 'Orc' and 'Orc or Half-Orc' raises its head once more...



Yes it does, and it can possibly be explained by a designer wanting to restrict that particular feat to pure-blooded orcs only, without realising that subsequent changes to the rules as written could be interpreted so that a prerequisite of "Orc" in itself allows half-orcs to take the feat as well.

Newer material sometimes creates unexpected implications for older material. In the Player's Guide to Faerun, one regional feat granted proficiency with all martial weapons, and allowed pure-classed wizards and sorcerers to qualify for the Eldritch Knight prestige class. Complete Arcane has a feat which arguably allows a 1st-level wizard to cast a 2nd-level spell and qualify for the Mystic Theurge prestige class after taking 3 levels of cleric.

Alternatively, the "official" interpretation may have changed in between the publication of Races of Faerun and the other Races books. Races of Stone, in particular, seem to imply that "considered to be race X" is sufficient to qualify for racial substitution levels, and arguably, racial feats and prestige classes as well.

Yeah, it would be nice if the rules as written were absolutely clear and perfectly non-contradictory, but I don't expect it to happen any time soon . In the meantime, I guess I'll stick to my interpretation and argue for it whenever I get the chance .


----------



## Hypersmurf

FireLance said:
			
		

> In the Player's Guide to Faerun, one regional feat granted proficiency with all martial weapons, and allowed pure-classed wizards and sorcerers to qualify for the Eldritch Knight prestige class.




Where's the problem?

-Hyp.


----------



## FireLance

Borlon said:
			
		

> If a non-actual feat or prestige class can have effects, then what prevents a character from taking a feat or class whose prerequisites can be met only by effects of that feat or class?



Sorry, but I'm not sure how this relates . Improved Natural Attack doesn't turn a monk's unarmed strike into a natural weapon. It merely enhances it as if it was a natural weapon. My argument is that for the purpose of qualifying for the feat, the monk's unarmed strike should similarly be treated as if it was a natural weapon.

The main position I am arguing against says, "When it comes to prerequisites, there is no 'as if'; you either are or are not." My position is, "'As if' is 'as if'. It applies even to prerequisites."



> I don't think it is a catch-22.  It just means that he has to satisfy the natural weapon requirement some other way.



For example, by successfully persuading the zoning commission that the rules can be interpreted to say that his unarmed strike is a natural weapon for the purpose of starting the club, even if strictly speaking, it is not.


----------



## FireLance

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Where's the problem?



No problem as such, just an illustration of how a new rule creates implications for previous rules.


----------



## RigaMortus2

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> So, then, in your opinion, clearly the monk cannot make iterative attacks with his unarmed strike (fist)?  Though, he could with, say, unarmed strike (headbutt) or unarmed strike (kick), etc.
> 
> This line of reasoning has already been handled and despite any wording in the Kensai PrC to the contrary (I don't have the book so I cannot comment), an unarmed strike is not a natural weapon.




I would be alright with that ruling.  I will just have him make unarmed stike (knuckles) instead


----------



## RigaMortus2

FireLance said:
			
		

> Yes it does, and it can possibly be explained by a designer wanting to restrict that particular feat to pure-blooded orcs only, without realising that subsequent changes to the rules as written could be interpreted so that a prerequisite of "Orc" in itself allows half-orcs to take the feat as well.




What changes?  Orc-blooded (and Elf-blooded for Half-Elves) were in 3.0.  There is no change here from 3.0 to 3.5.


----------



## FoxWander

Aaack, I fell into the trap. In my first return to this post a couple of pages ago, I said we didn't need analogies and hypothetical feats to solve this, and then I dove right into analogies and pretend feats.   :\ 

So let's return to the question in the subject of this post: Can human monks take INA? 

I, of course, believe they can. The 'gist' of the core argument _against_ seems to be:  No, because the prereqs must be considered first before the effect applied by INA and so monks don't have natural weapons to take the feat. [If any of the "no" group has a different reason (and before you reply, please analyze your position to see if it actually _is_ different), please respond with a succinct, core reason for saying no. I'd just like to cut through the confusion and get to the exact points we're trying to counter to each other.  ]

My core reason for saying YES is this: INA improves natural weapons, therefore by the monk's NWE rule he has natural weapons, satisfying the "natural weapons" prereq, and can take the feat. 

Now here's the real world example (not an analogy) of why the effect of the feat *CAN* (and must be, in the case of monks and NWE) be considered before you take it to satisfy the prereqs...

Me (playing a monk who just hit 6th level): Hey, can I take INA?
DM: Well, you're 6th level so you have a +4 BAB, but humans don't have natural weapons. [let's lay aside for the moment arguments, which I also agree with, that humans DO have natural weapons, ie. fists]
Me: But I'm a monk with NWE and INA improves natural weapons. If the feat improves natural weapons, then I have natural weapons as far as the feat is concerned.
DM: But you have to have a natural weapon first, before you can even take the feat.
Me: But I do. That's what NWE is. I have the equivalent of natural weapons (and manufactured ones) ALL THE TIME, for _anything_ that improves natural weapons. Since INA improves natural weapons it "sees" my unarmed strikes AS natural weapons. In other words, I *DO* have the _equivalent_ of natural weapons before I take the feat _because_ it's a feat that improves natural weapons.
DM: Alright, you meet the prereqs and can take the feat.


----------



## Hypersmurf

FoxWander said:
			
		

> No, because the prereqs must be considered first before the effect applied by INA and so monks don't have natural weapons to take the feat.




Where we went in this last page - even if one allows that feats are effects, can a feat be considered an effect before it has been taken?

Just like a spell only comes into effect when it is cast, surely a feat that has not yet been taken is not an effect.

INA 'sees' NWE... but until it is taken, it is not an effect, and therefore cannot be an effect that improves natural weapons.

"A monk's fists are considered natural weapons" would satisfy the prerequisite; "A monk's fists are considered natural weapons for the purposes of effects" cannot satisfy the prerequisite for something that is not yet an effect.

Now, I'm still not sold on the idea that feats are effects _anyway_; I still feel that a feat _has_ an effect.  Which is where I would disagree with your player in his example - he isn't considered to have natural weapons for the purpose of _anything_ that improves natural weapons (which INA does); he's considered to have natural weapons for the purpose of any _effect_ that improves natural weapons (which, I maintain, INA _has_).

It's why it's still key to the interpretation to determine whether INA is an effect that improves natural weapons, or whether INA has an effect that improves natural weapons.

-Hyp.


----------



## FoxWander

FireLance said:
			
		

> For example, by successfully persuading the zoning commission that the rules can be interpreted to say that his unarmed strike is a natural weapon for the purpose of starting the club, even if strictly speaking, it is not.




No, no- he needs to convince the zoning commission he is, in fact, an orc-blooded, stone-blessed pseudo-dwarf, lizardman kensai/monk with a breath weapon in order to start his club.


----------



## FireLance

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> What changes?  Orc-blooded (and Elf-blooded for Half-Elves) were in 3.0.  There is no change here from 3.0 to 3.5.



Yes, but there may have been a change in the official position on what it means to have orc blood or elf blood. We're unlikely to get any confirmation on that, so it's just idle speculation. Let's get back to interpreting what the rules actually say, please.


----------



## Borlon

FireLance said:
			
		

> Borlon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a non-actual feat or prestige class can have effects, then what prevents a character from taking a feat or class whose prerequisites can be met only by effects of that feat or class?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, but I'm not sure how this relates .
Click to expand...



Rules that apply in the INA debate also apply elsewhere.  If a particular interpretation has false consequences elsewhere, then it is false in the INA debate too.  At the very least it has to be drastically reworded.

Saying that a non-actual feat has effects sounds to me like a very dubious proposition.  It is important in my argument that it does not (you haven't refuted my numbered proof on the previous page, btw).  So I want to draw out a consequence of what would happen if it does.  Then, if you can see that the consequence is unacceptable, then you will reject the principle that non-actual feats have effects.



			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> My argument is that for the purpose of qualifying for the feat, the monk's unarmed strike should similarly be treated as if it was a natural weapon.
> 
> The main position I am arguing against says, "When it comes to prerequisites, there is no 'as if'; you either are or are not." My position is, "'As if' is 'as if'. It applies even to prerequisites."




I think we are almost in agreement. My position is that the Sage is interpreting the rules according to the principle of prerequisite conversion:

_PPC: When X counts as Y for the purposes of effects that mention Y, then X also counts as Y for the purpose of prerequisites that mention Y._

The main difference, I think, is that I don't think that the RAW imply the PPC.  If we can agree that the PPC is what the Sage is using, then we can argue about whether it is implied by the RAW.

Sound fair?


----------



## Infiniti2000

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> I would be alright with that ruling.  I will just have him make unarmed stike (knuckles) instead



 That has a huge implication as noted by Hyp.  You can make additional attacks with natural weapons as secondary weapons -- they do not inhibit your manufactured weapon attacks.  So, if "knuckles", "headbutt", "right knee", "left knee", "hip check", etc. are all separate natural weapons, a 1st level fighter with a longsword suddenly gets a whole lot of additional attacks, all at -5 without using the TWF penalties.

Obviously, at least I hope it's obvious, that's not the case.


----------



## FireLance

Borlon said:
			
		

> Rules that apply in the INA debate also apply elsewhere.  If a particular interpretation has false consequences elsewhere, then it is false in the INA debate too.  At the very least it has to be drastically reworded.
> 
> Saying that a non-actual feat has effects sounds to me like a very dubious proposition.  It is important in my argument that it does not (you haven't refuted my numbered proof on the previous page, btw).  So I want to draw out a consequence of what would happen if it does.  Then, if you can see that the consequence is unacceptable, then you will reject the principle that non-actual feats have effects.



Actually, I work off a baseline position that feats as a whole are effects, or similarly, that prerequistes are also effects. I must confess that I still don't really see how treating non-actual feats as effects will allow a person to use the effect of a feat that he doesn't have to qualify for the feat. It's not the case in this debate, anyway. Improved Natural Attack improves a natural weapon, but it doesn't make anything that was not a natural weapon into a natural weapon. My argument is that the monk gets to take the feat because his unarmed strike is considered a natural weapon.

Going to your numbered argument, I generally agree with points 1-5. Where I disagree is the conclusions drawn from points 4 and 5:


> 4. Having a monk's unarmed strike counts as having a natural weapon if its counting as a natural weapon enhances a natural weapon.
> 5. Having a monk's unarmed strike does not count as having a natural weapon if its counting as a natural weapon does not enhance a natural weapon.



My argument follows this with:
6. If a monk's unarmed strike counts as having a natural weapon, the monk satisfies the prerequisites of Improved Natural Attack, which enhances a natural weapon.
7. A monk's unarmed strike thus satisfies the prerequisites of Improved Natural Attack.

Point 7 follows from points 4 and 6.



> I think we are almost in agreement. My position is that the Sage is interpreting the rules according to the principle of prerequisite conversion:
> 
> _PPC: When X counts as Y for the purposes of effects that mention Y, then X also counts as Y for the purpose of prerequisites that mention Y._
> 
> The main difference, I think, is that I don't think that the RAW imply the PPC.  If we can agree that the PPC is what the Sage is using, then we can argue about whether it is implied by the RAW.
> 
> Sound fair?



Sounds fair enough , and as previously argued, I think it is implied by the rules.

P.S. I'm going to be busy over the next 48 hours and may only be able to get online and continue this discussion sporadically.


----------



## Borlon

FireLance said:
			
		

> I must confess that I still don't really see how treating non-actual feats as effects will allow a person to use the effect of a feat that he doesn't have to qualify for the feat. It's not the case in this debate, anyway. Improved Natural Attack improves a natural weapon, but it doesn't make anything that was not a natural weapon into a natural weapon.




The effect of INA together with NWE makes the monk's unarmed attack count as a natural weapon.  If INA has no effect, you are missing an essential ingredient in the recipe that makes the monk's unarmed attack count as a natural weapon.  Since INA has no effect before it is taken, you could replace it with Toughness.  Toughness together with NWE doesn't allow the monk's unarmed attack count as a natural weapon.  This is obvious, because Toughness doesn't do anything to natural weapons.  But neither does INA until it is taken.



			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> Borlon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4. Having a monk's unarmed strike counts as having a natural weapon if its counting as a natural weapon enhances a natural weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 6. If a monk's unarmed strike counts as having a natural weapon, the monk satisfies the prerequisites of Improved Natural Attack, which enhances a natural weapon.
> 7. A monk's unarmed strike thus satisfies the prerequisites of Improved Natural Attack.
> 
> Point 7 follows from points 4 and 6.
Click to expand...



I think 6 is too careless with the order of when things happen.  Let me try again with a numbered proof.  This time I'll pay closer attention to the order that things have to happen for INA to be taken.  (I'll leave out a few details that would make it a completely accurate description, too; but in the particular circumstances we are considering, I think it is good enough.  These circumstances are that a human monk is trying to take the INA feat, nothing else is enhancing his unarmed attack, and that the monk has a +4 or better BAB.)

Before a feat can be taken, its prerequisites must be satisfied.
For INA's prerequisites to be satisfied, a monk's unarmed attack must count as a natural weapon.
A feat does not enhance an attack before it is taken.
A monk's unarmed attack counts as a natural weapon when it is being enhanced by an effect that enhances natural weapons.
A monk's unarmed attack does not count as a natural weapon when it is not being enhanced.
Before INA is taken, INA does not enhance an attack.
Before INA is taken, a monk's unarmed attack is not being enhanced.
Before INA is taken, a monk's unarmed attack does not count as a natural weapon.
Before INA is taken, the prerequisites of INA are not satisfied.
INA cannot be taken.

6 follows from 3.  7 follows from 6.  8 follows from 7 and 5. 9 follows from 8 and 2. 10 follows from 9 and 1.  A few of the premises might have to be argued for separately.  For example, I could argue for the truth of 5 by noting that if a monk's unarmed attack is not enhanced by an effect that enhances a natural weapon (as 4 specifies), it does not count as a natural weapon, and that therefore, if it is not being enhanced at all, it does not count as a natural weapon.  

If you disagree with one or more of premises 1 to 5, please say so, and explain why not.  Sub-conclusions 6 to 9 form a chain; if you don't accept one of them, say which one you don't accept, and why it doesn't follow from the previous (acceptable) premises.  If you accept points 1 to 9, please explain how lines 1 to 9 can all be true, and yet 10 is false.

BTW, your 6 and 7, to be correct would have to be worded something like this:

After INA is taken, INA enhances a natural weapon.
After INA is taken, a monk's unarmed attack counts as a natural weapon. 
After INA is taken, a monk's unarmed attack satisfies the prerequisites of INA.

But what good is that?  Extra Breath Weapon's prerequisites are satisfied after it is taken.  But that doesn't let you take it if you can't satisfy the prerequisites any other way.



			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> Sounds fair enough , and as previously argued, I think it is implied by the rules.




I think you are wrong, and I think the above argument proves it. 



			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> P.S. I'm going to be busy over the next 48 hours and may only be able to get online and continue this discussion sporadically.




Assuming the "fists are natural weapons" camp don't derail the thread, I'll still be here.


----------



## Artoomis

Borlon said:
			
		

> ...
> Before a feat can be taken, its prerequisites must be satisfied.
> For INA's prerequisites to be satisfied, a monk's unarmed attack must count as a natural weapon.
> A feat does not enhance an attack before it is taken.
> A monk's unarmed attack counts as a natural weapon when it is being enhanced by an effect that enhances natural weapons.
> A monk's unarmed attack does not count as a natural weapon when it is not being enhanced.
> Before INA is taken, INA does not enhance an attack.
> Before INA is taken, a monk's unarmed attack is not being enhanced.
> Before INA is taken, a monk's unarmed attack does not count as a natural weapon.
> Before INA is taken, the prerequisites of INA are not satisfied.
> INA cannot be taken.
> 
> ...
> If you disagree with one or more of premises 1 to 5, please say so, and explain why not.   ...



Number 5 is where your premise is flawed.

"A monk's unarmed attack does not count as a natural weapon when it is not being enhanced." does not necessarily follow from 







> 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.




Whether or not a monk's attack counts as a natural weapon is cearly open to interpretation.

The sentence from the monk's class decription can be read equally well to read:

...natural weapons and for qualifying for those spells and effects.

or

...natural weapons but not for qualifying for such spells and effects.

Clearly, most of us (about 2/3) think the first reading above is the more obvious and reasonable one.  While being in the clear majority does not make necessarily us right, the first reading seems like the one that makes more sense to me.  Still, this interpretation problem is why a Sage's clarification was really required on this rule.


----------



## Dimwhit

I'll take a shot at your points.



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> Before a feat can be taken, its prerequisites must be satisfied.




You are correct.



> For INA's prerequisites to be satisfied, a monk's unarmed attack must count as a natural weapon.




Correct. As it specifically states it does.



> A feat does not enhance an attack before it is taken.




What the...? That's a silly thing to say. Nothing is in effect before it's taken, be it a feat, class, skill, or whatever.



> A monk's unarmed attack counts as a natural weapon when it is being enhanced by an effect that enhances natural weapons.




Nope. There is your main problem. It doesn't count as a natural weapon *when* it is being enhanced. It qualifies as a natural weapon so that you can apply some effect to it that enhances a natural weapon. By default, that means that, if you are going to apply an effect, than for that effect, it counts as a natural weapon *before* it happens.



> A monk's unarmed attack does not count as a natural weapon when it is not being enhanced.




No, but it does if you are going to enhance it with a spell/effect.



> Before INA is taken, INA does not enhance an attack.




Again, silly. Feats don't do anything until they're taken.



> Before INA is taken, a monk's unarmed attack is not being enhanced.




Not by INA, since it hasn't been taken.



> Before INA is taken, a monk's unarmed attack does not count as a natural weapon.




Yes it does, for the purpose of taking something that will enhance it, like INA. But it doesn't if, for example, a creature could only be hit by natural weapons. It is as a prerequisite for something else, though.



> Before INA is taken, the prerequisites of INA are not satisfied.




Yes it is. See above.



> INA cannot be taken.




Yes it can.

Here it is. The phrase "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" is the same as saying "A monk’s unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon if you have any spell or effect that requires a natural weapon before taking/casting it."


----------



## Hypersmurf

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Here it is. The phrase "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" is the same as saying "A monk’s unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon if you have any spell or effect that requires a natural weapon before taking/casting it."




Where does that 'before' come from?

Look at the Magic Fang example again.  The target is 'living creature touched'.  Notice, no natural weapons are required to be the target of the spell.  The spell is cast, and comes into effect - its effect is to enhance a natural weapon.  The effect exists - is there a natural weapon to which it can apply?  For a monk, for the purposes of that effect, the answer is yes.

For the feat example, the monk wants to take the feat.  Until he does so, there is no effect that improves natural weapons to be considered.  A feat not taken is like a spell not cast - nothing.

Unlike Magic Fang, which can be cast regardless of the existence of natural weapons, INA cannot be taken by someone who does not have a natural weapon.  Because there is no effect that improves natural weapons to be considered - a feat not taken is no effect at all - NWE doesn't come into play.

For the lizardman monk, the answer is different.  He has a natural weapon, so he can take the feat.  He has the feat.  The feat is in play, and now has an effect - to improve a natural weapon.  Since for the purpose of effects that improve natural weapons, a monk's unarmed strikes count as such, that effect can apply to the lizardman's unarmed strike.

-Hyp.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Note that the rules for Two-Weapon Fighting state "If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)"
> 
> If an unarmed strike is a natural weapon, why is it referred to in the rules for Two-Weapon Fighting, which are not used by natural weapons?




Because in that section, you are assuming that the primary weapon is NOT a natural weapon, but a mechanical one.  If you are mixing mechanical weapons with natural, and the mechanical is in the primary hand, you treat the natural weapon as light: it is an unenhanced body part- the issues of skill, balance and reach with that weapon are negated by a literal lifetime of use.

Note also that the Monk's attack penalty for Flurry of Blows (-2 for each attack in the flurry) is functionally _identical_ to the penalty for fighting 2 weapon style with a light off-hand weapon (-2 for primary and off-hand) except that the Monk gets more attacks.



> If we have a fighter (not a monk) without a longsword, can he make iterative attacks with his unarmed strike?




Here we spot the animal known as the Raging Damifino!  

Personally, I'd say that iterative unarmed strikes are limited to classes like the Monk (which explicitly can) or the Kensai (who may potentially treat his fists like all other weapons), or to any PC with a Feat that explicitly allows iterative unarmed attacks, but I don't know of anything RAW that supports it.



> Look at the Magic Fang example again. The target is 'living creature touched'. Notice, no natural weapons are required to be the target of the spell.




True- but the spell still _defines_ a fist as a natural weapon.
+++

Additionally, I'm going to have to state that, upon reflection, _I am changing my position_ slightly...but not the way anyone here would think.

SINCE:
1) _Magic Fang_ *explicitly* calls the fist a natural weapon (a rule from the same book as the Monk description) and...

2) Given that the Kensai *explicitly* calls the_ fist of a human_ a natural weapon (from a book subsequent to the 3.5PHB, and thus, the more recent expression of the rules)

THEREFORE:

3)  The clause that describes the Monk's unarmed attacks "both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon" is NOT adding the property of "natural weapon" to the Monk's unarmed attacks- the Monk's fists already ARE natural weapons as evidenced by 1 & 2 above.  The clause is _instead_ adding the property of "manufactured weapon" to the Monk's unarmed attacks.

That the Monk can treat his unarmed attacks as manufactured weapons then becomes part of the underlying rationale for why he can make iterative attacks with his unarmed strikes, just like with his special Monk weapons.

So all that stuff I said about _only_ Monks and Kensai being able to take INA is wrong.  The fist is a natural weapon, so anyone with fists could take INA.

The area where the Monk and Kensai twist the rules is in their ability to target their unarmed attacks with spells and effects that usually only affect normal weapons.

Here is where it matters what "spells and effects" mean: I'd argue that adding the property of "manufactured weapon" lets the Monk's unarmed strikes be the target of spells like _Magic Weapon_, _Bless Weapon_, _Holy Sword_ and other spells or effects that only affect melee (manufactured) weapons, and Feats like Cleave or Psionic Weapon.

The REAL question, then, isn't whether a Monk can take INA, but whether the Monk could have his unarmed attacks made into permanent magic weapons.

Monte Cook's Arcana Unearth addresses this directly with the feat Hands as Weapons.  In D&D3.5?  Yet another Raging Damifino.


----------



## Borlon

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Number 5 is where your premise is flawed.
> 
> "A monk's unarmed attack does not count as a natural weapon when it is not being enhanced." does not necessarily follow from
> 
> "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. "




The default situation is that a monk's unarmed attack does not count as a natural weapon.  So only when the NWE rule applies does the monk's unarmed attack count as a natural weapon.  So only when there is an enhancing effect does the unarmed attack count as a natural weapon.  If there is no enhancing effect, the unarmed attack does not count as a natural weapon.

Maybe symbols will help.  
X counts as Y under circumstances Z.  
Otherwise X doesn't count as Y.  
Therefore, if circumstances Z is not actually the case, then X doesn't count as Y.​
X is "a monk's unarmed attack" Y is "a natural weapon" and Z is "when a spell or effect enhances or improves a natural weapon."



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> Whether or not a monk's attack counts as a natural weapon is cearly open to interpretation.
> 
> The sentence from the monk's class decription can be read equally well to read:
> 
> ...natural weapons and for qualifying for those spells and effects.
> 
> or
> 
> ...natural weapons but not for qualifying for such spells and effects.




If the words "qualifying for" were really there, we wouldn't be having the conversation.  If there was actually an effect that enhanced a natural weapon, as opposed to an effect that would be there if the feat's prerequisites were satisfied and the feat taken, then qualifying for the feat would be a purpose for which the unarmed attack would count as a natural attack.  Or if it was ok to qualify for a feat after you take it.  But otherwise I cannot see that the first reading is legitimate.  Maybe you mean "equally" in the sense of statistical likelihood?



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> Clearly, most of us (about 2/3) think the first reading above is the more obvious and reasonable one.  While being in the clear majority does not make necessarily us right, the first reading seems like the one that makes more sense to me.  Still, this interpretation problem is why a Sage's clarification was really required on this rule.




The day has not yet arrived, thank goodness, when the correctness of a rules question is decided by majority vote.  That being said, I think it is a good rule.  I have discerned an underlying interpretative principle at work, the principle of prerequisite conversion (PPC).  My position is that the PPC is not found in the core rules, and cannot be legitimately be inferred from them.  The PPC is an addition to the rules.  A plausible, intuitive, sensible addition, perhaps, but an addition nonetheless.



			
				Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Borlon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before INA is taken, INA does not enhance an attack.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, silly.    Feats don't do anything until they're taken.
Click to expand...



So you agree with me!?

Tell me, if an effect cannot exist before its associated feat, how can you claim that the monk's unarmed attack counts as a natural weapon when it lacks an essential element to being considered a natural weapon- an effect that enhances a natural weapon?

Feat prerequisites, on the other hand, do exist and do have to be met before their associated feats.  That's what "pre-requisite" means- the criteria which have to be satisfied before the associated entity can become actual. 

Your admission that feats don't have effects before they are taken demolishes your position.  If there is no effect that enhances a natural weapon, then a monk's unarmed attack is not considered a natural weapon.



			
				Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Borlon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A monk's unarmed attack counts as a natural weapon when it is being enhanced by an effect that enhances natural weapons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. There is your main problem. It doesn't count as a natural weapon when it is being enhanced. It qualifies as a natural weapon so that you can apply some effect to it that enhances a natural weapon. By default, that means that, if you are going to apply an effect, than for that effect, it counts as a natural weapon before it happens.
Click to expand...



By your own words, there is no effect prior to taking the feat.  This is so obvious that you said it was silly for me to actually come out and say it. But if there no effect prior to taking the feat, then there is nothing for which the unarmed attack counts as a natural weapon.  How can you say "It qualifies as a natural weapon so that you can apply some effect to it..." when you have just admitted there is no effect?


----------



## Hypersmurf

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Because in that section, you are assuming that the primary weapon is NOT a natural weapon, but a mechanical one.  If you are mixing mechanical weapons with natural, and the mechanical is in the primary hand, you treat the natural weapon as light: it is an unenhanced body part- the issues of skill, balance and reach with that weapon are negated by a literal lifetime of use.




No, you don't.

Let's say I have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, and a claw attack.

If I fight longsword and dagger, my penalties are -2 to the longsword and -2 to the dagger.  (Two-Weapon Fighting, with the TWF feat, off-hand weapon is light.)

If I fight longsword and claw, my penalties are -0 to the longsword (I'm not Two-Weapon Fighting) and -5 to the claw (it's a secondary natural attack).

Manufactured weapons use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules.  Natural weapons use the rules for mixing manufactured and natural weapons:
_Some creatures combine attacks with natural and manufactured weapons when they make a full attack. When they do so, the manufactured weapon attack is considered the primary attack unless the creature’s description indicates otherwise and any natural weapons the creature also uses are considered secondary natural attacks. These secondary attacks do not interfere with the primary attack as attacking with an off-hand weapon does, but they take the usual –5 penalty (or –2 with the Multiattack feat) for such attacks, even if the natural weapon used is normally the creature’s primary natural weapon._

An unarmed strike uses the Two-Weapon Fighting rules, _not_ the rules for mixing manufactured and natural weapons.

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> ...Personally, I'd say that iterative unarmed strikes are limited to classes like the Monk (which explicitly can) or the Kensai (who may potentially treat his fists like all other weapons), or to any PC with a Feat that explicitly allows iterative unarmed attacks, but I don't know of anything RAW that supports it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> SINCE:
> 1) _Magic Fang_ *explicitly* calls the fist a natural weapon (a rule from the same book as the Monk description) and...
> 
> 2) Given that the Kensai *explicitly* calls the_ fist of a human_ a natural weapon (from a book subsequent to the 3.5PHB, and thus, the more recent expression of the rules)
> 
> THEREFORE:
> 
> 3)  The clause that describes the Monk's unarmed attacks "both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon" is NOT adding the property of "natural weapon" to the Monk's unarmed attacks- the Monk's fists already ARE natural weapons as evidenced by 1 & 2 above.  The clause is _instead_ adding the property of "manufactured weapon" to the Monk's unarmed attacks.
> 
> ...





I like it!!  The PHB does seem to indicate that unarmed attacks work "much like melee weapons" and so get iterative attacks, but overall they really do seem to be sort of a "special case" natural weapon.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I like it!!  The PHB does seem to indicate that unarmed attacks work "much like melee weapons" and so get iterative attacks, but overall they really do seem to be sort of a "special case" natural weapon.




Why does Power Attack refer to "unarmed strikes or natural weapons" if unarmed strikes _are_ natural weapons?

Why do the Two-Weapon Fighting feat and the Two-Weapon Fighting rules, which don't apply to natural weapons, explain how they work with unarmed strikes?

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Why does Power Attack refer to "unarmed strikes or natural weapons" if unarmed strikes _are_ natural weapons?
> 
> Why do the Two-Weapon Fighting feat and the Two-Weapon Fighting rules, which don't apply to natural weapons, explain how they work with unarmed strikes?
> 
> -Hyp.




Because unarmed attacks are a *special case* of natural attacks, that's why.  The rules work really, really well (I think) if you think of unarmed attacks as a special case of natural attacks.

And because this area of the rules is not well done.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Because unarmed attacks are a *special case* of natural attacks, that's why.  The rules work really, really well (I think) if you think of unarmed attacks as a special case of natural attacks.




So they're like natural attacks that use the manufactured weapon rules for everything?

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So they're like natural attacks that use the manufactured weapon rules for everything?
> 
> -Hyp.




No - they are simply weird and not as well-defined as they could have been.  Sometimes they are called out as special, sometimes they are treated like other regular weapons, sometimes they are actually labeled as natural weapons.

Like I said, a poor area of the rules, in general.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Some creatures combine attacks with natural and manufactured weapons...




I must admit I had never noticed this before...it simply never came up.

Still, I'd have to side with Artoomis on this one- its a mess.  Perhaps they did intend the unarmed strike of a humanoid to be a special subclass of natural attack and just didn't make it clear.  (If this is so, I can sorta see some logic to it, but don't agree with it- it gets very tortured very fast.)

The indisputible fact remains:  There are _at least_ 2 sections in 3.5Ed WOTC books that explicitly designate fists as natural weapons.

Thus, the onus is upon YOU to show me why those perfectly clear blocks of texts are wrong in this.


----------



## RigaMortus2

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> That has a huge implication as noted by Hyp.  You can make additional attacks with natural weapons as secondary weapons -- they do not inhibit your manufactured weapon attacks.  So, if "knuckles", "headbutt", "right knee", "left knee", "hip check", etc. are all separate natural weapons, a 1st level fighter with a longsword suddenly gets a whole lot of additional attacks, all at -5 without using the TWF penalties.
> 
> Obviously, at least I hope it's obvious, that's not the case.




No, you misunderstood...  I am saying unarmed (fists) WOULD count as natural weapons.  But unarmed (knuckles) would NOT.  Nor do unarmed (headbutt, knee, elbow, etc.).


----------



## glass

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Because in that section, you are assuming that the primary weapon is NOT a natural weapon, but a mechanical one.  If you are mixing mechanical weapons with natural, and the mechanical is in the primary hand, you treat the natural weapon as light: it is an unenhanced body part- the issues of skill, balance and reach with that weapon are negated by a literal lifetime of use.



You missed the point. Natural weapons are never off hand attacks, they are secondary natural attacks. Therefore, if unarmed strike were natural weapons, their being light would have no bearing and they would not be discussed in the TWF section in any case.


> Note also that the Monk's attack penalty for Flurry of Blows (-2 for each attack in the flurry) is functionally _identical_ to the penalty for fighting 2 weapon style with a light off-hand weapon (-2 for primary and off-hand) except that the Monk gets more attacks.



And it is also functionally identical to the penalty for being shaken (except that that penalty also applies to saves and damage rolls). Your point is?


> Here we spot the animal known as the Raging Damifino!



What are you talking about?


> Personally, I'd say that iterative unarmed strikes are limited to classes like the Monk (which explicitly can) or the Kensai (who may potentially treat his fists like all other weapons), or to any PC with a Feat that explicitly allows iterative unarmed attacks, but I don't know of anything RAW that supports it.



And you'd be wrong. From the SRD: [sblock]Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.

An unarmed character can’t take attacks of opportunity (but see “Armed” Unarmed Attacks, below).

“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. Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity)

Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character’s unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of damage, while a Large character’s unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).

Dealing Lethal Damage: You can specify that your unarmed strike will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. If you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike without taking a penalty on the attack roll.[/sblock]Note that '_Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon_'. And that it does not note any exceptions regarding iterative attacks. Note, also, that unarmed strikes are on the weapons table in the equipment chapter.



> True- but the spell still _defines_ a fist as a natural weapon.



It says fist can be natural weapons, which they can for creatures with slam attacks. It does not mean anyone who has fists has natural weapons.


glass.


----------



## glass

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The indisputible fact remains:  There are _at least_ 2 sections in 3.5Ed WOTC books that explicitly designate fists as natural weapons.
> 
> Thus, the onus is upon YOU to show me why those perfectly clear blocks of texts are wrong in this.



They imply that fists can be natural weapons. They can: golem fists are, for example. However, unarmed strikes are not fists, they are not _physically_ anything at all that you can point at, they are attacks using any (non-specified) part of the body. 

As for CW saying that _human_ fists are natural weapons. I don't have my copy with me, but if it does in fact say that it is wrong. It contradicts the PHB, which is the primary source.


glass.


----------



## FoxWander

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Where does that 'before' come from?
> 
> Look at the Magic Fang example again.  The target is 'living creature touched'.  Notice, no natural weapons are required to be the target of the spell.  The spell is cast, and comes into effect - its effect is to enhance a natural weapon.  The effect exists - is there a natural weapon to which it can apply?  For a monk, for the purposes of that effect, the answer is yes.
> 
> For the feat example, the monk wants to take the feat.  Until he does so, there is no effect that improves natural weapons to be considered.  A feat not taken is like a spell not cast - nothing.
> 
> Unlike Magic Fang, which can be cast regardless of the existence of natural weapons, INA cannot be taken by someone who does not have a natural weapon.  Because there is no effect that improves natural weapons to be considered - a feat not taken is no effect at all - NWE doesn't come into play.
> 
> For the lizardman monk, the answer is different.  He has a natural weapon, so he can take the feat.  He has the feat.  The feat is in play, and now has an effect - to improve a natural weapon.  Since for the purpose of effects that improve natural weapons, a monk's unarmed strikes count as such, that effect can apply to the lizardman's unarmed strike.
> 
> -Hyp.






I can give you one example where the "before" is implied. Something that we're all missing in all this talk about the monk's NWE- that they also have Manufactured Weapon Eqivalency. So here's _Magic Weapon_...



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> *Magic Weapon*
> Transmutation
> Level: Clr 1, Pal 1, Sor/Wiz 1, War 1
> Components: V, S, DF
> Casting Time: 1 standard action
> Range: Touch
> Target: Weapon touched
> Duration: 1 min./level
> Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless, object)
> Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless, object)
> 
> Magic weapon gives a weapon a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. (An enhancement bonus does not stack with a masterwork weapon’s +1 bonus on attack rolls.)
> 
> 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.



I take it that no one will argue that this spell cannot be cast on a Monk. 

The target of the spell (it's "prerequisite" as you've argued before) is "Weapon touched". For this to be cast on a monk, his unarmed strike must be considered a [manufactured] weapon by one of two reasons...

1- it is a manufactured weapon (MW) because the spells effect will improve a MW, therefore the monk fulfills the "prerequisite" _*before*_ the effect exists because of MWE (this has been my argument in regards to NWE and INA)

_OR_

2- it is _*always*_ considered a MW, regardless of any "potential" effect, and therefore fulfills the "prerequisite" because it already is a valid target. 

Of these, #2 is the one explicitly spelled out in the text of the spell. "A monk’s unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus _it can be enhanced by this spell._" This phrase is quite important because it actually refutes (and eliminates the need for) _my own_ argument.   A monk's unarmed strike is _always_ considered a weapon, whether natural or manufactured, and thus can be enhanced by effects that enhance either. 

So there you go, a human monk (with +4 BAB) *CAN* take INA, because he already meets the "natural weapon" prereq. Just like his unarmed strike is a valid target for _Magic Weapon_ because it's already considered a [manufactured] weapon.



PS. - And just as a side note, _Magic Weapon_ throws another kink in the growing 'just what in the heck is a natural weapon' argument with this bit- "You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, *such as an unarmed strike*..."


----------



## glass

FoxWander said:
			
		

> I can give you one example where the "before" is implied. Something that we're all missing in all this talk about the monk's NWE- that they also have Manufactured Weapon Eqivalency. So here's _Magic Weapon_...
> 
> I take it that no one will argue that this spell cannot be cast on a Monk.




*raises hand* I will!

The spell's target is 'weapon touched'. A monk is not a weapon, so this spell certainly cannot be cast on a monk.

Whether you can cast it on a monk's unarmed strike depends on whether or not you have some way of targetting it. Since the monk's unarmed strike uses potentially his whole body, would just touching the monk be sufficient? I don't think it is, since anybody's unarmed strikes potentially use the whole body, so if that were a solution it would apply to everyone, not just monks.

I agree that the monks MWE ability is probably intended to allow (G)MW to target the monk's unarmed strikes, but as written it (arguably) doesn't.


> PS. - And just as a side note, _Magic Weapon_ throws another kink in the growing 'just what in the heck is a natural weapon' argument with this bit- "You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, *such as an unarmed strike*..."



That is odd. But since spell descriptions are not the primary source for how unarmed strikes operate, it is simply a mistake in the writeup.trikes


----------



## FoxWander

glass said:
			
		

> *raises hand* I will!
> 
> The spell's target is 'weapon touched'. A monk is not a weapon, so this spell certainly cannot be cast on a monk.



And yet the spell clearly states that it *CAN* be cast on a monk. It even gives a reason, "A monk’s unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell."

This is not intended to be a "primary source" on how unarmed strikes operate, but merely how the spell _Magic Weapon_ operates. And since the spell itself references the monk's MWE as the reason for why it operates on a monk, this can be a guideline on how MWE/NWE operates in similar situations. 

Since pretty much the entire basis for the argument _against_ monk's taking INA has been 'they can't meet the prereqs *before* they have the feat' I've provided an example of an effect that they *DO* meet the prereqs of (target: weapon touched), via MWE, _before_ they "have" the effect. And since the fact that monk's DO qualify as a valid target (because of MWE) is *explicitly* stated in the spell(!) your statement that the spell "certainly cannot be cast on a monk" is, quite simply, wrong. And it's not me saying you're wrong, it's the RAW.

So- if monk's qualify for the prereqs, before the fact, of _Magic Weapon_ via MWE...
then it follows that, since the circumstances with INA are essentially identical, that they qualify for the prereqs of INA before the fact as well, via NWE. And the RAW clearly support this conclusion.


----------



## FireLance

Borlon said:
			
		

> The effect of INA together with NWE makes the monk's unarmed attack count as a natural weapon.  If INA has no effect, you are missing an essential ingredient in the recipe that makes the monk's unarmed attack count as a natural weapon.



Okay, things are getting a little clearer, now. I think the confusion arose because I never suggested that Improved Natural Attack makes the monk's unarmed strike into a natural weapon. I only argued that it would enhance it as if it was. To use FoxWander's _magic weapon_ example, the spell enhances a monk's unarmed strike as if it was a manufactured weapon, but it doesn't turn it into a manufactured weapon.

Looking at the _magic fang_ spell, we have another interesting bit of text:


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> _Magic fang_ gives one natural weapon of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon. (The spell does not change an unarmed strike's damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage.)



I find it strange that the text mentions that it doesn't change an unarmed strike's damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage, almost as if an unarmed strike, even from someone without the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, was a natural weapon that could be affected by the spell. You'd think that they'd come right out and say that an unarmed strike can't be affected by _magic fang_ since it isn't a natural weapon in the first place .

Anyway, it seems that a monk's unarmed strike is considered something very special. It can be affected by _magic weapon_, even if:
(1) it isn't a manufactured weapon; and 
(2) _magic weapon_ doesn't affect the unarmed strike of someone who isn't a monk, even if he has the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, since it isn't a manufactured weapon. 

It can be affected by _magic fang_, even if:
(1) it isn't a natural weapon; and 
(2) _magic fang_ doesn't affect the unarmed strike of someone who isn't a monk, even if he has the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, since it isn't a natural weapon.

Improved Natural Attack isn't a spell, but since I consider it to be an effect, I'd feel comfortable enough reasserting the position that a monk can qualify to take it since his unarmed strike seems to be special enough to be treated as either a manufactured weapon or a natural weapon, as necessary.


----------



## Borlon

The monk's unarmed attack is considered a manufactured weapon for the purpose of spells and effects.  _Magic weapon_ is a spell.  So for the purposes of _magic weapon_ (including targetting) a monk's unarmed attack is a valid target.

The problem for the Yes side is that the weapon equivalency rule either says too much or too little.  If it said "effects" instead of "spells and effects" then the fact that _magic weapon_ and _magic fang_ both work on monks would necessitate a very generous reading of "effects"- we would have to read it as meaning "effects and the causes of the effects" or "qualifying for effects" or "effects that enhance., etc. and their associated prerequisites" or something of the sort.  And if it mentioned "feats" in addition to "spells and effects," and/or if the words "qualifying for" were in there somewhere, then the Yes side would be obviously correct. 

But neither of these are the case.  It has been argued that "feats" are a kind of effect, but I don't buy it.  If only for the reason that a feat doesn't exist (and thus has/is no effect) before it is taken.  And if it were an effect, then surely a spell is an effect too.  If a spell is an effect too, why is it specifically mentioned?  A successful argument showing that a feat is an effect would have to be such that you could not conclude that a spell is an effect, or the wording of the feat wouldn't make sense.

But showing that _magic weapon_ and _magic fang_ both affect a monk's unarmed attack is only an illustration of the fact that for the purpose of spells, a monk's unarmed attack is counts both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon.  It doesn't address the question of qualifying for feats because feats aren't mentioned in the rule (only spells and effects) and prerequisites aren't mentioned there either (except implicitly, the targetting conditions for spells- but that's because spells are specifically called out).  Prerequisites have to be separate from effects because a feat can't have an effect before it is taken, but it does have prerequisites that have to be satisfied before it is taken.  So prerequisites have different properties than effects, so they can't be effects.


----------



## Artoomis

Well, the "Magic Weapon" does it for me and closes the door on any ambiguity, even.

1.  Magic Weapon requires that a monk have a manufactured weapon BEFORE the spell can be cast.
2.  Both Magic Weapon and the monk description the PHB  clearly state that a monk's unarmed attack may be enhanced by Magic Weapon.

We now have a two sources (monk's class description and Magic Weapon spell) that clearly show how a monk's unarmed attack counts as a weapon to qualify for an spell (at the least) that enhances a manufactured weapon.  

3.  Since the monk description lumps together counting as a manufactured weapon and as a natural weapon into the same sentence, what is true for one must be true for the other at least as far as for when the unarmed strike counts as a weapon (manufactured or natural).

4.  Given  1 thorugh 3, a monk's unarmed strike must count to meet the prerequisite for a natural weapon for INA (if it was a spell).

5.  Finally, how is a spell different from an effect in this case?  It looks like the same logic to me.  In order to gain the benefit of the effect of the MW spell, a monk must FIRST have a manufactured weapon BEFORE the spell is cast.  This looks like a direct analogy to the feat - before gaining the benefit of the effect of the feat a monk must have a natural weapon BEFORE taking the feat.  IF one is true (and it is), then the other must also be true.

Case closed, right?

I am VERY interested in anyone who can come up with any arguments that counter this one.


----------



## Dimwhit

Borlon said:
			
		

> Tell me, if an effect cannot exist before its associated feat, how can you claim that the monk's unarmed attack counts as a natural weapon when it lacks an essential element to being considered a natural weapon- an effect that enhances a natural weapon?
> 
> Feat prerequisites, on the other hand, do exist and do have to be met before their associated feats.  That's what "pre-requisite" means- the criteria which have to be satisfied before the associated entity can become actual.
> 
> Your admission that feats don't have effects before they are taken demolishes your position.  If there is no effect that enhances a natural weapon, then a monk's unarmed attack is not considered a natural weapon.
> 
> By your own words, there is no effect prior to taking the feat.  This is so obvious that you said it was silly for me to actually come out and say it. But if there no effect prior to taking the feat, then there is nothing for which the unarmed attack counts as a natural weapon.  How can you say "It qualifies as a natural weapon so that you can apply some effect to it..." when you have just admitted there is no effect?




One more time...there doesn't have to an effect in place ahead of time. The monk's unarmed strike IS A NATURAL WEAPON for the purpose of any effect that will, at any time in the future, be placed on it.

I don't know why you think the effect has to be in place beforehand. Nothing says it does.

It's basic English.

Besides, the Magic Weapon tie-in above pretty much closes the argument.


----------



## Dimwhit

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I am VERY interested in anyone who can come up with any arguments that counter this one.




They're gonna say a spell description isn't a primary source...


----------



## Artoomis

Damnation:  I spotted a legitimate (if very picky) counter to my own argument.

A spell is actually already "going" for a "touch" range spell before the effect happens.  This means that once cast (but before touching anything), the monk's unarmed strike counts as a manufactured weapon for the spell which is already "going," even though teh effect is nto yet in place.

This distinguishes it from other effects (such as INA).

Oh, well, let the argruments continue...

Really, though, the intent is very clear to me.  They (the unarmed strikes) are natural weapons for spells and effects and anything needed to put that spell or effect in place (such as prerequisites for feats that produce an enhancing effect).

BTW:  I'd let ANY unarmed attack count for INA, though going from 1d4 to 1d6 is probably not worth it, but, given the ambiguity fo all humanoid unarmed attacks and their relationship to natural weapons, I'd allow it.


----------



## Borlon

FireLance said:
			
		

> Borlon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The effect of INA together with NWE makes the monk's unarmed attack count as a natural weapon. If INA has no effect, you are missing an essential ingredient in the recipe that makes the monk's unarmed attack count as a natural weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, things are getting a little clearer, now. I think the confusion arose because I never suggested that Improved Natural Attack makes the monk's unarmed strike into a natural weapon. I only argued that it would enhance it as if it was. To use FoxWander's _magic weapon_ example, the spell enhances a monk's unarmed strike as if it was a manufactured weapon, but it doesn't turn it into a manufactured weapon.
Click to expand...



I'm confused.     Where did I (or anyone else) say that INA makes an unarmed attack into a natural weapon?  I used "counts as" throughout.  I don't know what you are responding to, but it can't be the bit of text you quote from my post.



			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> Looking at the _magic fang_ spell... _magic weapon_...




It's safe to say, I think, that we all know that a monk's unarmed attack counts as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells.  Spells are specifically called out in the rule, and it is unnecessary to remind us of the fact.  It would be like reminding us that the Sage ruled on the question in the latest issue of Dragon.  However feats, unlike spells, are not called out in the monk's weapon equivalency rule.  Neither are prerequisites.



			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> Improved Natural Attack isn't a spell, but since I consider it to be an effect, I'd feel comfortable enough reasserting the position that a monk can qualify to take it since his unarmed strike seems to be special enough to be treated as either a manufactured weapon or a natural weapon, as necessary.




In whatever vague sense a feat is an effect, it isn't anything before it is taken.  Effects do not exist prior to their source.  Prerequisites are distinguished from effects precisely in that they have to be satisfied before their associated entity becomes actual.  They can't be conflated without eliminating this temporal distinction.  And eliminating the temporal distinction would cause chaos to ensue; a character could get the benefit, now, of every feat it will take in its adventuring career.  This extreme scenario would be the result of conflating prerequisites and effects; you can't accept one without the other.


----------



## glass

FoxWander said:
			
		

> And yet the spell clearly states that it *CAN* be cast on a monk. It even gives a reason, "A monk’s unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell."



Yes, it can be enhanced by the spell, rather like it can be enhanced by INA. However, it can't be 'touched', so there is not way to cast the spell on it.



> This is not intended to be a "primary source" on how unarmed strikes operate, but merely how the spell _Magic Weapon_ operates. And since the spell itself references the monk's MWE as the reason for why it operates on a monk, this can be a guideline on how MWE/NWE operates in similar situations.



If it's not the primary source on how unarmed strikes operate, then it cannot overrule how they operate in the combat and equipment chapters. IF it contradict them (as it does here) it is wrong.


> Since pretty much the entire basis for the argument _against_ monk's taking INA has been 'they can't meet the prereqs *before* they have the feat'



Of course. Otherwise, it would hardly be a *pre*requisite, would it?



> I've provided an example of an effect that they *DO* meet the prereqs of (target: weapon touched), via MWE, _before_ they "have" the effect.



You have provided an example of someone on the PHB team making a mistake, nothing more.



> And since the fact that monk's DO qualify as a valid target (because of MWE) is *explicitly* stated in the spell(!) your statement that the spell "certainly cannot be cast on a monk" is, quite simply, wrong. And it's not me saying you're wrong, it's the RAW.



Have you even read the spell decription? 'Target: Weapon touched'. A monk is not a weapon so can't be targetted. How is this difficult?

You could argue that the MWE allows you to target a monk's _unarmed strikes_, although IMO as worded it doesn't, but there is no way you can (sensibly) argue it can target the monk.

_EDIT: For reasons discussed below, I have changed my mind about whether MW can target a monk's unarmed strikes. Some people are still trying to argue it can target the monk himself, which I find interesting._


glass.


----------



## Artoomis

glass said:
			
		

> ...You could argue that the MWE allows you to target a monk's _unarmed strikes_, although IMO as worded it doesn't, but there is no way you can (sensibly) argue it can target the monk.
> 
> 
> glass.




huh?  The monk's class description SPECIFICALLY calls out Magic Weapon as being one of the cases where the monk's unarmed attacks count as a manufactured weapon.

For this to be true, the monk MUST be a legitimate target of the spell which has a target of "weapon touched."


----------



## Borlon

@glass.  The monk uses his whole body for unarmed attacks.  So if you touch his body, you are touching a weapon.  Furthermore, MWE says that the monk's unarmed attacks are treated as manufactured weapons for the purpose of spells that enhance or improve manufactured weapons, so that is why the spell can effect monks; the spell is mentioned and that includes the targeting restrictions of the spell, which can be satisfied before the spell has an effect. 

The rule says nothing about feats or their prerequisites, though, so this doesn't affect the debate on INA.  That is, it doesn't say that the weapon equivalency applies to the prerequisites of a feat that has not yet been taken and so cannot yet be or have an effect.


----------



## glass

glass said:
			
		

> You could argue that the MWE allows you to target a monk's _unarmed strikes_, although IMO as worded it doesn't, but there is no way you can (sensibly) argue it can target the monk.




On second thoughts, I've changed my mind. We have spent so long arguing about effects, I forgot MWE said 'spells or effects'. That said, I'd say you can touch a monks unarmed strike for the purposes of casting spells on it, since fore the purposes of spells it counts as something you can touch. This is a bit of a stretch on it's own, but IMO the line in the spell description  smooths over any cracks.


glass.


----------



## glass

Borlon said:
			
		

> @glass.  The monk uses his whole body for unarmed attacks.  So if you touch his body, you are touching a weapon.



So does everybody else. Can you cast GMW and any creature's unarmed strikes?



> Furthermore, MWE says that the monk's unarmed attacks are treated as manufactured weapons for the purpose of spells that enhance or improve manufactured weapons, so that is why the spell can effect monks; the spell is mentioned and that includes the targeting restrictions of the spell, which can be satisfied before the spell has an effect.



I had forgotten it said 'spell', which is why I have changed my position slightly. It still targets the weapons themsleves, not the monk, though.



> The rule says nothing about feats or their prerequisites, though, so this doesn't affect the debate on INA.  That is, it doesn't say that the weapon equivalency applies to the prerequisites of a feat that has not yet been taken and so cannot yet be or have an effect.



Quite.


glass.


----------



## Dimwhit

Borlon said:
			
		

> The rule says nothing about feats or their prerequisites, though, so this doesn't affect the debate on INA.  That is, it doesn't say that the weapon equivalency applies to the prerequisites of a feat that has not yet been taken and so cannot yet be or have an effect.




Just what do you think a prerequisite is?


----------



## Artoomis

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> One more time...there doesn't have to an effect in place ahead of time. The monk's unarmed strike IS A NATURAL WEAPON for the purpose of any effect that will, at any time in the future, be placed on it.
> 
> I don't know why you think the effect has to be in place beforehand. Nothing says it does.
> 
> It's basic English...




I agree.  The distinction between "treated as... natural weapons" for having the effect and qualifying for it seem to me to be rather strained, to say the least.


----------



## glass

Artoomis said:
			
		

> huh?  The monk's class description SPECIFICALLY calls out Magic Weapon as being one of the cases where the monk's unarmed attacks count as a manufactured weapon.
> 
> For this to be true, the monk MUST be a legitimate target of the spell which has a target of "weapon touched."



Read what you have just posted again carefully. Can you see the disconnect between your paragraphs?

The monk's unarmed strikes count as manufactured weapons, not the monk himself. Even if you could cast it on the monk (which you can't), it wouldn't do anything if you did because (G)MW (unlike (G)MF) affect the weapons it targets, not weapons possesed by the creature it targets.


glass.


----------



## Artoomis

glass said:
			
		

> Read what you have just posted again carefully. Can you see the disconnect between your paragraphs?
> 
> The monk's unarmed strikes count as manufactured weapons, not the monk himself. Even if you could cast it on the monk (which you can't), it wouldn't do anything if you did because (G)MW (unlike (G)MF) affect the weapons it targets, not weapons possesed by the creature it targets.
> 
> 
> glass.




Well, technically it's the monk's unarmed strike, but it amounts to the same thing, right?

Edit:  That's because he can strike with any part of his body.


----------



## glass

glass said:
			
		

> So does everybody else. Can you cast GMW and any creatures unarmed strikes?



I had mostly been refering to (G)MW to refer to both Magic Weapon and its Greater sibling, in the belief that they were both 'target: weapon touched'. They are not: GMW targets a weapon, saying nothing about touching.

Interesting I should forget the parentheses here, because the answer could be said to be 'yes'. Unlike MW, you can cast GMW on anyone's unarmed strikes, because you don't have to touch them!


glass.


----------



## Artoomis

glass said:
			
		

> I had mostly been refering to (G)MW to refer to both Magic Weapon and its Greater sibling, in the belief that they were both 'target: weapon touched'. They are not: GMW targets a weapon, saying nothing about touching.
> 
> Interesting I should forget the parentheses here, because the answer could be said to be 'yes'. Unlike MW, you can cast GMW on anyone's unarmed strikes, because you don't have to touch them!
> 
> 
> glass.




GMW is indeed a different case.  Touch spells start before the the "touch" is done - we know this because you can hold a touch spell and wait for your target - so the spell already exists.

For GMW, the range is "Close," not "Touch."  This is entirely different.  For a monk's unarmed attack to qualify the reasoning would have to be the same as for the feat, I think.

This is all getting rather hype-technical.  I think it is pretty clear that the monk's unarmed attack is meant to be treated as a manufactured or natural weapon for any spell or effect and qualifying for spells or effects.


----------



## Borlon

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Just what do you think a prerequisite is?




A condition that has to be met before something else can happen.


----------



## Dimwhit

Borlon said:
			
		

> A condition that has to be met before something else can happen.



 There you go. Before you can take INA, you must have a natural weapon, or something that is considered a natural weapon. Monk's have what is considered to be a natural weapon. Monks can take INA.

You all are making it out to be WAY more complicated than it is.


----------



## Artoomis

Borlon said:
			
		

> A condition that has to be met before something else can happen.




Rigt:

To qualify for XXX you must first have YYY.  "YYY" is the prerequisite(s).

The tricky part is that if you are said to have "YYY" for the purpose of "XXX," then can you actually take "XXX?"  Of course, I say yes,  by any plain reading.


----------



## Artoomis

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> There you go. Before you can take INA, you must have a natural weapon, or something that is considered a natural weapon. Monk's have what is considered to be a natural weapon. Monks can take INA.
> 
> You all are making it out to be WAY more complicated than it is.




Agreed - simple, isn't it?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> You all are making it out to be WAY more complicated than it is.




I disagree; rather, you are ignoring parts of the rules in an attempt to simplify them, such that you seem correct.

That's not the right way to go about this.


----------



## Borlon

glass said:
			
		

> Borlon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> @glass. The monk uses his whole body for unarmed attacks. So if you touch his body, you are touching a weapon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So does everybody else. Can you cast GMW and any creatures unarmed strikes?
Click to expand...



What does everybody else do?

In your second sentence, do you mean "Can you cast GMW on any creature's unarmed strikes?"  I would say that only if they are a monk will their unarmed strikes count as manufactured weapons.  Otherwise they could be in range (touch/close, doesn't matter) but they aren't the right kind of weapon.  If they are monks, then their body is their weapon, and could be touched/would be in range.


----------



## Borlon

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Rigt:
> 
> To qualify for XXX you must first have YYY.  "YYY" is the prerequisite(s).
> 
> The tricky part is that if you are said to have "YYY" for the purpose of "XXX," then can you actually take "XXX?"  Of course, I say yes,  by any plain reading.




If the rule said that you have natural weapons for the purpose of "qualifying for feats that enhance or improve natural weapons" then I'd say yes, too.  If you have natural weapons for the purpose of "spells and effects that enhance or improve natural weapons" I'd say that it only applies for spells and effects, not for qualifying for feats.


----------



## Artoomis

Borlon said:
			
		

> If the rule said that you have natural weapons for the purpose of "qualifying for feats that enhance or improve natural weapons" then I'd say yes, too.  If you have natural weapons for the purpose of "spells and effects that enhance or improve natural weapons" I'd say that it only applies for spells and effects, not for qualifying for feats.




In other words, it only counts if the spell or effect is _already in place_?  That way lies madness...

In fact, that way, I think they won't be able to be enhanced by any effect that requires they have a natural weapon or manufactured weapon.  Does that not seem... wrong... to you?


----------



## Dimwhit

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> I disagree; rather, you are ignoring parts of the rules in an attempt to simplify them, such that you seem correct.
> 
> That's not the right way to go about this.



 No, I'm just not giving the term 'prerequisite' some sentient existence.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Sentient ...

"I do not think it means what you think it means."


----------



## glass

Borlon said:
			
		

> In your second sentence, do you mean "Can you cast GMW on any creature's unarmed strikes?"



Yes I did. I'll go and edit in the apostrophe when I've finished with this reply.


> I would say that only if they are a monk will their unarmed strikes count as manufactured weapons.  Otherwise they could be in range (touch/close, doesn't matter) but they aren't the right kind of weapon.  If they are monks, then their body is their weapon, and could be touched/would be in range.



Unarmed strikes always count as manufactured weapons for most purposes, you just can't actually touch them. A monk's ability overcomes that for MW, but for GMW you don't need to touch them.

You could argue (in fact I did for a while) that because unarmed strikes are a concept rather than a physical item you can't target them with spells at all, but if that is the case MWE doesn't work either.


glass.


----------



## Dimwhit

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Sentient ...
> 
> "I do not think it means what you think it means."



 Yes I do. You're giving it a life of its own and a function beyond what it really has.


----------



## Artoomis

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Yes I do. You're giving it a life of its own and a function beyond what it really has.




Go back and edit the grammer in the sentence you typed earlier to clear it up - it's not right.

I think you meant:

No, I'm just not giv*ing* the term 'prerequisite' some sentient existence.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Yes I do. You're giving it a life of its own and a function beyond what it really has.




Again, I don't think that word means what you think it means.



			
				Merriam Webster Online said:
			
		

> 1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
> 2 : AWARE
> 3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling




Sentient doesn't mean "alive."

I'm giving prereqs exactly the kind of "life" it needs.  You must meet a prereq before you can take a feat.  Since human monks don't treat their unarmed strikes as natural weapons for purposes of meeting prerequisites, they don't meet prerequisites that say "natural weapon."


----------



## Dimwhit

Well, you seemed to have figured it out just fine. But I will fix it.


----------



## Dimwhit

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Again, I don't think that word means what you think it means.
> 
> 
> 
> Sentient doesn't mean "alive."
> 
> I'm giving prereqs exactly the kind of "life" it needs.  You must meet a prereq before you can take a feat.  Since human monks don't treat their unarmed strikes as natural weapons for purposes of meeting prerequisites, they don't meet prerequisites that say "natural weapon."



 Saying a feat requires a natural weapon is the same as saying, for example, that GMW requires a manufactured weapon. No difference. Same result. Meeting a prereq for a feat is the same as meeting it for a spell.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Saying a feat requires a natural weapon is the same as saying, for example, that GMW requires a manufactured weapon. No difference. Same result. Meeting a prereq for a feat is the same as meeting it for a spell.




Except, of course, that it isn't.  One's a spel, the other is neither a spell nor an effect.


----------



## Artoomis

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Again, ....  You must meet a prereq before you can take a feat.  Since human monks don't treat their unarmed strikes as natural weapons for purposes of meeting prerequisites, they don't meet prerequisites that say "natural weapon."




If that were true, then monks could hardly qualify for anything that enhances weapons for natural weapons, which surely is not the intent here.

In fact, normal reading would say that if applicability for prerequisites was NOT intended, than that should be specifically spelled out, not the other way around.  

Normally, if one says you are considered to have "XXX" for the purpose of "YYY," you also mean that you qualify for "YYY."


----------



## Dimwhit

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Except, of course, that it isn't.  One's a spel, the other is neither a spell nor an effect.



 Wrong. A feat 'effects' the natural weapon in the same way a spell 'effects' the natural weapon. And the Monks qualifies to receive (or take) both in exactly the same manner.


----------



## Artoomis

never mind


----------



## Dimwhit

Yeah, sorry. Not paying attention.

Stinkin' grammar cop!


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Artoomis said:
			
		

> If that were true, then monks could hardly qualify for anything that enhances weapons for natural weapons, which surely is not the intent here.




I disagree, of course.  They benefit from the Magic Fang spell (and other similar spells), they benefit from the effects of an alignment subtype, they can benefit from the INA feat (if they can take it), among other things (such as PrCs with abilities that improve natural weapons).



> In fact, normal reading would say that if applicability for prerequisites was NOT intended, than that should be specifically spelled out, not the other way around.




Really?  'Cause from where I'm sitting, "normal reading" would say that if applicability for prerequisites WAS intended, it would have been specifically called out.  It wasn't, so it isn't.



> Normally, if one says you are considered to have "XXX" for the purpose of "YYY," you also mean that you qualify for "YYY."




I think Hyp's bar examples completely demolish this position.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> A feat 'effects' the natural weapon in the same way a spell 'effects' the natural weapon.




In that neither "effect" anything?


----------



## Dimwhit

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> In that neither "effect" anything?



 Yeah, yeah, Artoomis already got me on that.

We've just been using the word 'effect' so much I forgot about 'affect.'


----------



## Elephant

Interesting...



			
				D20SRD.ORG said:
			
		

> Magic weapon gives a weapon a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. (An enhancement bonus does not stack with a masterwork weapon’s +1 bonus on attack rolls.)
> 
> 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.




And in Magic Fang,



			
				D20SRD.ORG said:
			
		

> Magic fang gives one natural weapon of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon. (The spell does not change an unarmed strike’s damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage.)




But then, 



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> Unless otherwise noted, a natural weapon threatens a critical hit on a natural attack roll of 20.
> 
> When a creature has more than one natural weapon, one of them (or sometimes a pair or set of them) is the primary weapon. All the creature’s remaining natural weapons are secondary.
> 
> The primary weapon is given in the creature’s Attack entry, and the primary weapon or weapons is given first in the creature’s Full Attack entry. A creature’s primary natural weapon is its most effective natural attack, usually by virtue of the creature’s physiology, training, or innate talent with the weapon. An attack with a primary natural weapon uses the creature’s full attack bonus. Attacks with secondary natural weapons are less effective and are made with a -5 penalty on the attack roll, no matter how many there are. (Creatures with the Multiattack feat take only a -2 penalty on secondary attacks.) This penalty applies even when the creature makes a single attack with the secondary weapon as part of the attack action or as an attack of opportunity.
> 
> Natural weapons have types just as other weapons do. The most common are summarized below.
> 
> ...
> 
> Slap or Slam
> 
> The creature batters opponents with an appendage, dealing bludgeoning damage.




And under Ability score loss, 



> The ability that some creatures have to drain ability scores is a supernatural one, requiring some sort of attack. Such creatures do not drain abilities from enemies when the enemies strike them, even with unarmed attacks or natural weapons.




So...is an unarmed strike a natural weapon or not?  The RAW does not give a clear answer to this question and even contradicts itself in several places.


----------



## Storm Raven

Yes, monks can take Improved Natural Attack.

Oh look, the debate is over in my game.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

The problem seems to be that some designer, somewhere, decided that "human fist" is synonymous with "unarmed strike."


----------



## Borlon

glass said:
			
		

> I'll go and edit in the apostrophe when I've finished with this reply.




It was more the "and" in place of the "on" that was puzzling.  I find when I post hastily that what is clear to me is rarely clear to the reader.  And I find that if I take the time to compose a thoughtful reply, the number of typos goes down as well.  At the very least, people will respond to my substantive points rather than the way I express them.



			
				glass said:
			
		

> Unarmed strikes always count as manufactured weapons for most purposes, you just can't actually touch them. A monk's ability overcomes that for MW, but for GMW you don't need to touch them.
> 
> You could argue (in fact I did for a while) that because unarmed strikes are a concept rather than a physical item you can't target them with spells at all, but if that is the case MWE doesn't work either.




I thought that a variety of body parts were the means by which unarmed strikes were delivered, and you could just touch the creature. The monk's ability doesn't eliminate the range restriction of a spell, I don't think.  But since it doesn't seem to be an issue anymore, so probably no need to go into the details.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> In fact, normal reading would say that if applicability for prerequisites was NOT intended, than that should be specifically spelled out, not the other way around.




I would think that if something is normally disallowed, then if a rule doesn't specifically say it is allowed, then it isn't.  If something is normally disallowed, then there is no need for another rule to repeat the fact that it is not allowed.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> Normally, if one says you are considered to have "XXX" for the purpose of "YYY," you also mean that you qualify for "YYY."




The other examples I'm aware of involve half-orcs and half-elves, and seem to involve unexpected complexities when it comes to satisfying prerequisites.  I think the discussion on those topics (a few pages back) was inconclusive.



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Yes, monks can take Improved Natural Attack.
> 
> Oh look, the debate is over in my game.




I'm glad to hear it.  Was your decision based on reasoning found in this thread?  Not that it needs to be- it is perfectly ok, in your game, to make decisions based on a gut feeling.  It is even more ok to run your game in accord with the Sage advice column.  But there is a difference of opinion about whether the Sage's recent ruling was justified based on the RAW, or if it was an addition to the RAW.

If you have a reasoned position on this question, please feel free to share it.


----------



## Dinkeldog

Please remember to keep things nice, or this thread will go the way of the last one.


----------



## Storm Raven

Borlon said:
			
		

> I'm glad to hear it.  Was your decision based on reasoning found in this thread?




Not really, because all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth going on in this thread over whether a feat is an "effect" or something that merely grants an "effect" and all of the other hair splitting is entirely beside the point.



> _Not that it needs to be- it is perfectly ok, in your game, to make decisions based on a gut feeling.  It is even more ok to run your game in accord with the Sage advice column.  But there is a difference of opinion about whether the Sage's recent ruling was justified based on the RAW, or if it was an addition to the RAW._






My position is this - you have a poorly defined term: the monk's unarmed attack is treated as a natural weapon or a manufactured weapon for the purpose related to spells and effects, but it doesn't really spell out explicitly what an "effect" is. Some people read it ridiculously narrowly. On the other hand, it doesn't actually damage the way the game plays to read "effect" broadly for this purpose, and conclude that a feat is an effect, and that it is intended that monks be allowed to benefit from it, especially since we have a reasonably competent arbiter stating that this is exactly the intent.

Everything else is just being silly, splitting nonexistent hairs, and running about waving your arms for no really useful purpose.


----------



## Dimwhit

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Everything else is just being silly, splitting nonexistent hairs, and running about waving your arms for no really useful purpose.




Of course! This is the rules forum, you know.


----------



## Borlon

Artoomis said:
			
		

> In other words, it only counts if the spell or effect is _already in place_?  That way lies madness...
> 
> In fact, that way, I think they won't be able to be enhanced by any effect that requires they have a natural weapon or manufactured weapon.  Does that not seem... wrong... to you?




Spells are mentioned in the equivalency rule, and so a monk's unarmed attack qualifies both for targetting and effects.

Feats are not mentioned, but if an already taken feat has an effect that enhances a natural weapon, the monk's unarmed attack qualifies.

But a feat's prerequisites are not effects, because they precede the feat and that is something that a feat's effects cannot do.  Since they are not effects, the monk's unarmed attack doesn't count as a natural weapon for the purpose of prerequisites.

And aside from INA, how many feats, prestige classes or racial substitution levels are we talking about, anyway?  Or is INA the only one?



			
				Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Everything else is just being silly, splitting nonexistent hairs, and running about waving your arms for no really useful purpose.




So are you going to join us?  You know you want to- else why post to this thread?


----------



## Hypersmurf

Borlon said:
			
		

> The problem for the Yes side is that the weapon equivalency rule either says too much or too little.  If it said "effects" instead of "spells and effects" then the fact that _magic weapon_ and _magic fang_ both work on monks would necessitate a very generous reading of "effects"- we would have to read it as meaning "effects and the causes of the effects" or "qualifying for effects" or "effects that enhance., etc. and their associated prerequisites" or something of the sort.  And if it mentioned "feats" in addition to "spells and effects," and/or if the words "qualifying for" were in there somewhere, then the Yes side would be obviously correct.




If it said 'effects' rather than 'spells and effects', you could still make a case to allow GMW without allowing INA.

You must satisfy a feat's prerequisites before a feat can be taken.

However, you don't need to be a valid target for a spell _before_ a spell comes into effect.

"_You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect._"

So, the spell is 'in effect' at the time a target is chosen... and target validity is determined when the target is chosen.

Contrast this with a feat, whose prerequisites msut be met _before_ the feat can be considered 'in effect'.

-Hyp.


----------



## FoxWander

Borlon said:
			
		

> Spells are mentioned in the equivalency rule, and so a monk's unarmed attack qualifies both for targetting and effects.



Given that statement, and this one...


			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> Furthermore, MWE says that the monk's unarmed attacks are treated as manufactured weapons for the purpose of spells that enhance or improve manufactured weapons, so that is why the spell can effect monks; the spell is mentioned and that includes the targeting restrictions of the spell, which can be satisfied before the spell has an effect.




I have a few questions for you:

1. Would you agree that the monk's equivalency rule qualifies a monk's unarmed strikes for both targetting and effects?

2. Do you agree with often-stated-here idea that "prerequisites" are functionally identical to a spell's "target"?

3. Does the monk's equivalency rule make him a valid target of a spell _before_ the spell has an effect?


----------



## Hypersmurf

FoxWander said:
			
		

> 3. Does the monk's equivalency rule make him a valid target of a spell _before_ the spell has an effect?




See above.  Targets are not chosen until the spell comes into effect, so the situation is inherently different to a feat.

-Hyp.


----------



## FoxWander

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> See above.  Targets are not chosen until the spell comes into effect, so the situation is inherently different to a feat.
> 
> -Hyp.



Yes, but the spell doesn't choose the target, the spell_caster_ does. In order to cast _Magic Weapon_ on a monk in the first place, he must be a valid target of the spell. So is he a valid target _before_ or _after_ the spell is cast?


----------



## Hypersmurf

FoxWander said:
			
		

> So is he a valid target _before_ or _after_ the spell is cast?




He's a valid target _when_ the spell is cast, which is when targets must be selected.

-Hyp.


----------



## Infiniti2000

FoxWander said:
			
		

> Yes, but the spell doesn't choose the target, the spell_caster_ does. In order to cast _Magic Weapon_ on a monk in the first place, he must be a valid target of the spell. So is he a valid target _before_ or _after_ the spell is cast?



 He's always a valid target because he's a living creature.  There's no difference between 'before' and 'after'.  However, let's say the wizard/monk readied to dimension door when the druid cast magic fang.  The druid's spell would still be cast, but before it comes into effect the druid would choose the target.  The monk is no longer a choice because he's out of range, so perhaps the druid could select her animal companion or just lose the spell.  So, I think the answer you're begging the question on is 'after', but it's the wrong question.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> He's always a valid target because he's a living creature.




Magic Weapon, not Magic Fang 

-Hyp.


----------



## Borlon

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If it said 'effects' rather than 'spells and effects', you could still make a case to allow GMW without allowing INA.
> 
> You must satisfy a feat's prerequisites before a feat can be taken.
> 
> However, you don't need to be a valid target for a spell _before_ a spell comes into effect.
> 
> "_You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect._"
> 
> So, the spell is 'in effect' at the time a target is chosen... and target validity is determined when the target is chosen.
> 
> Contrast this with a feat, whose prerequisites msut be met _before_ the feat can be considered 'in effect'.
> 
> -Hyp.




Does it make a difference that the spell description says "you can't cast this spell on a natural weapon"?

@FoxWander: it appears that targetting doesn't, in general, work like prerequisites.  I think there is an exception for MW; but I want to see what Hypersmurf says.

If I said "Yes, targetting restrictions are functionally the same as prerequisites" what would follow?


----------



## Hypersmurf

Borlon said:
			
		

> Does it make a difference that the spell description says "you can't cast this spell on a natural weapon"?




What sort of difference?  A claw is a valid target for Magic Weapon, but the spell cannot be cast on it.

-Hyp.


----------



## FireLance

Borlon said:
			
		

> I'm confused.     Where did I (or anyone else) say that INA makes an unarmed attack into a natural weapon?  I used "counts as" throughout.  I don't know what you are responding to, but it can't be the bit of text you quote from my post.
> 
> (middle snipped)
> 
> In whatever vague sense a feat is an effect, it isn't anything before it is taken.  Effects do not exist prior to their source.  Prerequisites are distinguished from effects precisely in that they have to be satisfied before their associated entity becomes actual.  They can't be conflated without eliminating this temporal distinction.  And eliminating the temporal distinction would cause chaos to ensue; a character could get the benefit, now, of every feat it will take in its adventuring career.  This extreme scenario would be the result of conflating prerequisites and effects; you can't accept one without the other.



Ah, even clearer now. I misread your comment about using the effect of a feat to meet its own prerequiste. I believe your reasoning was along the lines of:

1. A monk's unarmed strike is not considered a natural weapon.
2. If a monk were to somehow take the Improved Natural Attack feat, his unarmed strike would be considered a natural weapon.
3. However, since the monk's unarmed strike is not a natural weapon in the first place, he cannot take the feat.
4. If he did, that would be using the effect of the feat to qualify for it.

Whereas from my perspective, whether or not the monk takes the feat has no bearing on whether or not his unarmed strike is considered a natural weapon.

If his unarmed strike is considered a natural weapon, he qualifies for the feat and can benefit from it. If his unarmed strike is not considered a natural weapon, he cannot benefit from the feat even if he somehow manages to acquire it.



> It's safe to say, I think, that we all know that a monk's unarmed attack counts as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells.  Spells are specifically called out in the rule, and it is unnecessary to remind us of the fact.  It would be like reminding us that the Sage ruled on the question in the latest issue of Dragon.  However feats, unlike spells, are not called out in the monk's weapon equivalency rule.  Neither are prerequisites.



So we're back to the discussion of whether a feat is an effect or a prerequisite is an effect. As Storm Raven points out, "effect" is undefined in the rules, and some of us interpret it more broadly than others. Elf blood and Orc blood mention "effects" only. Presumably, "effects" also includes spells in that context, assuming we ever have a spell that works differently depending on whether the target is an orc, an elf, or a human (or is considered to be one of the above). Races of Eberron contains spells that require you to be a dwarf, or which gnomes can cast at +1 caster level. Presumably, if you were a dwarf-bonded stoneblessed or a gnome-bonded stoneblessed, you also interact with those spells as if you were a dwarf or a gnome, although the text of the stoneblessed PrC description mentions "effects" only. Races of Stone also has text which can be interpreted to mean that qualifying for a racial substitution level is an "effect", and therefore, qualifying for racial prestige classes and feats should also be "effects". Races of Destiny even goes so far as to say that the elf subtype qualifies a half-elf to take elf-only prestige classes.

It's an argument based on a lot of cross-referencing and implication, but the alternative argument from the rules is that some feats and prestige classes have prerequisites of "elf or half-elf" or "orc or half-orc", and others simply have prerequisites of "elf" and "orc".

All the above leads me to adopt a more generous interpretation of what an "effect" is, but as always, YMMV.


----------



## Borlon

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> What sort of difference?  A claw is a valid target for Magic Weapon, but the spell cannot be cast on it.
> 
> -Hyp.




Maybe my days of MTG are messing me up; there, if you didn't have a valid target, you couldn't cast the spell.  In D&D you can always cast the spell, but the spell fizzles if you don't have a valid target.  And the extra line in the text of MW doesn't change it.

Is this correct?

@FireLance: I don't think we need to get into the racial prerequisite stuff to solve this problem.  I have a different worry:

My main concern revolves around "prevenience"- the notion that an effect can precede its cause.  I understand that prerequisites are around before their associated feats; that's what the *pre*requisite means.  But I don't like the notion that an effect enhancing a natural weapon could be around before the feat that provides the effect is around.

I was under the impression that targetting took place before a spell had its effects; that targetting was a prevenient phenomenon.  Hypersmurf has quoted a rule to the effect that this is mistaken.  So it seems that only prerequisites are prevenient.  

If the enhancement from INA is going to make the monk's unarmed attack count as a natural weapon, it has to do it at the time when the prerequisites are satisfied, which is before the feat is taken.  To do this, the enhancement effect would have to be prevenient.  I can't see how this is possible.

Let me ask a question: In your opinion does a 3rd level monk meet the natural weapon prerequisite of INA?  He hasn't multiclassed, so his BAB is only +2; he *doesn't* meet the BAB prerequisite.  But does he meet the natural weapon prerequisite?  

I would immediately answer no.  If his unarmed attack counts as a natural weapon for the purpose of the INA feat at level 3, then that means that, somehow, the INA feat is enhancing his weapon even though he isn't going to take it for another 3 levels.  Is this monk therefore doing damage as a monk one size category larger because of the feat that he someday might take?  I certainly hope not!

Now, I proposed a principle that when X counts as Y for the purpose of effects, it counts as Y for the purpose of prerequisites.  I call it the principle of prerequisite conversion.  I think it is a sensible rule, and it allows INA to be taken by human monks.  I just think it is an addition to the rules, not implied by them.

My claim is that any attempt to eliminate the distinction between prerequisites and effects runs into the prevenience problem; if there is not distinction then effects, like prerequisites, can exist prior to their associated feats.  And that leads to 3rd level monks getting the benefit of a feat they haven't taken and don't yet qualify for.

If you can solve the prevenience problem for me, then you might have a convert.


----------



## Dimwhit

Borlon said:
			
		

> If the enhancement from INA is going to make the monk's unarmed attack count as a natural weapon, it has to do it at the time when the prerequisites are satisfied, which is before the feat is taken.  To do this, the enhancement effect would have to be prevenient.  I can't see how this is possible.




INA doesn't make the monk's unarmed attack count as a natural weapon. It takes the monk's natural weapon and causes it to do more damage.



> Let me ask a question: In your opinion does a 3rd level monk meet the natural weapon prerequisite of INA?  He hasn't multiclassed, so his BAB is only +2; he *doesn't* meet the BAB prerequisite.  But does he meet the natural weapon prerequisite?




Yes, but until the BAB is higher, he can't take the feat. He's still sitting there with what is considered a natural weapon for that purpose. But since there are other requirements, he has to wait.



> I would immediately answer no.  If his unarmed attack counts as a natural weapon for the purpose of the INA feat at level 3, then that means that, somehow, the INA feat is enhancing his weapon even though he isn't going to take it for another 3 levels.  Is this monk therefore doing damage as a monk one size category larger because of the feat that he someday might take?  I certainly hope not!




No, because the monk doesn't even have the INA feat yet, so he can't do the extra damage. But he can take the feat when his BAB is higher.



> Now, I proposed a principle that when X counts as Y for the purpose of effects, it counts as Y for the purpose of prerequisites.  I call it the principle of prerequisite conversion.  I think it is a sensible rule, and it allows INA to be taken by human monks.  I just think it is an addition to the rules, not implied by them.
> 
> My claim is that any attempt to eliminate the distinction between prerequisites and effects runs into the prevenience problem; if there is not distinction then effects, like prerequisites, can exist prior to their associated feats.  And that leads to 3rd level monks getting the benefit of a feat they haven't taken and don't yet qualify for.
> 
> If you can solve the prevenience problem for me, then you might have a convert.




I think you're getting a little too...metaphysical or something. I had an example all typed out, but it was lame. Proved my point nicely, though. You would have been very impressed and easily swayed to my position. Trust me.


----------



## Borlon

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> INA doesn't make the monk's unarmed attack count as a natural weapon. It takes the monk's natural weapon and causes it to do more damage.




Sure it does.  It enhances a natural weapon.  And that makes the unarmed attack count as a natural weapon.



			
				Dimwhit said:
			
		

> He's still sitting there with what is considered a natural weapon for that purpose.... I had an example all typed out, but it was lame.




Ok.  I have a lame example, too. 

Think of the monk as having two little LEDs on his forehead.  The green one glows when his unarmed attacks are enhanced by an effect that enhances a natural weapon.  The red one glows when his unarmed attacks are enhanced by an effect that enhances a manufactured weapon.  When he's hanging around at 3rd level, nothing is affecting him and both lights are off.

_Magic Fang_ will make it go on, but it's a dim light, 'cause it's only on for the _magic fang_.  If he puts on a ring that grants him INA, the green light will go on, but still dim, since it is only on for the INA granted by the ring.  Turns out that the green light goes on and off at exactly the same times as his unarmed attacks count as natural weapons.  The red light goes on and off when his unarmed attacks count as manufactured weapons.

But when he reaches 6th level, the light is off, or if it's on, it is only on for other effects (say he has a _permanent magic fang_- that isn't on bright enough)  And the prerequisite for INA effectively says "green light must be on."  INA can't turn the light on until he takes it, but until he takes it, the green light is either off, or so dim it might as well be off.

If, prior to 6th level, he acquires a natural weapon (by a graft or something) then the green light will be on bright enough that he can take the INA feat.


----------



## Artoomis

Borlon said:
			
		

> ...Now, I proposed a principle that when X counts as Y for the purpose of effects, it counts as Y for the purpose of prerequisites.  I call it the principle of prerequisite conversion.  I think it is a sensible rule, and it allows INA to be taken by human monks.  I just think it is an addition to the rules, not implied by them.
> ...




Well, I think that your priniciple is indeed implied by the rules.  I think that, unless stated otherwise or somehow made clear, that's exactly the way one would normally treat this situation.

Otherwise you get the very odd situation where a monk's attack counts as a natural weapon for INA but only if somehow the monk can get INA, like through having some other natural weapon.  

Now that just plain does not make good sense, and, by the way, a fist may very well qualify as natural weapon anyway because unarmed attacks (and fists) are so poorly defined and a fist and/or an unarmed attack is specifically cited as a natural weapon more than once in the rules.


----------



## Borlon

We might be using a different sense of the word "implies."  I'm using it in a kind of strict, technical sense, as if I were to say that "the fact that all mammals have kidneys implies that rabbits have kidneys, because rabbits are mammals."

Perhaps there is a looser sense of the word that is appropriate to D&D.  Call it "implize."  A implize B if, given A, B makes it easier to play the game, the designer would be expected to presuppose B when writing other rules, B minimizes player confusion and frustration, B is easier to remember and so on.  In short, B makes good sense.  If that is the case then I would certainly agree that A implize B.

Anyways, the discussion is about what the rules imply.  And I hold that the PPC is not implied by the rules in the strict, technical sense.  The PPC says that one thing is treated as another thing when the default situation would be that the two things are different.  It is not normally the case that things that are different are treated as the same.  You need a special rule to allow them to be treated the same; you don't need a special rule to preserve the status quo.  So I have to disagree with you when you say 



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> I think that your principle is indeed implied by the rules. I think that, unless stated otherwise or somehow made clear, that's exactly the way one would normally treat this situation.




The rules might implize my principle, but I don't think they imply it.  If they did imply it, then a very careful, step by step proof would be possible that the rules do imply the principle.  But no one has provided a proof, even a preliminary one.

***

Hey!  Know what?  This thread is by far the longest thread ever to appear in the Rules Forum.  Count the closed thread and the other poll, and we are well over 900 posts.  Do you think we're getting any closer to a consensus?


----------



## Artoomis

Borlon said:
			
		

> ...Hey!  Know what?  This thread is by far the longest thread ever to appear in the Rules Forum.  Count the closed thread and the other poll, and we are well over 900 posts.  Do you think we're getting any closer to a consensus?




No, I don't!!

And I think it does imply the PPC.  By normal english reading.  I think it takes a strained reading to get to where you can qualify for the feat (you can get it's effects) but not to take the feat, which is essentially what folks are saying.

BTW:  What do you think of the approach that says that virtually EVERYONE has a natural weapon due to multiple references of fist and unarmed attacks as natural weapons.  Thus anyone can qualify for INA, and, thus, a monk can take it.


----------



## Dimwhit

Borlon said:
			
		

> Sure it does.  It enhances a natural weapon.  And that makes the unarmed attack count as a natural weapon.




No, an unarmed attacked doesn't have to be enhanced before it's a natural weapon. All INA does is enhance an existing natural weapon, and the Monk's unarmed attack is counted as a natural weapon for spells and other effects. So they're already natural attacks before being enhanced.

I guess what I'm saying is that a monster's natural weapon is such before being enhanced by INA. So INA doesn't make an unarmed attack a natural weapon, it only enhances them.


----------



## Borlon

Artoomis said:
			
		

> No, I don't!!




Me neither.  :\ 



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> And I think it does imply the PPC.  By normal english reading.  I think it takes a strained reading to get to where you can qualify for the feat (you can get it's effects) but not to take the feat, which is essentially what folks are saying.




Any new arguments?  Or maybe you could go through your old argument step by step, nice and slow and careful, so even we stubborn rules lawyers can follow it?  Remember to spell out even things that seem obvious- because there is, no doubt, something that seems obvious to you that does not seem obvious to me.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> BTW:  What do you think of the approach that says that virtually EVERYONE has a natural weapon due to multiple references of fist and unarmed attacks as natural weapons.  Thus anyone can qualify for INA, and, thus, a monk can take it.




I think Hypersmurf demolished this thesis pretty decisively.  I don't remember exactly where; this thread needs an index with hyperlinks!  But he says that if we had natural weapons we would always threaten the area around us, we would use different rules for TWF and iterative attacks, and so on, and so on.  

What's the alternative to thinking all the rules that Hypersmurf cites are wrong?  How do you account for the handful of cases where fists or unarmed strikes are referred to as natural weapons?  IMHO it is much easier to assume that a designer was a bit careless when writing the Kensai class.  And that the _magic fang_ and _magic weapon_ spells focus on what their targets are made of (natural-born flesh and bone = natural weapon, handcrafted metal and wood = manufactured weapon) than on the precise rules designations for a monk's unarmed attacks and other characters' unarmed strikes.


----------



## Trainz

Borlon said:
			
		

> But he says that if we had natural weapons we would always threaten the area around us.




Doesn't a monk actually threaten since he's considered armed ?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Trainz said:
			
		

> Doesn't a monk actually threaten since he's considered armed ?




Yes, but that's because he's got the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.

If he had a natural weapon, he wouldn't need that feat - and neither would Joe Commoner, either.


----------



## glass

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> No, an unarmed attacked doesn't have to be enhanced before it's a natural weapon. All INA does is enhance an existing natural weapon, and the Monk's unarmed attack is counted as a natural weapon for spells and other effects. So they're already natural attacks before being enhanced.



Humans aren't in the monsters section of the SRD, but elves are. Elves have unarmed strikes too, right, so they'll do.


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Attack: Longsword +2 melee (1d8+1/19–20) or longbow +3 ranged (1d8/x3)



So elves have unarmed strikes, but no natural weapons (unless you consider that the longsword and the longbow are somehow built in  ).

Halfling and dwarves have similar listings. So, if halflings, dwarves and elves do not have natural weapons despite having unarmed strikes (and fists), how is it that humans do?


glass.


----------



## FireLance

Borlon said:
			
		

> If the enhancement from INA is going to make the monk's unarmed attack count as a natural weapon, it has to do it at the time when the prerequisites are satisfied, which is before the feat is taken.  To do this, the enhancement effect would have to be prevenient.  I can't see how this is possible.



There's no question of prevenience from my perspective, because the the enhancement from INA doesn't make the monk's unarmed strike count as a natural weapon. What makes the monk's unarmed strike count as a natural weapon is the sentence in the description of its class features which states:
"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 manufactured weapons or natural weapons."

Most people agree that this sentence applies to the benefits, i.e. the feat would improve the monk's unarmed strike if the monk could take it. The question is whether this sentence applies to the prerequisites of a feat, i.e. the monk can qualify to take the feat on the strength of this sentence. The argument is not so much that the effects of the feat reach back in time to apply to the prerequisite, but that the class feature that enables him to gain the benefits of the feat should also apply to the prerequisite when determining whether he can take it.

This is where the discussion on racial prerequisites becomes relevant. The word "effect" is also used when describing what it means to be considered a member of a particular race, and a number of texts can be interpreted to mean that a character considered to be a member of a particular race qualifies to take a feat that requires him to be a member of that race. Applying the same logic to the monk's unarmed strike, it should also qualify the monk to take a feat that requires him to have a natural weapon, such as Improved Natural Attack.


----------



## Borlon

Hi FireLance,

I would say a feat is of the form "If X, then Y, otherwise Z."  X is the prerequiste(s), Y is the benefit(s) and Z is what normally happens.  Many feats omit the "normal" part.  The benefit of the monk's weapon equivalency is to ensure that Y doesn't fizzle if it looks for natural or manufactured weapons.  If you try to cast _magic weapon_ on a claw, the spell will fizzle.  A claw isn't the right kind of target for magic weapon.  But it won't fizzle if you cast it on a monk.  (I think that the monk's body is the weapon, so you just have to touch the monk- if that's contentious, let's start a new thread.)  That's because the weapon equivalency rule makes the monk's unarmed attack count as a manufactured weapon for the purpose of an effect that enhances a manufactured weapon, like _magic fang_.  I.e. it's a manufactured weapon for the purpose of Y.

But the No side says that the monk's weapon equivalency doesn't apply to X, because X is not an effect.  They are conditions that have to be met.

How do you tell if something is an effect?  You look to see if it prescribes a change in something.  If it says "gain +1 to all attacks with the chosen weapons" it is an effect.  If it says "do damage as if you were one size larger" it is an effect.  If it says "BAB +4, must possess a natural weapon" then it is not an effect.  However, an effect often contains an "if" statement too; deflect arrows, for example, requires you to have a hand free and be subject to a missile attack, and these additional conditions would be part of Y.  

Magic items that have different effects for different races and classes also have conditionals in Y.  But I think that, properly speaking, their prerequisites are what is required to make them; in their acquisition and use they are not the same as a feat.

Now, I don't want to jump into the racial prerequisites debate.  Partly because I don't own any of the "races of" books and so I don't have the resources to debate the question.  Partly because monks and INA are found in the core books, and the core books (and logic) should be sufficient to resolve the question.  Partly because I don't think the question is any clearer than it is for monks and INA.

My diagnosis of the problem of the Yes side is that they are considering the *effect* of INA to be of the form "If X then Y, otherwise Z" where X are the prerequisites of the feat, and Y is the enhancement to natural weapons.  They assimilate the whole "if then" statement of the prerequisites into the effect, which I guess is understandable because a lot of feats have effects that are conditional.  But prerequisites are conditionals for gaining the feat, not for using its benefit, and thus the Yes side is making a mistake.

Unless I am mistaken in my diagnosis, that is.      But for a while last night I had changed my mind on the question, and it was because I was thinking of the feat effect as if it had the prerequisites of the feat.  The confusion is a very subtle one.


----------



## FoxWander

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> He's a valid target _when_ the spell is cast, which is when targets must be selected.
> 
> -Hyp.



Precisely, the monk is a valid target before there is any effect on him. 

Let's say I'm a wizard, there is a monk and a mountain in front of me. I cast _Magic Weapon_. Now, if I touch the mountain the spell does nothing. The mountain is not a weapon and therefore cannot be affected by the spell- it is not a valid target. But if I touch the monk, he now has a +1 to hit and damage, because he *IS* a valid target. Monks unarmed strikes are considered to be manufactured weapons. They are _always_ considered to be so, otherwise touching the monk with my _Magic Weapon_ effect (remember- the spell, when cast, is only a _potential_ effect to be passed on with my touch-- it does not affect the monk until I touch him) would not give him the benefit of the spell. To even be affected by the spell the monk MUST be a valid target.

In this sense, spell targetting DOES work like a prerequisite. You must be a valid target before a spell can be cast on you. This is why I stopped talking about _Magic Fang_ and went to MW instead. MF's target of "living creature" was too broad to prove why monks are _always_ considered to have manufactured/natural weapons. MW, on the other hand, has a target that, normally, NO human could qualify for. And yet the monk does qualify. To have the spell cast on him- to even be chosen as a target "when the spell is cast, which is when targets must be selected"-- the monk must _*BE*_ a valid target _prevenient_ to the spell affecting him.

In other words, a human monk, without ANY effect or spell on him which enhances or improves natural or manufactured weapons, is _already_ considered to have both natural AND manufactured weapons in the form of his Monk Unarmed Strike. This is what makes a monk a valid target of the spell _Magic Weapon_ and, I believe, allows him to meet the 'natural weapon' prereq of INA.



PS. please note that I admit this is slightly different from my earlier position in this discussion. Specifically that monk's qualify for INA because it's an effect that improves natural weapons, thus invoking NWE and qualifying the monk to take the feat. I have been convinced by the opposition (  ) that this equates to 'putting the cart before the horse.' It really _doesn't_ make sense that one could benefit from an effect before having the effect for the purpose of qualifying for that effect. (yes.... i _think_ that made sense. and if you think so as well, then you too have probably spent too much time involved in this post.   )

However the main reason for my slightly different position is the evidence presented by _Magic Weapon_ and how spell targetting works... as I've gone into above.


----------



## Borlon

So what happens, exactly, when you cast a _magic weapon_ on Joe Commoner?  I know it doesn't work, but why?

The target is a weapon.  Well, Joe Commoner can make an unarmed strike, even though he is not proficient, and will draw an attack of opportunity, and so on.  Since you use your body to make an unarmed strike, the wizard can just touch Joe Commoner.  If this notion is troublesome, maybe the wizard can touch Joe Commoner's fists.  The spell resolves.

When the spell resolves, you have to determine the target.  Done- Joe Commoner (or his fists).  Now it comes time for the effect.  The spell effect enhances a natural weapon, but doesn't find it.  Worse, the spell says it cannot be cast on an unarmed strike.  Which means that the target ("weapon") that we cast the spell on isn't valid.  Hmmm.  Does that mean the spell didn't resolve after all?  It was cast, but it doesn't resolve until the wizard touches a weapon.  If it turns out that the weapon wasn't a manufactured weapon, what happens?  Does it "unresolve"?

I would think that the spell resolves, but fizzles for lack of a valid target.  Does anyone think that the "cannot be cast on unarmed strikes" means that the spell does not resolve if a wizard touches a Joe Commoner's fists after casting the spell?

I think I'll stop here.  If we know what happens in Joe Commoner's case, we can figure out exactly how (and when) things are different for Martin Monk.


----------



## Borlon

_Magic weapon_, for those away from their books, has range of touch, target: weapon touched.  Saving throw: Will negates (harmless, object).  The text says

_Magic weapon_ gives a weapon a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls.  (An enhancement bonus does not stack with a masterwork weapon's +1 bonus on attack rolls.)

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.​


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Borlon said:
			
		

> You can't cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike.




The problem is that the extra text in this sentence is incorrect.

It's no different from:

"You can only eat citrus fruit, such as apples."


----------



## Storm Raven

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> The problem is that the extra text in this sentence is incorrect.
> 
> It's no different from:
> 
> "You can only eat citrus fruit, such as apples."




No, it is the rules-as-written. The rules-as-written cannot be an incorrect statement of the rules-as-written unless errated. Therefore, the extra text in the sentence must be correct. Now, it is up to you to rationalize it with any perceived inconsistencies.


----------



## Pinotage

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> The problem is that the extra text in this sentence is incorrect.
> 
> It's no different from:
> 
> "You can only eat citrus fruit, such as apples."




The RAW incorrect? Really?   

Pinotage


----------



## Borlon

_Magic fang_ and _magic weapon_ seem to focus on the material that their targets are made of. If it is natural born flesh and blood, it is a natural weapon.  If it is hand crafted metal and wood, it is a manufactured weapon.  But if a giant tears off a monk's arm and hits him with it, it is treated by the rules as an improvised manufactured weapon.

I think _magic weapon_ could have been better written.  Would it have killed them to write "target: manufactured weapon touched"?

edit: if we are going to be talking about _magic weapon_, let's have the text on the same page:


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Magic Weapon
> Transmutation
> Level: Clr 1, Pal 1, Sor/Wiz 1, War 1
> Components: V, S, DF
> Casting Time: 1 standard action
> Range: Touch
> Target: Weapon touched
> Duration: 1 min./level
> Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless, object)
> Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless, object)
> Magic weapon gives a weapon a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. (An enhancement bonus does not stack with a masterwork weapon’s +1 bonus on attack rolls.)
> 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.


----------



## Lamoni

Borlon said:
			
		

> The doorman shakes his head and says "That's a drink coupon.  It's good at the effects bar, but show me where it says it is good for admission."
> 
> The monk is silent for a moment, then shakes his head and steps aside so the lizard man (who is next in line) can go in.



I apologize if this was already responded to.  I have to run to class and I didn't have time to finish reading the rest of the posts.

However, if the Monk's ability doesn't meet requirements, then WHAT GOOD IS IT?  It is only good for effects that improve natural weapons that DON'T require you to have natural weapons?  Tell me one thing that improves a natural weapon without a natural weapon to improve.  Magic Fang is brought up.  Well, you can cast it on someone without a natural weapon, but it sure doesn't improve their natural weapon UNLESS THEY HAVE ONE.

The whole point of the Monk's ability is that it qualifies for any effect that REQUIRES a natural weapon.  Entrance to the bar requires a natural weapon.  The monk doesn't have a natural weapon.  But he DOES have one if it improves natural weapons.  The ability is ONLY for overcoming prerequisites.

To go one step further.  We already established (maybe not established, but several people agreed) that prerequisite was an English word with an English meaning and not a D&D term.  Anything that is required to have before you can enjoy a benefit is a prerequisite to that benefit.  It may be listed explicitly under the heading *prerequisites:* or it may state that the effect improves your ability to wield a weapon.  Having a weapon to wield is obviously a prerequisite to enjoying the benefit.  So the monk's ability overcomes the prerequisites for spells like magic fang, and any other spell, potion, feat, or bonus you want to create that improves natural weapons.  Of course, you could make a spell that could be cast on any creature that would improve their natural bite attack.  In this case, the monk would qualify for the natural attack part, but not for the bite part so the spell would have no effect since the monk couldn't overcome the prerequisites... even though the spell didn't have the word *prerequisites* in bold.


----------



## Artoomis

Borlon said:
			
		

> ...You can't cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see _magic fang_)...




This example, along with a number of others, shows that a fists and/or unarmed strikes and/or unarmed attacks are indeed considered natural weapons, but consider PHB page 139:







> Unarmed Attacks:  Striking for damage with punches...is much like attacking with a weapon, except for the following:...



 and then goes on to talk about AoO, threatening, and subdual vs. real damage.

Taken as a whole, this means that humans, et. al., have natural weapons that are "special," that is, they are "natural weapons" but you get iterative attacks, etc., just like weapons, though you do not normally get AoOs, real damage or are "armed." 

Thus, the rule about monks unarmed strike counting as a natural weapon and a manufactured weapon really is indeed only adding the category of "manufactured weapon" to the natural weapon of unarmed strike.

Wow!

A know this was stated earlier, but I am now convinced that this is truly the case and that _*this is the only way to reconcile ALL the rules that touch on natural weapons, fists, unarmed strikes and unarmed attacks.*_

I guess this would make the whole argument of effects and INA be moot as everyone (pretty much) can take INA, though it would be a sub-optimal feat for a non-monk human, to say the least.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Pinotage said:
			
		

> The RAW incorrect? Really?
> 
> Pinotage




Yep - when it contradicts itself, we need to determine which definition is primary.

The primary place to find information about unarmed strikes *isn't* a spell description.  It's the unarmed strikes description.


----------



## Artoomis

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Yep - when it contradicts itself, we need to determine which definition is primary....




Or reconcile the two.  Remember that unarmed attacks (or fists, or unarmed strikes) are referred to as natural weapons in numerous places.


----------



## FoxWander

Borlon said:
			
		

> So what happens, exactly, when you cast a _magic weapon_ on Joe Commoner?  I know it doesn't work, but why?
> 
> The target is a weapon.  Well, Joe Commoner can make an unarmed strike, ...
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I think I'll stop here.  If we know what happens in Joe Commoner's case, we can figure out exactly how (and when) things are different for Martin Monk.




To figure out how the spell _magic weapon_ affects Joe Commoner, you can stop reading your post right where I've snipped it. 

Firstly, the spell's target is a weapon. Since the spell is explicitly differentiated from the spell _magic fang_ (for natural weapons) we can pretty much stop quibbling over semantics and agree that, for _magic weapon_, "target: weapon touched" undoubtably implies "target: [manufactured] weapon touched." Since Joe Commoner IS NOT a manufactured weapon, and is also not *considered* a manufactured weapon and neither are his unarmed strikes, then he is NOT a valid target of the spell. The spell does not "resolve" when Joe is touched with it.

Secondly, aside from the "Target" aspect of the spell, the text also specifically states "You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike." Whether or not you agree with this implication that unarmed strikes "are" natural weapons, in either case this bit specifically says you can't cast the spell on Joe or his unarmed strikes. 

That pretty much sums it up for Joe... no [manufactured] weapon, not a valid Target for the spell, and (if that by itself wasn't clear enough) the text goes on to say you can't _cast_ it on him to begin with.

So that leaves us with Martin Monk. (nice how everything is getting a useful name or acronym here, really saves on repetitive typing.    Can we add a +4 BAB to Martin so we can skip that specific call-out in discussing INA's prereqs?) My stance (as somewhat already stated) is that it's pretty much the opposite of Joe. By MWE, Martin is considered to have/be a manufactured weapon making him a prevenient valid target for the spell. And then of course there's the second sentence of the bit that killed it for Joe- "A monk’s unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell." And there's that phrasing again "monk’s unarmed strike is considered a weapon." An express implication of a static state- "...is considered a..." No reference to being a weapon merely because of an "effect which enhances or improves", just X is considered a Y.


----------



## Borlon

@FoxWander: I just want to get clear about Joe.  Do you mean that the spell fizzles, or does it not resolve?

If it does not resolve, then the mage, after touching Joe, can touch a longsword the following round and the longsword will be enhanced.  If it fizzles, the spell is wasted.

If it does not resolve, then why does it not resolve?  If you cast _charm person_ on someone who is not a person (a polymorphed succubus, say) the spell fails, and is wasted.  Is it because it is delivered by touch?

Oh, and sure.  Let's say Martin is 6th level and has a +4 BAB.

@Artoomis: so if someone asks the Sage or Customer Service whether humans have natural weapons, the answer will be an unambiguous yes?

I wonder if someone has done that.  Is there a database of customer service answers, or is there just the FAQ?  I've never actually asked a question of wizards customer service- is it easy?  Do they get back to you quickly?


----------



## Artoomis

Borlon said:
			
		

> @FoxWander: I just want to get clear about Joe.  Do you mean that the spell fizzles, or ...@Artoomis: so if someone asks the Sage or Customer Service whether humans have natural weapons, the answer will be an unambiguous yes?...




I expect the answer would be somewhat less than satisfactory even if the question pointed out places in the rules that seem to show it is a natural weapon and that show it is something other than a natural weapon (a third catgeory - manufactured weapon, natural weapon and unarmed attack).  I suspect the answer would be ambigous and truly satisfy no one.  

I think an unarmed attack is a special case natural weapon, as I stated above.  It's like a manufactured weapon, but it's not.  It's referred to in several places as being a natural weapon, but it's not really as it does not follow all the rules for one of those.  Since it both is and is not a natural weapon, that makes it a special case, right?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> As for CW saying that human fists are natural weapons. I don't have my copy with me, but if it does in fact say that it is wrong. It contradicts the PHB, which is the primary source.




and additionally (from someone else):



> The primary place to find information about unarmed strikes *isn't* a spell description. It's the unarmed strikes description.




Well, you're correct that the PHB is the primary source, and we all know the CW is only a set of optional rules, but the CW is the more recent formulation of the rules.  Normally, that would indicate that its definitions supplant or clarify the older rules.

That aside, the CW _doesn't_ contradict the PHB- it simply says "*Unarmed attack*: a melee attack made wtih no weapon in hand" (p314)- presumably meaning no mechanical weapon is being grasped by the attacker, especially in the light of the next entry- "*Unarmed Strike*: a successful blow, typically dealing non-lethal damage, from a character attacking without weapons.  A monk can deal lethal damage with an undarmed strike, but others deal nonlethal damage."  Finally On PHB p310, *Natural Weapon* is defined as "a creatrure's body part that deals damage in combat.  Natural weapons include teeth, claws, horns, tails, and other appendages."

Nowhere in the PHB does it explicitly say that human fists _are not_ natural weapons.  Instead, some places list a "fist" as a natural weapon (Magic Fang PHB p250), and some places say things like "You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike..." (Magic Weapon PHB p251 and Align Weapon PHB p197).

_Incidentally, the various definitions and lists of natural weapon also includes a teeth or a bite attack- which humans can also do (ask Evander Hollyfield)- they just aren't typically high-damage attacks._

But nowhere does it say that human fists or unarmed strikes are NOT natural weapons.  If there were such a quote, someone surely would have posted it and reposted it several times.

Besides, simply saying "its wrong" doesn't make it so- give me a coherent rationale.

Then there are sections of text that seemingly distinguish between the two, such as:



> The ability that some creatures have to drain ability scores is a supernatural one, requiring some sort of attack. Such creatures do not drain abilities from enemies when the enemies strike them, even with unarmed attacks or natural weapons.




I think what we have going on in the rules is a case of "*lawyer-speak*."

To clarify: my Wills & Estate Professor once gave the class a 3 page section of an actual will (edited, of course) which he was able to pare down to a single paragraph.  He did this largely by eliminating the synonyms and near-synonyms that the drafting lawyer had included in order to cover all of his bases, as in "X gifts, bequests, devises, leaves to...my children, offspring, progeny, descendants..." type language.  Its all the same, but the lawyer felt that if he didn't "boiler-plate" his text, someone else will use the missing language in a legal challenge because it says "bequest" in one version of the probate code and "devise" in one little section that got replaced by subseqent legislation.

Its a crock, of course- probate judges understand that bequest = devise= gifts, etc.

In other words, the design team used "natural weapon" and "unarmed strike" without having clear working definitions for both, resulting in some conflicting sections of text when some drafters decided that "natural weapon = unarmed strike", some seemed to feel "natural weapon ≠ unarmed strike" (probably because a PC's unarmed strikes typically do non-lethal damage, whereas most natural weapons do lethal damage) and some probably felt that unarmed strikes were a special kind of natural weapon that required special rules.

As for the "effects" debate:

Under Damage PHB p134 you see "Effects that modify weapon damage apply to unarmed strikes and the natural physical attack forms of creatures."  I'd read that as Strength bonuses, crits, sneak attacks, spells, damage reduction, and even feats.




> But showing that magic weapon and magic fang both affect a monk's unarmed attack is only an illustration of the fact that for the purpose of spells, a monk's unarmed attack is counts both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon. It doesn't address the question of qualifying for feats because feats aren't mentioned in the rule (only spells and effects) and prerequisites aren't mentioned there either (except implicitly, the targetting conditions for spells- but that's because spells are specifically called out).




I know you weren't addressing me directly, but I'll say this- that was not MY purpose in citing those spells.  I don't care much about the targeting, since both are, as has been pointed out, explicitly allowed to target the Monk.  *My* point is that the body of the description of both spells define "natural weapons" in relevant ways- _M.Fang_ includes "fist" in its list of natural weapons, and _M. Weapon_ and_ Align Weapon_ state explicitly that an unarmed strike is a natural weapon.

IMHO, the only way to reconcile all of the various rules, spells, etc. dealing with unarmed strikes is to consider them a special subset of natural weapons.  It is consistent with the PHB spells M. Fang/M. Weapon/Align Weapon; its consistent with the Monk and the Kensai; it explains why unarmed strikes have slightly variant rules from the bulk of natural weapons in the 2 weapon fighting rules (perhaps its meant to reflect martial training- my punches are significantly different from a black belt's).

If you rule that they are not, you negate the *explicit* text of several sections, both Core and optional- something I am loath to do.

+++

A Raging Damifino is one way of saying "Damn If I Know" with humor and emphasis.


----------



## Artoomis

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> ...IMHO, the only way to reconcile all of the various rules, spells, etc. dealing with unarmed strikes is to consider them a special subset of natural weapons.  It is consistent with the PHB spells M. Fang/M. Weapon/Align Weapon; its consistent with the Monk and the Kensai; it explains why unarmed strikes have slightly variant rules from the bulk of natural weapons in the 2 weapon fighting rules (perhaps its meant to reflect martial training- my punches are significantly different from a black belt's).
> 
> If you rule that they are not, you negate the *explicit* text of several sections, both Core and optional- something I am loath to do...




Exactly right.

Agian, for emphasis:

_*...the only way to reconcile all of the various rules, spells, etc. dealing with unarmed strikes is to consider them a special subset of natural weapons.*_


----------



## Dimwhit

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Exactly right.
> 
> Agian, for emphasis:
> 
> _*...the only way to reconcile all of the various rules, spells, etc. dealing with unarmed strikes is to consider them a special subset of natural weapons.*_



 I might go for that, though they have two seperate attack forms. An unarmed strike uses the Attack (Unarmed) action, whereas a 'natural weapon' is considered an Attack (Melee) action. Not sure if that prevents one being a subset of the other or not, but it's something else to throw into the mix.

Edit: Actually, I'm wrong. From the SRD (and this tends to support your view):



> Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
> 
> Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.
> 
> An unarmed character can’t take attacks of opportunity (but see “Armed” Unarmed Attacks, below).
> 
> *“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. Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity)*
> 
> Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character’s unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of damage, while a Large character’s unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).
> 
> Dealing Lethal Damage: You can specify that your unarmed strike will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. If you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike without taking a penalty on the attack roll.


----------



## Borlon

I thought I would collect some definitions from the wizards site for people to refer to.



			
				D&D Glossary said:
			
		

> Natural Weapon: 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 armlike limbs can make a slam attack with each arm). Refer to the individual monster descriptions.
> 
> Unless otherwise noted, a natural weapon threatens a critical hit on a natural attack roll of 20.
> 
> When a creature has more than one natural weapon, one of them (or sometimes a pair or set of them) is the primary weapon. All the creature's remaining natural weapons are secondary.
> 
> The primary weapon is given in the creature's Attack entry, and the primary weapon or weapons is given first in the creature's Full Attack entry. A creature's primary natural weapon is its most effective natural attack, usually by virtue of the creature's physiology, training, or innate talent with the weapon. An attack with a primary natural weapon uses the creature's full attack bonus. Attacks with secondary natural weapons are less effective and are made with a -5 penalty on the attack roll, no matter how many there are. (Creatures with the Multiattack feat take only a -2 penalty on secondary attacks.) This penalty applies even when the creature makes a single attack with the secondary weapon as part of the attack action or as an attack of opportunity.
> 
> Natural weapons have types just as other weapons do. The most common are summarized below.
> 
> Bite: The creature attacks with its mouth, dealing piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning damage.
> 
> Claw or Talon: The creature rips with a sharp appendage, dealing piercing and slashing damage.
> 
> Gore: The creature spears the opponent with an antler, horn, or similar appendage, dealing piercing damage.
> 
> Slap or Slam: The creature batters opponents with an appendage, dealing bludgeoning damage.
> 
> Sting: The creature stabs with a stinger, dealing piercing damage. Sting attacks usually deal damage from poison in addition to hit point damage.
> 
> Tentacle: The creature flails at opponents with a powerful tentacle, dealing bludgeoning (and sometimes slashing) damage.






			
				D&D glossary said:
			
		

> manufactured weapons
> Some monsters employ manufactured weapons when they attack. Creatures that use swords, bows, spears, and the like follow the same rules as characters, including those for additional attacks from a high base attack bonus and two-weapon fighting penalties. This category also includes "found items," such as rocks and logs, that a creature wields in combat -- in essence, any weapon that is not intrinsic to the creature.
> 
> Some creatures combine attacks with natural and manufactured weapons when they make a full attack. When they do so, the manufactured weapon attack is considered the primary attack unless the creature's description indicates otherwise (using the manufactured weapon consumes most of the creature's attention), and any natural weapons the creature also uses are considered secondary natural attacks. These secondary attacks do not interfere with the primary attack as attacking with an off-hand weapon does, but they take the usual -5 penalty (or -2 with the Multiattack feat) for such attacks, even if the natural weapon used is normally the creature's primary natural weapon.






			
				D&D glossary said:
			
		

> unarmed attack: A melee attack made with no weapon in hand.






			
				D&D glossary said:
			
		

> unarmed strike:A successful blow, typically dealing nonlethal damage, from a character attacking without weapons. A monk can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike, but others deal nonlethal damage.




There are lots of dissimilarities between unarmed attacks/strikes and natural weapons.   I really don't see how anyone consider an unarmed strike to be a natural weapon.  The most accurate description is that it is an attack without a weapon.


----------



## Dimwhit

You know, I'm REALLY tempted to throw and the 'primary source' argument and say the the Wizards website isn't a Primary Source.


----------



## Borlon

Well, they claim that these definitions are collated from official books.  PHB, MM3, places like that.  I didn't list the original sources in the quotes, but you are free to go to the website and poke around.


----------



## Artoomis

Borlon said:
			
		

> ...There are lots of dissimilarities between unarmed attacks/strikes and natural weapons...




I certainly do not deny that.  Thus unarmed attacks are a SUBSET or SPECIAL CASE of natural weapons whch neatly reconciles all the places where they are referred to as natiural weapons with decsriptions of how natural weapons and unarmed attacks work.


----------



## Caliban

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Or reconcile the two.  Remember that unarmed attacks (or fists, or unarmed strikes) are referred to as natural weapons in numerous places.





In the 3 core rule books?   I've seen it in some of the supplemental material, but I don't recall anywhere that this mistake is made the core rule books.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I really don't see how anyone consider an unarmed strike to be a natural weapon.




Well, if:



> Natural Weapon: Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature.



+


> unarmed strike: A successful blow, typically dealing nonlethal damage, from a character attacking without weapons



  If you are attacking without using a weapon, you must, by definition, use only parts of your body (since if you use ANYTHING other than an "empty hand" or a manufactured weapon, you're using an improvised weapon, spell, power, etc.).

+

Parts of a PC's body are physically a part of the PC.

+

The PC is a creature.

= Unarmed Strikes & Natural weapons are equivalent.

It is just that the weapons of most PC races are very poor in comparison to most animals and monsters, and as such, deal only subdual damage as opposed to lethal damage.  However, with luck or training (reflected in the game in the form of the Feat IUC), even the poor weapons humans have been given can become lethal.



> In the 3 core rule books? I've seen it in some of the supplemental material, but I don't recall anywhere that this mistake is made the core rule books.




Align Weapon PHB p197; Magic Weapon PHB p251 both contain the phrase "You can't cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike."  Magic Fang PHB 250 lists "fist" among natural weapons.


----------



## Storyteller01

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I certainly do not deny that.  Thus unarmed attacks are a SUBSET or SPECIAL CASE of natural weapons whch neatly reconciles all the places where they are referred to as natiural weapons with decsriptions of how natural weapons and unarmed attacks work.




Don't forget about the various dissimilarities between other natural attacks (claws vs bite vs gore vs ...).


----------



## Caliban

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Well, if:
> 
> 
> +
> If you are attacking without using a weapon, you must, by definition, use only parts of your body (since if you use ANYTHING other than an "empty hand" or a manufactured weapon, you're using an improvised weapon, spell, power, etc.).
> 
> +
> 
> Parts of a PC's body are physically a part of the PC.
> 
> +
> 
> The PC is a creature.
> 
> = Unarmed Strikes & Natural weapons are equivalent.




Only if you use a very small part of the definition of natural weapon and ignore the rest.

Natural weapons do lethal damage, do not make iterative attacks, and are generally specialized for that purpose: claw, horn, hoof, fang.   The only one that's not is a Slam, which is the most similar to unarmed strike, but if unarmed strike was a type of Slam, I think they would say so. 





> Align Weapon PHB p197; Magic Weapon PHB p251 both contain the phrase "You can't cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike."  Magic Fang PHB 250 lists "fist" among natural weapons.




I stand corrected.  The mistake is repeated in the PHB.


----------



## Borlon

So the Sage totally missed the boat on monks and INA, then?  If I understand the position of some other posters correctly, they would rather he had said something like "sure a monk can take INA.  Any player character with +4 BAB can, because even Joe Commoner can make an unarmed strike, and an unarmed strike is a natural weapon.  In fact, whenever you see 'natural weapon' as a prerequisite, just cross it out; why bother listing a prerequisite that everyone qualifies for?  And anyone with a body has a natural weapon."

What he actually said (for folks who have forgotten in the course of 950+    posts made on this topic) is



			
				the Sage said:
			
		

> Yes. As stated on page 41 of the Player's Handbook, a monk's unarmed strike "is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either," which includes feats such as Improved Natural Attack.
> 
> Barring multiclassing, the earliest a monk could take this feat would be at 6th level (due to the base attack bonus prerequisite), at which point her unarmed strike damage would improve from 1d8 to 2d6 (which represents an average increase of +2.5 points of damage). The same monk at 20th level would deal 3d8 points of damage with her unarmed strike.




Note that the weapon equivalency rule is key in this ruling.  Not a hint that Joe the 9th level commoner could take the feat.

I am waiting for someone to start a new poll with the question "Can anyone with a +4 BAB take Improved Natural Weapon?" I'd do it myself, except that I don't think the correctness of a rule is determined by majority vote. And, really, the question doesn't interest me near as much as the question about INA and monks. If this thread keeps discussing this new question, I'll probably bow out.


----------



## FireLance

Borlon said:
			
		

> And, really, the question doesn't interest me near as much as the question about INA and monks.  If this thread keeps discussing this new question, I'll probably bow out.



Well, stick around the Rules forum and I'm sure we can find something else to discuss . I think everything that needs to be said has been said in this thread, anyway. As far as I'm concerned, feats are effects (the "official" position from the Sage says that), and if you're treated as something for the purpose of effects, you're treated as that something when it comes to meeting the prerequisites of a feat.


----------



## Borlon

FireLance said:
			
		

> I think everything that needs to be said has been said in this thread, anyway.




Several times, in fact. 



			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> As far as I'm concerned, feats are effects (the "official" position from the Sage says that), and if you're treated as something for the purpose of effects, you're treated as that something when it comes to meeting the prerequisites of a feat.




Yeah, well, I think you and the Sage are both wrong about feats being effects, and the rest of what you say is a new rule. But I seem unable to change anyone's mind on either point, and I don't have any new arguments, so perhaps I should just let it rest.


----------



## Pinotage

Borlon said:
			
		

> Yeah, well, I think *you and the Sage are both wrong about feats being effects*, and the rest of what you say is a new rule. But I seem unable to change anyone's mind on either point, and I don't have any new arguments, so perhaps I should just let it rest.




I don't think you can say feats aren't effects, but at the same time I don't think you can necessarily say they are effects. All you can say is that the ruling is unclear, certainly not wrong. The Human Heritage Feat conclusively indicates that feats and their prerequisites are effects, whereas the orc/half-orc thing seems to indicate that prerequisites aren't effects. The position in the rules in unclear. The sage isn't wrong, nor is anybody else - the sage has provided a clarification on something which is unclear in the rules. What you believe the rules to say is, as has been said numerous times, at times supported and at other times not supported.

Pinotage


----------



## glass

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I certainly do not deny that.  Thus unarmed attacks are a SUBSET or SPECIAL CASE of natural weapons whch neatly reconciles all the places where they are referred to as natiural weapons with decsriptions of how natural weapons and unarmed attacks work.



A subset or special case that follows none of the rules for natural weapons?


glass.


----------



## glass

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Exactly right.
> 
> Agian, for emphasis:
> 
> ...the only way to reconcile all of the various rules, spells, etc. dealing with unarmed strikes is to consider them a special subset of natural weapons.



Except that there are also several areas of the rules (such as the power attack description) where they are refered to as separate things.

I think theonly way to reconcile the various references to natural weapons is to remember the primary source rules and go by the descriptions ine the Combat and Equipment chapters, ignoring obliques references in spells as the errors they are.


glass.


----------



## Artoomis

Caliban said:
			
		

> In the 3 core rule books?   I've seen it in some of the supplemental material, but I don't recall anywhere that this mistake is made the core rule books.




It's already been pointed out in this thread that it (this "mistake") appears in the core books (PHB, to be specific) in spell descriptions, at least.

See:

* Align Weapon:  "...You can t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike..."
* Magic Weapon "...You can t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike..."
* Magic Fang "...The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon..."
* Protection from Evil"  "...Third, the spell prevents bodily contact by summoned creatures. This causes the natural weapon attacks of such creatures to fail and the creatures to recoil if such attacks require touching the warded creature..."  (By implication otherwise one could use a unarmed attack here even though touching is disallowed)

There you have it.  At least 3 direct references and one indirect.  Plus references in other, later books.


----------



## Artoomis

glass said:
			
		

> Except that there are also several areas of the rules (such as the power attack description) where they are refered to as separate things.
> 
> I think theonly way to reconcile the various references to natural weapons is to remember the primary source rules and go by the descriptions ine the Combat and Equipment chapters, ignoring obliques references in spells as the errors they are.
> 
> 
> glass.




You can take two approaches:

1.  They are NOT natural weapons in any sense and every place that refers to them as such is in error.

2.  They ARE natural weapon but do NOT follow all the natural weapon rules because of page 139 in the PHB which specifcally says they do not follow all the natural weapon rules.

My way (number 2) is quite elegant and preserves ALL the rules.

Your way throws out some rules in deference to others.

My way reconciles the rules together.

Your way does not reconcile the rules together but tosses out some PHB (and other source books) text out the window.


----------



## Borlon

glass said:
			
		

> ...as the errors they are.




It's a fine balance.  There are going to be mistakes in the rules, and not all of them are going to be covered in erratta.  Sometimes you can find a very ingenious interpretation that reconciles a bunch of seemingly contradictory rulings- Hypersmurf is very good at this.  But this reconciliation often has a high price; you have to take things very literally, make distinctions between expressions that are apparently synonymous, and accept some very strange consequences of the rules under your twisty interpretation.

Even then, there may be things that are flat out impossible to reconcile.  The standard example is the FAQ's take on whether acid ignores hardness or not.

So one extreme case is tying yourself in knots finding an interpretation where (almost) all the rules come out consistent.  The other extreme is saying of anything that doesn't fit your conception of the rules is a misprint, or an error.  Sometimes there is truth in a claim that something in the books is a mistake; I think anyone would be prepared to admit that.  And admit that even customer service or the Sage sometimes makes mistakes.  Sometimes even the DM makes mistakes, but as long as the game goes on and people have fun, it's ok.  But people who agree that there are errors in the rules will usually disagree where the errors are, and how plentiful they are.  If you get to the point where every piece of evidence against your position is a mistake in the book, well, it can get ridiculous pretty fast.  Suppose I say that wizards can spontanteously cast any spell in the PHB.  And then when people cite rules that say I can't, I just say that those contrary rules are misprints.  What can you say to someone like that?

Then there are people who just want a particular conclusion to be true.  They can tie themselves in knots to find support for their position *and* allege that all the contrary evidence is just a mistake or misprint.  These kind of people are hard to identify, because they look just like someone who takes a middle road (that sometimes the rules require a sophisticated interpretation, and sometimes mistakes have to be recognized as mistakes).  But if you find a person who never admits they are wrong, and who never changes their mind, I think there is a good chance that they are this kind of person.

What kind of person am I, I wonder?  I was briefly converted to the Yes side (by the feats=effects argument) in the other thread, but that was for only a few pages.  I was even more briefly converted in this thread (by the Magic Weapon argument, before I realized that the specific mention of spells was not paralleled by a specific mention of feats) but I did not post in that brief interval.  So I do admit that I make mistakes.  That's a hopeful sign, but maybe it is just pride that makes me not want to change my position now.  I think I am more the "tying in knots" kind of hair-splitting rules lawyer than the "that is misprint" kind of rules lawyer.  Dunno.

But the issue of how, in general, to deal with inconsistencies in the rules, and how to deal specifically with discordant rules concerning natural weapons... well, I think the question is a lot more difficult than deciding if, by the RAW, monks can take INA.  Although I suppose a complete answer to the one would determine the other.

Anyways, I think I'm going to say goodbye to this thread now.  It has been a lot of fun!  Thanks to everyone else who participated, and do have fun without me!

-Borlon


----------



## Artoomis

glass said:
			
		

> A subset or special case that follows none of the rules for natural weapons?
> 
> 
> glass.




Pretty much, yep.  Page 139 of the PHB establishes the basic rules for unarmed attacks which are NOT the same as for natural weapons as delineated in the MM.  Various places in the core rules and subesquent source books refer to unarmed attacks as natural weapons.

Question:  Why cannot BOTH be true?

Answer:  Indeed, they CAN both be true.   Unarmed attacks are natural weapons with special rules.  They can be enhanced like all other natural weapons, but do not follow the other natural weapon rules.  This seems to be clearly the intent of how unarmed attacks are to be viewed if you take all the D&D material as a whole.


----------



## Artoomis

Storyteller01 said:
			
		

> Don't forget about the various dissimilarities between other natural attacks (claws vs bite vs gore vs ...).




I have not forgotten.  Take ALL the rules regarding unarmed attacks and natural weapons together and ask yourself if there is any easy way to reconcile them all without tossing out any text printed in the PHB.

Answer:  Yes.  Consider unarmed attacks to be natural weapons that follow special rules as indicated on page 139 of the PHB.  In other words, they are enhanced just as are natural weapons, but you get iterative attacks, etc., etc. per the unarmed attack rules on page 139.


----------



## Artoomis

Borlon said:
			
		

> ...Anyways, I think I'm going to say goodbye to this thread now.  It has been a lot of fun!  Thanks to everyone else who participated, and do have fun without me!
> 
> -Borlon




I'll miss you.  <sniff>.

Do you really have the willpower not to chime in again?


----------



## Caliban

Artoomis said:
			
		

> It's already been pointed out in this thread that it (this "mistake") appears in the core books (PHB, to be specific) in spell descriptions, at least.
> 
> See:
> 
> * Align Weapon:  "...You can t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike..."
> * Magic Weapon "...You can t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike..."
> * Magic Fang "...The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon..."
> * Protection from Evil"  "...Third, the spell prevents bodily contact by summoned creatures. This causes the natural weapon attacks of such creatures to fail and the creatures to recoil if such attacks require touching the warded creature..."  (By implication otherwise one could use a unarmed attack here even though touching is disallowed)
> 
> There you have it.  At least 3 direct references and one indirect.  Plus references in other, later books.




Now your just trying to get your post count up.


----------



## Artoomis

Caliban said:
			
		

> Now your just trying to get your post count up.




Who? Me?  

Actually I was just showing off how well I can use the Hyperlinked SRD.


----------



## glass

Artoomis said:
			
		

> You can take two approaches:
> 
> 1.  They are NOT natural weapons in any sense and every place that refers to them as such is in error.
> 
> 2.  They ARE natural weapon but do NOT follow all the natural weapon rules because of page 139 in the PHB which specifcally says they do not follow all the natural weapon rules.
> 
> My way (number 2) is quite elegant and preserves ALL the rules.
> 
> Your way throws out some rules in deference to others.
> 
> My way reconciles the rules together.
> 
> Your way does not reconcile the rules together but tosses out some PHB (and other source books) text out the window.



Argh! I swore to myself I was going to let this thread die, but I just had to respond to this.

Your way is no better than my way in terms of reconciling all the rules, just because it reconciles the ones you prefer. For example, Power Attack refers to 'natural weapons or unarmed strikes'. If they are the same thing, PA is wrong. Why should PA be given less credenc than Magic Weapon, especially since the former complies with the primary source and the latter doesn't?

_EDIT: You have also studiously ignored the fact that elves, dwarves, halflings, etc (who all have unarmed strikes) are not listed as having any natural weapons in the MM. How do you reconcile that one?_


glass.


----------



## glass

Artoomis said:
			
		

> It's already been pointed out in this thread that it (this "mistake") appears in the core books (PHB, to be specific) in spell descriptions, at least.
> 
> See:
> 
> * Align Weapon:  "...You can t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike..."
> * Magic Weapon "...You can t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike..."
> * Magic Fang "...The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon..."
> * Protection from Evil"  "...Third, the spell prevents bodily contact by summoned creatures. This causes the natural weapon attacks of such creatures to fail and the creatures to recoil if such attacks require touching the warded creature..."  (By implication otherwise one could use a unarmed attack here even though touching is disallowed)
> 
> There you have it.  At least 3 direct references and one indirect.  Plus references in other, later books.



I make that two direct references, and two total absences of mention of unarmed strikes.


glass.


----------



## Artoomis

glass said:
			
		

> Argh! I swore to myself I was going to let this thread die, but I just had to respond to this.
> 
> Your way is no better than my way in terms of reconciling all the rules, just because it reconciles the ones you prefer. For example, Power Attack refers to 'natural weapons or unarmed strikes'. If they are the same thing, PA is wrong. Why should PA be given less credenc than Magic Weapon, especially since the former complies with the primary source and the latter doesn't?
> 
> _EDIT: You have also studiously ignored the fact that elves, dwarves, halflings, etc (who all have unarmed strikes) are not listed as having any natural weapons in the MM. How do you reconcile that one?_
> 
> 
> glass.




Once again, I have ignored nothing.

To reconcile ALL the rules together, ignoring none and favoring none over others, you have simply to call unarmed attacks/unarmed strikes (and fist, too, I think) a special case of natural weapons.  They would NOT be called out for elves, dwarves, etc. in the MM because, once again, it's a SPECIAL CASE.

PA is NOT given less credence that MW - that fact that makes it look like natural weapons and unarmed attacks are two different things does NOT necessarily mean they really are.  It's only suggestive of that - as a special case subset of natural weapons, sometimes they'll be referred to as natural weapon and sometimes not.  

This is all consistent with my approach of considering unarmed attacks a SPECIAL CASE of natural weapons.

In this way, one can reconcile ALL the rules about unarmed attacks.  You're approach requires that one favor one rule over another, which is simply not needed to ge to a satifactory solution here.

If an approach can be devised that is not to strenously far-fetched, then meshing rules together is better than favoring one rule over another.


----------



## Artoomis

glass said:
			
		

> I make that two direct references, and two total absences of mention of unarmed strikes.
> 
> 
> glass.




For Magic Fist:  I don't believe that "fist" is one of the normal categories of natural weapons, but it is used more generically to mean unarmed attack.  This is further evidenced by the sentence that follows: 

"The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon. (The spell does not change an unarmed strike’s damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage.) "

If the spell can ONLY affect a natural weapon and yet can affect an unarmed strike, an unarmed strike MUST be a natural weapon.

For Protection from Evil:  It causes natural weapon attacks to fail.  If unarmed attacks were NOT natural wepoan, they could succeed, then, but we know they cannot possibly because a touch of any sort cannot happen.  Okay, this one is a lttle weak and I'll give you this one. 

So, three direct, strong references that cleary state that unarmed strike/attacks are natural weapon and one that's a bit weak - plus many references in later books that continue to state that unarmed attacks are a form of natural weapon.

You either have to state that ALL those references are in error or reconcile them as I have, allowing all the rules to stand as written.

I prefer an approach that keeps all the rules intact, if possible.

To tell you the truth, before this argument I though unarmed attacks and unarmed strikes were different from each other (which it turns out is not the case) and were definately NOT natural weapons (which also turns out to not be the case).


----------



## glass

Artoomis said:
			
		

> For Magic Fist:  I don't believe that "fist" is one of the normal categories of natural weapons, but it is used more generically to mean unarmed attack.  This is further evidenced by the sentence that follows:
> 
> "The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon. (The spell does not change an unarmed strike’s damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage.) "



You are begging the question. Your argument that 'fist' is synonymous with 'unarmed strike' assumes it's own conculsion.


> You either have to state that ALL those references are in error or reconcile them as I have, allowing all the rules to stand as written. I prefer an approach that keeps all the rules intact, if possible.



So do I, but where you have references to unarmed strikes in spells that direcctly contradict the primary source (either the combat chapter or the equipment chapter, take you pick), it isn't possible.


> To tell you the truth, before this argument I though unarmed attacks and unarmed strikes were different from each other (which it turns out is not the case) and were definately NOT natural weapons (which also turns out to not be the case).



You won't be surprised to learn, I think you were right first time.  


glass.


----------



## glass

One last question for the 'natural weapons = unarmed strikes' crowd:

Is a grapple a natural weapon? After all, you use your body, right?


glass.


----------



## Artoomis

glass said:
			
		

> One last question for the 'natural weapons = unarmed strikes' crowd:
> 
> Is a grapple a natural weapon? After all, you use your body, right?
> 
> 
> glass.




"Grapple" is not a weapon, it's an attack action.


----------



## Artoomis

glass said:
			
		

> You are begging the question. Your argument that 'fist' is synonymous with 'unarmed strike' assumes it's own conculsion.




No, the second sentence above (from Magic Fang) clearly incudes unarmed strikes with natural weapons - regardless of whether "fist" is a natural weapon or not.



> So do I, but where you have references to unarmed strikes in spells that direcctly contradict the primary source (either the combat chapter or the equipment chapter, take you pick), it isn't possible.




But I already showed how you CAN reconcile them by considering unarmed strike to be a sopecial case of natural weapons.



> You won't be surprised to learn, I think you were right first time.
> 
> 
> glass.




Yes, I know you think so.  I think the way I look at it now if far more elegant.  Really, it does not make all that much difference.  All I'm really saying is that when it comes to enhancing natural weapons, unarmed attacks count in there, too - which is how the spells are written.  Simple, eh?


----------



## Infiniti2000

Artoomis said:
			
		

> "Grapple" is not a weapon, it's an attack action.



 Is as much a weapon as a monk's unarmed strike is a natural weapon.  You can take weapon focus (grapple).


----------



## Artoomis

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Is as much a weapon as a monk's unarmed strike is a natural weapon.  You can take weapon focus (grapple).




That's because grapple in another "special" thing.  The rules specifically allow you to take weapon focus (grapple) but, despite that, it's clearly NOT a weapon. 

Grapple is a "special attack" just like Aid Another, Bull Rudh, Charge, Disarnm, etc.

It just so happen that Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization let you choose grapple as if it were a weapon, but they are NOT referred to as weapons.  So, it's special.

If you like, you could consider Grapple to be a weapon, but ONLY for weapon focus and weapon specialization feats.  That's pretty clear.

A monk's unarmed strike is MUCH more like a weapon - but not quite the same as any other weapon.  It's special - but it can be enhanced like a manufactured weapon or natural weapon (well, except for making it into a magic item).


----------



## Lamoni

One final Post to this thread...

Do human monks qualify for Improved Natural Attack? (or dwarves, halflings, etc.)

No, by the RAW 45
Yes, by the RAW 103

That's 70% vs 30%.  If this was Who wants to be a Millionaire and they just polled the audience, going with the 103 would be a safe bet.

No, but I'd still allow it: 20
Yes, but I don't allow it: 9

Of those with house rules, more than 2/3 house rule in favor of it.  So even if going with the audience above turned out to be a bad choice, it is the fault of the question makers.  If it isn't the right answer, then the rules should be changed so that it is.


----------



## Anubis

Hypersmurf, you never did answer me about the Sage.  Since when was Andy Collins the Sage?  In the issues of Dragon I have, the author of that column is Skip Williams.

Oh, and about Weapon Focus, you can take Weapon Focus (ray) as well, and rays quite obviously aren't considered weapons.  Weapon Focus can be applied to many things, not just weapons.  It's applied to anything where an attack roll can be made.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Power Attack refers to 'natural weapons or unarmed strikes'. If they are the same thing, PA is wrong.




Actually, the language of PA is evidence of 1 of 3 options:

1)  the "lawyer-speak" that I mentioned before- that is, listing all synonyms or near-synonyms in order to cover all of the bases.

2)  evidence of the mentality that unarmed strikes are a special subset of natural weapons, so should be listed seperately.

3)  unarmed strikes are a unique attack in the rules that are neither natural weapons NOR manufactured weapons.



> EDIT: You have also studiously ignored the fact that elves, dwarves, halflings, etc (who all have unarmed strikes) are not listed as having any natural weapons in the MM. How do you reconcile that one?




See 2, above.

Besides, *the MM entries don't even list the unarmed strike for any of those races*, presumably because the unarmed strike is a weapon of last resort for most members of the species.  By your logic, they don't have unarmed strikes, either.

Being intelligent, tool-using creatures, they would tend to use weapons first (because mechanical weapons typically have superior reach & damage as compared to their natural weapons).

They further assume that the creature will have X feat and Z weapon and armor and class.  MM entries are typical exemplars of the species- they are not definitive or exclusive.



> A subset or special case that follows none of the rules for natural weapons?




It does follow some...they are blunt damage and have an x2 crit modifier.



> So do I, but where you have references to unarmed strikes in spells that direcctly contradict the primary source (either the combat chapter or the equipment chapter, take you pick), it isn't possible.




The equipment chapter of the PHB puts unarmed strikes on the weapons chart, and gives a description of what an unarmed strike is on *p121*.  The description in no way contradicts the glossary definitions of natural weapons on *p310*.

The combat chapter of the PHB has the following to say:

"Effects that modify weapon damage apply to the unarmed strikes and the natural physical attacks of creatures" *p134*

It mentions things about unarmed attacks not threatening adjacent attacks and provoking AOOs unless IUC is involved *p137*

On *p139*, it distinguishes unarmed strikes from attacks with melee weapons, but NOT from natural weapons.

On *p141-2*, it talks about unarmed strikes and natural weapons in conjunction with touch attacks- but makes no game mechanical difference between the two, much like some books would say "he (or she)" when referring to a human being (instead of using one pronoun or the other) in an egalitarian fashion.

*P146* has the rules for nonlethal damage, and repeatedly mentions unarmed strikes, but not natural weapons.  Despite this, one would assume that even a natural weapon could deal nonlethal damage under the rules as mentioned in the section _Nonlethal damage with a Weapon that deals Lethal Damage_.  (And having been bitten (gently) by wildlife, I can assure you that this is possible.)

*P160 *has the rules for 2 Weapon fighting (including an explicit mention of unarmed strikes), which as has been pointed out, differ from the rules for attacking with a weapon and a natural weapon.

No "bright line" delineates unarmed strikes from natural attacks here- its a mishmash.



> Is as much a weapon as a monk's unarmed strike is a natural weapon. You can take weapon focus (grapple).




Grapple, despite being a potential focus for certain Weapon Feats, is NOT mentioned anywhere in the chapter, but is instead listed as a combat maneuver.  Ergo- being mentioned in the equipment chapter is not dispositive of whether something is a weapon or not for the purpose of certain Feats.



> Natural weapons do lethal damage, do not make iterative attacks, and are generally specialized for that purpose: claw, horn, hoof, fang.




Hooves are NOT specialized to do damage- they are designed to aid in running over hard ground, to aid the animal in cutting on dirt, etc.  It is designed for motion, and the animal is pressing it into service for a weapon of last resort- that is, when the animal has no avenue of escape.  The fact that a hoof is hard, relatively sharp, and attached to powerful muscles makes it ideal for propelling an animal over plains, broken land, etc...and also happens to make it dangerous.

Similarly, most animals (herbivores, at least) do not use their bite as a primary weapon- camoflage, excellent hearing, nearly 270+deg. fields of vision, and running away are their primary survival mechanisms.  A bite, like the hoof, typically a weapon of last resort- adapting a tool that aids in eating to the task of defense or attack.


----------



## RigaMortus2

FoxWander said:
			
		

> Let's say I'm a wizard, there is a monk and a mountain in front of me. I cast _Magic Weapon_. Now, if I touch the mountain the spell does nothing. The mountain is not a weapon and therefore cannot be affected by the spell- it is not a valid target.




Oh yeah?  Tell that to a Titan!


----------



## Hypersmurf

Anubis said:
			
		

> Hypersmurf, you never did answer me about the Sage.  Since when was Andy Collins the Sage?  In the issues of Dragon I have, the author of that column is Skip Williams.




Some months now.

From the Rules of the Game articles:

_*About the Author*
Skip Williams keeps busy with freelance projects for several different game companies and *was the Sage* of Dragon Magazine for many years._

From andycollins.net:

_Andy Collins works as a roleplaying game developer for Wizards of the Coast. *He's also the official "Sage,"* answering D&D rules questions every month in the pages of Dragon Magazine._

-Hyp.


----------



## glass

Artoomis said:
			
		

> "Grapple" is not a weapon, it's an attack action.



Exactly, just like unarmed strike!


glass.


----------



## glass

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Besides, *the MM entries don't even list the unarmed strike for any of those races*, presumably because the unarmed strike is a weapon of last resort for most members of the species.  By your logic, they don't have unarmed strikes, either.



No they don't _have_ unarmed strikes, they can _use_ unarmed strikes, just like any other creature that can move.




> It does follow some...they are blunt damage and have an x2 crit modifier.



Like a club, and unlike a claw?  





> The equipment chapter of the PHB puts unarmed strikes on the weapons chart, and gives a description of what an unarmed strike is on *p121*.  The description in no way contradicts the glossary definitions of natural weapons on *p310*.



Except by being in the 'equipment' chapter, you mean?



> The combat chapter of the PHB has the following to say: "Effects that modify weapon damage apply to the unarmed strikes and the natural physical attacks of creatures" *p134*



Again, indicating that unarmed strikes and natural weapons are separate things.


glass.


----------



## Artoomis

glass said:
			
		

> ...Again, indicating that unarmed strikes and natural weapons are separate things.
> 
> 
> glass.




And, once again, those on my side of the argument understand all of that and ALSO understand that, in mutliple places within core rules and beyond, that unarmed attacks are sometimes referred to as natural weapons. 

If you think of unarmed weapons as natural weapons only for the purpose of enhancing (and penalyzing, I suppose)  through spells, feats, etc., it works very well. 

A sort of "special category" of natural weapons.

When though of this way, ALL the rules work and one does not need to toss out the references of unarmed attaclks as natural weapons.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Me
> The combat chapter of the PHB has the following to say: "Effects that modify weapon damage apply to the unarmed strikes and the natural physical attacks of creatures" p134






> Glass
> Again, indicating that unarmed strikes and natural weapons are separate things.




No.  It does not eliminate the possibility that the drafter of that section considered unarmed strikes to be a kind of natural weapon.

For example, when a lawyer drafts a document that refers to "natural heirs, children, decendants, and..." he isn't saying that those are seperate things.  "Children" are a subset of "Descendants" (which can include grandchildren, etc.) and both are a subset of "natural heirs" which can include many blood relatives (like uncles, parents, grandparents, and cousins) depending on who died when.
+++


> Glass
> EDIT: You have also studiously ignored the fact that elves, dwarves, halflings, etc (who all have unarmed strikes) are not listed as having any natural weapons in the MM. How do you reconcile that one?






> Me
> Besides, the MM entries don't even list the unarmed strike for any of those races, presumably because the unarmed strike is a weapon of last resort for most members of the species.






> Glass
> No they don't have unarmed strikes, they can use unarmed strikes, just like any other creature that can move.




The MM is, at best, inconsistent.

Traditional (Core) PC races only have weapon attacks listed in their stat blocks.  The Centaur only gets use hooves during a full attack.

Among giantkind, Ogres and Ettins (listed INT 6) have only weapon stats, but meanwhile all of the standard Giants (who are smarter & more civilized) have natural attacks AND weapons listed in their stat block.

Djinni & Efreeti (who are depicted with falchions) only have slam attacks listed, but Janni have only weapon attacks listed.  Doppelgangers also have only natural attacks listed, even though the description clearly states they use weapons when disguised.

Balors list natural attacks & weapons, but pit fiends do not - though both creature descriptions make note of the use of weapons.

None of them- all presumably "creatures that can move" - has an unarmed strike listed.


----------



## Caliban

Anubis said:
			
		

> Hypersmurf, you never did answer me about the Sage.  Since when was Andy Collins the Sage?  In the issues of Dragon I have, the author of that column is Skip Williams.




Then you haven't bought Dragon magazine in about a year.    Dragon # 323 is when Andy Collins took over the column.


----------



## Caliban

Artoomis said:
			
		

> If you think of unarmed weapons as natural weapons only for the purpose of enhancing (and penalyzing, I suppose)  through spells, feats, etc., it works very well.
> 
> A sort of "special category" of natural weapons.
> 
> When though of this way, ALL the rules work and one does not need to toss out the references of unarmed attaclks as natural weapons.





I think this is probably the best way to handle it, but it's not some thing that is actually stated in the rules anywhere.   You are creating a new rule to correct inconsistencies in the text (which is what an intelligent DM does).

The fact is that the rules treat unarmed strike inconsistently, depending on the viewpoint of whoever authored that section of the rules, that feat, or that Prc.  For whatever reason, these inconsistencies have never been caught in editing or errata. 

This is one of those cases where "designer intent" appears to be in conflict with itself.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Me
> The equipment chapter of the PHB puts unarmed strikes on the weapons chart, and gives a description of what an unarmed strike is on p121. The description in no way contradicts the glossary definitions of natural weapons on p310.






> Glass
> Except by being in the 'equipment' chapter, you mean?




Last I checked, no PC has to buy or find fists, can buy or find extra ones that will just attach (Hand of Vecna aside), list fists on encumberance, or risks accidentally misplacing them/having them stolen in normal game play.

In no meaninful sense are unarmed attacks equipment.

If you have to stretch THAT far, you're really distorting the rules to justify your viewpoint.


----------



## glass

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> In no meaninful sense are unarmed attacks equipment. If you have to stretch THAT far, you're really distorting the rules to justify your viewpoint.



I didn't put them in the Equipment chapter, the designers did.

Why did they do this? Because in everyway that an unarmed strike is considered a weapon at all, it is considered a manufactured weapon! No distortion required.


glass.


----------



## glass

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> None of them- all presumably "creatures that can move" - has an unarmed strike listed.



Well if I'm right, they wouldn't would they? They list natural weapons, and/or most commonly used manufactured weapons. Since unarmed strike is neither, it is not listed.

Of course, if unarmed strike were a natural weapon, it would be listed for every creature. This is the biggest single piece of evidence against the 'unamarmed strike are natural weapons' camp.

While we are on the MM, also note that some creatures get x1.5 Str bonus because they only have one natural weapon. Only, if unarmed strike is a natural weapon, then they don't only have one!


glass.


----------



## glass

Artoomis said:
			
		

> If you think of unarmed weapons as natural weapons only for the purpose of enhancing (and penalyzing, I suppose)  through spells, feats, etc., it works very well.



You realise that if you have to 'think of them as natural weapons' for certain purposes, then they are not actually natural weapons, right? Are you coming over to our side of the argument?


glass.


----------



## Artoomis

glass said:
			
		

> You realise that if you have to 'think of them as natural weapons' for certain purposes, then they are not actually natural weapons, right? Are you coming over to our side of the argument?
> 
> 
> glass.




Not really, no.

Unarmed attacks are natural weapons with most of the properties of manufactured weapons - that is, a special category.

It's weird, but it's the only way to make ALL the rules work together and it works just fine.


----------



## Artoomis

glass said:
			
		

> ...Of course, if unarmed strike were a natural weapon, it would be listed for every creature. This is the biggest single piece of evidence against the 'unamarmed strike are natural weapons' camp....
> 
> glass.




That's wrong.  If every creature has it, then there's no need to list it.  More importantly, it's not an ordinary natural weapon - it's special, with it's own subset of rules.  Listing it as a natural weapon would only confuse matters, as ironic as that is.


----------



## glass

Artoomis said:
			
		

> That's wrong.  If every creature has it, then there's no need to list it.  More importantly, it's not an ordinary natural weapon - it's special, with it's own subset of rules.  Listing it as a natural weapon would only confuse matters, as ironic as that is.



Except that if it was special, with it's own subset of rule, it would have to actually have it's own subset of rules. If you're right, and it is a natural weapon, then there is nothing anywhere which tells you what these special rules are, which means that either:
It isn't a natural weapon.
It follows all the same rules as other natural weapons.
You have to make stuff up.
Personally, I prefer 1. You seem to prefer 3, which is fine, but you can hardly argue that it's the RAW.

_EDIT: The MM is the primary source for monster statistics. If it it doesn't list a natural attack (and doesn't give a general note about it, which it doesn't), then a creature doesn't have it. Thus, if an unarned strike is a natural weapon, no creature has one!_


glass.


----------



## glass

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Not really, no. Unarmed attacks are natural weapons with most of the properties of manufactured weapons - that is, a special category. It's weird, but it's the only way to make ALL the rules work together and it works just fine.



As I have repeatedly demonstrated, it doesn't make all the rules work together. It doesn't matter how many time you repeat it, it won't make it true!  


glass.


----------



## Artoomis

glass said:
			
		

> Except that if it was special, with it's own subset of rule, it would have to actually have it's own subset of rules. If you're right, and it is a natural weapon, then there is nothing anywhere which tells you what these special rules are, ...
> 
> 
> glass.




See PHB page 139 and mutiple oft-repeated cites showing how they are referred to as natural weapons - though with special rules as codified on page 139.


----------



## Artoomis

glass said:
			
		

> As I have repeatedly demonstrated, it doesn't make all the rules work together. It doesn't matter how many time you repeat it, it won't make it true!
> 
> 
> glass.




It doesn't matter how many time you ignore it, the fact that all rules work together my way is true as I have shown - no rules text needs be discarded.   The fact that your way you have to actually ignore some printed material is also true.  For my way of thinking, that makes my way closer to being RAW than yours.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Artoomis said:
			
		

> That's wrong.  If every creature has it, then there's no need to list it.




If every creature has it, how do you account for glass's point above:

_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*) and is given first. Secondary attacks add only 1/2 the creature’s Strength bonus and are given second in the parentheses._

If we have an example of a creature gaining 1.5x Str bonus with its Bite attack, can we assume that Bite is the creature's 'sole natural weapon', and that it is therefore incapable of making an unarmed strike?

Or is Bite the creature's 'sole natural weapon except for the other one'?

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> If every creature has it, how do you account for glass's point above:
> 
> _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*) and is given first. Secondary attacks add only 1/2 the creature’s Strength bonus and are given second in the parentheses._
> 
> If we have an example of a creature gaining 1.5x Str bonus with its Bite attack, can we assume that Bite is the creature's 'sole natural weapon', and that it is therefore incapable of making an unarmed strike?
> 
> Or is Bite the creature's 'sole natural weapon except for the other one'?
> 
> -Hyp.




Once again, unarmed attacks are "special."  I think they really are only considered natural weapons for enhancement of any sort and that's about it.

If you work with them that way, all the rules work just fine.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Except that if it was special, with it's own subset of rule, it would have to actually have it's own subset of rules. If you're right, and it is a natural weapon, then there is nothing anywhere which tells you what these special rules are, which means that either:
> 
> 1. It isn't a natural weapon.
> 2. It follows all the same rules as other natural weapons.
> 3. You have to make stuff up.




Except that we have the section of the combat rules and tables that show us explicitly how unarmed strikes work, and we have ALL noted how they differ from both other natural weapons and manufactured weapons.  To use an old, old phrase, they "are neither fish nor fowl."

As for us "making stuff up," we would counter that you are completely ignoring explicit text in the PHB.  You SAY that the spells and other sections are wrong, but you don't have any explicit text to counter it.  In other words, we would say your list should ACTUALLY read:



> 1. It isn't a natural weapon despite sections of the Core rules that explicitly call it a natural weapon.
> 2. It follows all the same rules as other natural weapons.
> 3. You infer that the designers had intended that unarmed strikes be considered a subset of natural weapons, but neglected to say so explicitly.




How does Occam's Razor cut?

First, 2 is clearly wrong- both sides have established that unarmed strikes have their own rules.

If 1 is correct, we would have to assume that the sections are wrong with only inferred (not direct) evidence.  If the statement "unarmed strikes are natural weapons" is an error, it is one that has not only not been caught, but has been repeated.  The fact that these sections some would excise made it through an initial printing of the core rules, a revision of the rules, and into subsequent releases of supporting material by this company, _all while under the eyes of multiple editors_, is an indicator that it is NOT an error.  

If 3 is correct, the designers wanted unarmed strikes to be considered a subcategory of natural weapons with special rules.  It is, as we have demonstrated, an inferrence supported by numerous explicit references to unarmed strikes as natural weapons in the Core rules.

I'm thinking Occam's Razor cuts in favor of 3.  Instead of inferring that several sections of explicit text are simply wrong, position 3 inferrs that _as little as 1 sentence was accidentally omitted_, namely a stand-alone sentence that says "Unarmed Strikes are a subcategory of Natural Weapons" (like in the glossary, as opposed to in a spell description).

After all, RAW, there are NUMEROUS references that equate unarmed strikes with natural weapons, and we ARE (or were at some point) discussing this as a question of RAW.


----------



## Artoomis

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> ...I'm thinking Occam's Razor cuts in favor of 3.  Instead of inferring that several sections of explicit text are simply wrong, position 3 inferrs that _as little as 1 sentence was accidentally omitted_, namely a stand-alone sentence that says "Unarmed Strikes are a subcategory of Natural Weapons" (like in the glossary, as opposed to in a spell description).
> 
> After all, RAW, there are NUMEROUS references that equate unarmed strikes with natural weapons, and we ARE (or were at some point) discussing this as a question of RAW.




I'm glad I'm not the ONLY voice of reason.


----------



## glass

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Once again, unarmed attacks are "special."  I think they really are only considered natural weapons for enhancement of any sort and that's about it.



Are you still argueing that they _are_ natural weapons, or that they _considered_ natural weapons for certain purposes?


glass.


----------



## frankthedm

I feel it is in the spirit of the rules to let monks benefit from the feat. But these are the same Bullfeces rules that let monks claim magic fang AND magic weapon spells.  But that steaming pile of manure is still closer to the spirit of the rules than the flurry comboed with 2 weapon fighting the sage let monks claim.

I would not allow it because _In my own game_, improved natural attack represents a larger natural weapon. And i have at least one player who would take the Popeye fists and clown feat for the damage bonus.


----------



## Artoomis

glass said:
			
		

> Are you still argueing that they _are_ natural weapons, or that they _considered_ natural weapons for certain purposes?
> 
> 
> glass.




It doesn't matter - ti comes out to be the same thing.

Either:

They are natural weapons with special rules that mean the don't follow the normal natural weapon rules but can be enhanced as natural weapons.

or

They are special (neither natural nor manufactured weapon) with some characteristics of manufactured weapons (iterative attacks, etc.) and are treated as natural weapons for any sort of enhancement (including feats, spells, etc.) .

Comes out to be the same thing, really.


----------



## glass

Artoomis said:
			
		

> It doesn't matter - ti comes out to be the same thing.
> 
> Either:
> 
> They are natural weapons with special rules that mean the don't follow the normal natural weapon rules but can be enhanced as natural weapons.
> 
> or
> 
> They are special (neither natural nor manufactured weapon) with some characteristics of manufactured weapons (iterative attacks, etc.) and are treated as natural weapons for any sort of enhancement (including feats, spells, etc.).
> 
> Comes out to be the same thing, really.



But which are you actually arguing as supported by the rules? The end result may be the same, but the counter-arguments are different.

You can't keep two positions, and hop between them to avoid any arguments that come your way.


glass.


----------



## Artoomis

Sure I can. 

Seriously, it does not make any difference which way you view it - either way makes all the rules work together.

Do you not see how both views are essentially the same?  Both approaches counter the counter-arguments identically.  *They are just two different ways of saying the same thing.*

It makes no difference to think of unarmed attacks as natural weapons with very special rules, or to think of them as a "special" thing (neither natural not manufactured) that follows a special set of rules that includes lumping them in with "natural weapons" for feats, spells, etc., including prerequisites of them.  

Same thing.  Either way they are "special" and are "natural weapons" when it comes to anything involving feats, spells, etc. to enhance them.



			
				glass said:
			
		

> But which are you actually arguing as supported by the rules? The end result may be the same, but the counter-arguments are different.
> 
> You can't keep two positions, and hop between them to avoid any arguments that come your way.
> 
> 
> glass.


----------



## glass

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Sure I can.
> 
> Seriously, it does not make any difference which way you view it - either way makes all the rules work together.
> 
> Do you not see how both views are essentially the same?



They have essentially the same results in this case, but they are still mutually contradictory positions. We are not arguing about 'which way you view it', we are arguing about what the rules say. They may say one or the other, or neither. They can't possibly say both!


glass.


----------



## Artoomis

glass said:
			
		

> They have essentially the same results in this case, but they are still mutually contradictory positions. We are not arguing about 'which way you view it', we are arguing about what the rules say. They may say one or the other, or neither. They can't possibly say both!
> 
> 
> glass.




Ah, but you see, they are NOT contradictory views, they are merely two ways of saying the same thing.  One is simply a restatement of the other coming at it from a different viewpoint.

Both are fully supported by the rules (of course, my position is if one is supported, so is the other since they are mere restatements of each the same thing.

Therefore, BOTH ways of stating my position are supported by the rules as they aren't contradictory at all, but, rather, merely two different ways of saying the same thing.

Obviously, you do not agree .


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Ah, but you see, they are NOT contradictory views,




In what way could they possibly not be contradictory?

Position 1: US are natural weapons, and have some special rules

Position 2: US are not natural weapons, and have some special rules


----------



## Artoomis

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> In what way could they possibly not be contradictory?
> 
> Position 1: US are natural weapons, and have some special rules
> 
> Position 2: US are not natural weapons, and have some special rules




Postion 1:  US are natural weapons (NW), and have some special rules diffentiating them from other NWs and where they, in effect, are often NOT considered NW.

Position 2:  US are not NW, but have some special rules where they effectivewly are NW under ciertain conditions.

Same thing, really.  Either way, under the right set of circumstances they are NW, under other sets of circumstances they are not.

Same thing, right?

Either way, for enhacement, etc., (Feats, Spell, etc., that enhance NW) they are NW, for other purposes they are special and not NW.

See?  It does not matter if you consider US to be NW that somtimes are not NW or are not NW that are sometimes NW.


----------



## Storm Raven

glass said:
			
		

> They have essentially the same results in this case, but they are still mutually contradictory positions. We are not arguing about 'which way you view it', we are arguing about what the rules say. They may say one or the other, or neither. They can't possibly say both!




Sure they can. Where did you ever get the idea that the rules cannot contradict themselves?


----------



## Infiniti2000

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Same thing, right?



 No, because as glass said, "You can't keep two positions, and hop between them to avoid any arguments that come your way."



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> See?  It does not matter if you consider US to be NW that somtimes are not NW or are not NW that are sometimes NW.



 It matters a lot because defining them one way makes some of those special cases change.  Yet, as glass points out, you're redefining it as you see fit without regard for a clear definition in the rules.  Basically, you're trying to paint yourself in a situation where no matter what interpretation or rules bring to bear, you can't possibly be considered wrong because you'll just revise your definition as needed.

The rest of us aren't allowing it.


----------



## Artoomis

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> No, because as glass said, "You can't keep two positions, and hop between them to avoid any arguments that come your way."
> 
> It matters a lot because defining them one way makes some of those special cases change.  Yet, as glass points out, you're redefining it as you see fit without regard for a clear definition in the rules.  Basically, you're trying to paint yourself in a situation where no matter what interpretation or rules bring to bear, you can't possibly be considered wrong because you'll just revise your definition as needed.
> 
> The rest of us aren't allowing it.






No, that's not what I'm doing.  I'm saying that either way of expressing it is valid and essentially the same.  All of my arguments about how my way of looking at it meshes with all the rules and work equally well either way - so take potshots at either view - I can defend them both equally.


----------



## Dimwhit

That's OK, Artoomis, I see what you're saying.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

What Artoomis is saying is that they are FUNCTIONALLY equivalent, and to distinguish between them further is meaningless.

After all, either position gets you to a kind of weapon that follows some natural weapon (NW) rules, some mechanical weapon (MW) rules, and some rules all its own (UW).

Any subsequent interaction between unarmed strikes and new rules will fall into one of the 3 categories of NW, MW, or UW (hopefully) _as defined in that subsequently published rule_.

+++

Regardless of your personal position, it should at least be clear to all that at some point, enough of the designers considered unarmed strikes to be natural weapons for there to be sections in the rules that make that statement.  Then, for whatever reason, accidentally, intentionally or simply by omission, an explicit statment to that effect *in a pure-rules or definition section* (as opposed to certain spell or class descriptions) was not included in the PHB or DMG.

From an editing standpoint, it is far easier to notice that a section of text is incorrect than to see that it is missing.  An editor or team of editors is far more likely to realize that a statement like "an unarmed strike or other natural weapon" is incorrect than to catch that a single sentence like "Unarmed strikes are a special subclass of natural weapons with special rules." is missing.

The likelyhood that a misdefinition would be caught rises further when you revise the product.  Compare the 3Ed version of Magic Fang and Magic Weapon to their 3.5Ed counterparts.  The 3Ed version of Magic Fang explicitly calls unarmed strikes natural weapons, but the 3.5Ed merely lists fists as one example of natural weapons.  Meanwhile, the 3Ed M.Weapon_ ignores the concept of natural weapons entirely_- something they corrected in 3.5 by saying that the spell couldn't be cast on natural weapons like unarmed strikes.

The editors of 3.5 felt the 3.0 versions of the spells weren't clear enough and corrected them.  Had they felt that unarmed strikes were not natural weapons, they wouldn't have listed them alongside more typical exemplars (claws, fangs) and they definitely wouldn't have ADDED that concept to M.Weapon for clarity.


----------



## Eloi

Quoting Lamoni:

Do human monks qualify for Improved Natural Attack? (or dwarves, halflings, etc.)

No, by the RAW 45
Yes, by the RAW 103

That's 70% vs 30%. If this was Who wants to be a Millionaire and they just polled the audience, going with the 103 would be a safe bet.

No, but I'd still allow it: 20
Yes, but I don't allow it: 9

Of those with house rules, more than 2/3 house rule in favor of it. So even if going with the audience above turned out to be a bad choice, it is the fault of the question makers. If it isn't the right answer, then the rules should be changed so that it is.

--This, coupled with the clarification that 3.5 supplied that Magic Fang and Magic Weapon both work just as well on a Monk (who just happens to be a living weapon), leads me to conclude that if a Human Monk decides to take Improved Natural Attack, that they can.

Voters favor it, clarification in 3.5 confirms it, happiness is ours.

Let a quiet moment of cheer pervade the morning contemplation in the monasteries.
Then we can get back to watching the monks with Powerful Charge and Greater Powerful Charge pass out carefully modulated helpings of Instant Beat-Down to the target dummies.

Whee!


----------



## Infiniti2000

Artoomis said:
			
		

> No, that's not what I'm doing.  I'm saying that either way of expressing it is valid and essentially the same.  All of my arguments about how my way of looking at it meshes with all the rules and work equally well either way - so take potshots at either view - I can defend them both equally.



 You, Dimwhit, and Dannyalcatraz must have a lot of ranks in Ride (fence).     I have no idea how to continue the debate when the opposing side also supports my view.


----------



## Artoomis

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> You, Dimwhit, and Dannyalcatraz must have a lot of ranks in Ride (fence).     I have no idea how to continue the debate when the opposing side also supports my view.




I'm a little lost right now - what is your view?


----------



## Infiniti2000

It's that monks cannot take INA, but I'm not sure if that's still the current topic of debate.


----------



## Artoomis

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> It's that monks cannot take INA, but I'm not sure if that's still the current topic of debate.




The dabate has shifted to whether all unarmed attacks (monks included) are natural weapons (at least as for as feats, spells,. etc. are concerned) which, if they are, renders the monk debate moot as anyone with unarmed attacks could take INA, though it would be of little benefit for most.


----------



## Pinotage

Artoomis said:
			
		

> The dabate has shifted to whether all unarmed attacks (monks included) are natural weapons (at least as for as feats, spells,. etc. are concerned) which, if they are, renders the monk debate moot as anyone with unarmed attacks could take INA, though it would be of little benefit for most.




Moot? There's that word again!   

Pinotage


----------



## Artoomis

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Moot? There's that word again!
> 
> Pinotage




Clever how I worked that in again, isn't it? <pats self on back>


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> You, Dimwhit, and Dannyalcatraz must have a lot of ranks in Ride (fence).




 

I'm no fence rider- IMHO, Unarmed Strikes = Natural Weapons (with special rules).

Its just that the rules about unarmed strike are so messed up that it functionally doesn't matter if you say US are NW with special rules so can be used with anything that can be used on NW's (unless there is a specific explicit exception) or if you say that US are NOT NW, but have special rules that allow them to be used with anything that can be used on NW's (unless there is a specific explicit exception).



> The dabate has shifted to whether all unarmed attacks (monks included) are natural weapons (at least as for as feats, spells,. etc. are concerned) which, if they are, renders the monk debate moot as anyone with unarmed attacks could take INA, though it would be of little benefit for most.




Not _quite_ moot.

As I stated before, since I believe that all unarmed strikes are natural weapons, that forced me to re-analyze the section in the Monk description.

Since it states that a monk's unarmed strike can be considered a natural or manufactured weapon for purposes of spells or effect, the only conclusion I could come to was that the benefit being added to the monk is the "manufactured weapon" language- AFAIK, unique to the monk class.

In other words- any spell or effect that affects *manufactured* weapons (other than those that are extremely specific, like Shillelagh) can be used on a Monk's unarmed strikes.


----------



## Artoomis

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Not _quite_ moot.




The debate of whether monks can take INA becomes moot.  Your point about what this means for considering unarmed strikes as manufactureed weapons is technically a different debate, though very similar.


----------



## Fortain

*Sorry for a bit of grave-digging, but...*

Quote from Official D&D Game Rules FAQ...Updated 10/20/05

"*Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack (Monster
Manual, page 304) to improve his unarmed strike?*
Yes. As stated on page 41 of the Player’s Handbook, a
monk’s unarmed strike “is treated as both a manufactured
weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and
effects that enhance or improve either” which includes feats
such as Improved Natural Attack.
Barring multiclassing, the earliest a monk could take this
feat would be at 6th level (due to the base attack bonus
prerequisite), at which point her unarmed strike damage would
improve from 1d8 to 2d6 (which represents an average increase
of +2.5 points of damage). The same monk at 20th level would
deal 3d8(?) points of damage with her unarmed strike."

And for those who question what progression the Monk would use after gaining INS...

Quote from D20 SRD...
"Improved Natural Attack [General]
Prerequisite

Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4.
Benefit

Choose one of the creature’s natural attack forms. *The damage for this natural weapon increases by one step, as if the creature’s size had increased by one category*: 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6.

A weapon or attack that deals 1d10 points of damage increases as follows: 1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8.

This feat may be taken multiple times, but each time it applies to a different natural attack."

Not sure where the FAQs' 3d8 came from - possible typo for 4d8?


----------



## Hypersmurf

Fortain said:
			
		

> Quote from Official D&D Game Rules FAQ...Updated 10/20/05




It's the same Sage Ruling referred to in post 1 of the thread (just in a different place), so all 650 replies so far have taken its existence into account already 

-Hyp.


----------



## Fortain

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It's the same Sage Ruling referred to in post 1 of the thread (just in a different place), so all 650 replies so far have taken its existence into account already
> 
> -Hyp.




I kinda figured that, Hyp.    I just felt like posting it, anyway. IMO, if I was DMing, and a person wanted to get INS for their Monk, they can - simple as that.

As an aside, are there any other rules debates on other topics that've gone on for as long as the "INS for Monks" thread has?

Edited for Caliban...


----------



## Caliban

Fortain said:
			
		

> IMO, Monks can take INS - simple as that.




If they check with their DM first.


----------



## Anubis

Why is this debate still going even?  We have not one, not two, but three official sources now (the RAW when by the most widely-accepted interpretation, Skip Williams from Dragon, and now the FAQ) stating monk's can take the feat.

Any DM who says they can't take it, *that* is a house rule.  Per the official rules, monks can take the feat.  Let it die already.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Anubis said:
			
		

> ... Skip Williams from Dragon...




Andy Collins from Dragon.

-Hyp.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Fortain said:
			
		

> As an aside, are there any other rules debates on other topics that've gone on for as long as the "INS for Monks" thread has?




It's the longest thread currently in the Rules Forum.

-Hyp.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> ...Skip Williams from Dragon...




Ah...

As Hypersmurf has pointed out earlier in this thread (_Edit: and just above as I was posting this!_):



> Andy Collins works as a roleplaying game developer for Wizards of the Coast. He's also the official "Sage," answering D&D rules questions every month in the pages of Dragon Magazine.




but other than that- I'm still in the YES group.


----------



## Anubis

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Andy Collins from Dragon.
> 
> -Hyp.




I asked you this before and you never answered.  When did Andy Collins become the Sage?  I have several issues of Dragon from I think early 2004, and the author is listed as Skip Williams.  Just curious as to when that happened, and you never answered me before.

I mean it still doesn't matter as far as the topic goes since Andy Collins is one of the designers as well, but I just wanna know when this change happened.


----------



## FireLance

Anubis said:
			
		

> Why is this debate still going even?  We have not one, not two, but three official sources now (the RAW when by the most widely-accepted interpretation, Skip Williams from Dragon, and now the FAQ) stating monk's can take the feat.



The FAQ generally repeats Sage Advice from Dragon, so it's unclear whether it's one source or two.


----------



## Pinotage

Anubis said:
			
		

> I asked you this before and you never answered.  When did Andy Collins become the Sage?  I have several issues of Dragon from I think early 2004, and the author is listed as Skip Williams.  Just curious as to when that happened, and you never answered me before.




Post #609.

Pinotage


----------



## RigaMortus2

Anubis said:
			
		

> Why is this debate still going even?  We have not one, not two, but three official sources now (the RAW when by the most widely-accepted interpretation, Skip Williams from Dragon, and now the FAQ) stating monk's can take the feat.




Because the only "official" source that really matters has NOT been updated, and that is the errata.  The PHB (as well as the other 2 Core books) is your first official source, and since it is not absolutely 100% clear in those primary sources whether a Monk can take INA, we look to the FAQ for the designers to answer what the "intent" was behind INA and Monks taking it.  So what are we arguing at this point?  Are we arguing the intent of Monks taking INA or are we arguing RAW whether Monks can take INA?  Cause RAW is unclear and not updated in errata.  Intent, well read the FAQ or Sage Advice for that...


----------



## glass

Anubis said:
			
		

> Why is this debate still going even?  We have not one, not two, but three official sources now (the RAW when by the most widely-accepted interpretation, Skip Williams from Dragon, and now the FAQ) stating monk's can take the feat.



What the RAW says is the subject of this debate, so trying to use it as evidence for you position is begging the question. The other two are not the rules, so are irrelevant.







> Any DM who says they can't take it, *that* is a house rule.  Per the official rules, monks can take the feat.



Do you think if you keep reastating a position, that is a substitute for evidence?







> Let it die already.



The thread necromancy came from your side of the debate not ours. I'd love to let it die, but as long as your side keep posting erroneous interpretations as facts, we have to keep calling you on it for the benefit of those new to the debate.


glass.


----------



## Caliban

Anubis said:
			
		

> I asked you this before and you never answered.  When did Andy Collins become the Sage?  I have several issues of Dragon from I think early 2004, and the author is listed as Skip Williams.  Just curious as to when that happened, and you never answered me before.
> 
> I mean it still doesn't matter as far as the topic goes since Andy Collins is one of the designers as well, but I just wanna know when this change happened.





Dragon # 323, over a year ago.   I answered this earlier in post 614, apparently you didn't bother to read it, just like you didn't bother to read Hypersmurfs response in post # 609.


----------



## glass

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Because the only "official" source that really matters has NOT been updated, and that is the errata.  The PHB (as well as the other 2 Core books) is your first official source, and since it is not absolutely 100% clear in those primary sources whether a Monk can take INA, we look to the FAQ for the designers to answer what the "intent" was behind INA and Monks taking it.  So what are we arguing at this point?  Are we arguing the intent of Monks taking INA or are we arguing RAW whether Monks can take INA?  Cause RAW is unclear and not updated in errata.  Intent, well read the FAQ or Sage Advice for that...



How does Andy Collins know what intent of the person who wrote the monk's ability and the person who wrote the INA feat (who may be different people) was? Is he a mindreader?

And of course, that's assuming that there was any intent. IMO it is just as likely (at least) that the interaction was not considered at all, so there was no intent.

IOW, you can speculate about intent all you like, but in the end, the best guide for what the designers intended is what they wrote! And that's really all you can go on.


glass.


----------



## Fortain

glass said:
			
		

> The thread necromancy came from your side of the debate not ours. I'd love to let it die, but as long as your side keep posting erroneous interpretations as facts, we have to keep calling you on it for the benefit of those new to the debate.
> glass.




The reason I posted this, glass, was to show that the D&D FAQ (which, BTW, is endorsed by WotC, otherwise it wouldn't {A} be on their site, and {B} include the "Based on the original..." text that only WotC material has) now lists INS as a Monk-gainable feat. Now, we all know that the Sage can be wrong (look at the FAQ, page #18, first question), but there's no need to call it an "erroneous interpretation", since the only way it could be allowed on the WotC site, is for WotC to okay it. Also, the Sage admits he's wrong when he's wrong - again, see the above item on the FAQ. If there was a question about the Monk&INS debate between the Dragon magazine and the FAQ update, it would have been posted differently. Therefore, the FAQ _is_ fact when it comes to rules interpretations, since the only possible way it could be on the FAQ is if WotC okayed it.


----------



## glass

Fortain said:
			
		

> The reason I posted this, glass, was to show that the D&D FAQ (which, BTW, is endorsed by WotC, otherwise it wouldn't {A} be on their site, and {B} include the "Based on the original..." text that only WotC material has) now lists INS as a Monk-gainable feat. Now, we all know that the Sage can be wrong (look at the FAQ, page #18, first question), but there's no need to call it an "erroneous interpretation", since the only way it could be allowed on the WotC site, is for WotC to okay it.



It can't be wrong because it's on the WotC site? So, the final arbiters of D&D rules are webmasters? I'll stick with my PHB, thanks.







> Also, the Sage admits he's wrong when he's wrong - again, see the above item on the FAQ. If there was a question about the Monk&INS debate between the Dragon magazine and the FAQ update, it would have been posted differently. Therefore, the FAQ _is_ fact when it comes to rules interpretations, since the only possible way it could be on the FAQ is if WotC okayed it.



So, the Sage can't be wrong, but when he is wrong he admits it? How does that work, exactly?

Plus, the fact that he has admitted he got something wrong, doesn't mean that he _always_ admits when he gets it wrong. That would be quite a lot of admissions...  

In conclusion, there is every call to call it an 'erroneous interpretation', because IMO it doesn't follow from the RAW. Lots of people (even Andy Collins) making the same mistake doesn't mean it isn't a mistake.


glass.


----------



## Artoomis

Well, I am surprised this got resurrected.

As for errata vs. FAQ - I'm afraid that the FAQ acts as a virtual errata for WotC, not just interpretations.  This is not according the their own original rules, but it's what has happened over the years.  Some items from the FAQ (never published in errata) made it into the latest printing of the DMG/PHB.  Sorry, but I cannot think of an example off-hand but I have actually seen at least one example of this.

Therefore, if errata can be used to support RAW arguments I suppose the FAQ can as well.

In this case, I (and others) have shown (repeatedly) how the rules as written (without errata or FAQ) support the position that monks can take INA - and how that position is closer to the rules as written than not allowing it by two completely independent streams of logic.  I personally have also admitted that the minority view could also be valid, even if it really is not the correct position .

I have nothing new to add, really, except the comment about the FAQ being treated as a virtual errata list, which is unfortunate - it never should have evolved that way.  The result is that it's a little hard, sometimes, to figure out if a particular FAQ item is:

1.  An official clarification/interpretation.
2.  Merely intended as good  Advice.
3.  An offical, actual rules change.

In this case, I think we are talking about an official clarification/interpretation because there are indeed two legitimate ways to view the rules so a judgement from the authoritative source was required.


----------



## Artoomis

glass said:
			
		

> ...In conclusion, there is every call to call it an 'erroneous interpretation', because IMO it doesn't follow from the RAW. Lots of people (even Andy Collins) making the same mistake doesn't mean it isn't a mistake.
> 
> 
> glass.




And THAT is where you are wrong.  It is NOT an erroneous interpretation.  It is WotC (through Andy Collins) adopting one of two possible, legitimate, interpretations of RAW.

Now I still maintain that your interpretation is not correct, but I at least recognize that it is possible to legitimately draw your conclusion from the RAW.

Can you not do the same for my side of the argument?


----------



## glass

Artoomis said:
			
		

> And THAT is where you are wrong.  It is NOT an erroneous interpretation.  It is WotC (through Andy Collins) adopting one of two possible, legitimate, interpretations of RAW.



I don't care what Andy Collins or WotC think. I care what the PHB says.



> Now I still maintain that your interpretation is not correct, but I at least recognize that it is possible to legitimately draw your conclusion from the RAW. Can you not do the same for my side of the argument?



No I can't, because it isn't. There are some areas where there are grey areas of the rules with multiple valid interpretations. IMO, this isn't one of them.

I have presented extensive arguments in support of my position in this thread and others. You can't even keep one consistant position from one post to the next. Is it really surprising you have failed to convince me?


glass.


----------



## IcyCool

Artoomis said:
			
		

> As for errata vs. FAQ - I'm afraid that the FAQ acts as a virtual errata for WotC, not just interpretations.




If I had that opinion, I'd be afraid too.


----------



## Artoomis

glass said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> I have presented extensive arguments in support of my position in this thread and others. You can't even keep one consistant position from one post to the next. Is it really surprising you have failed to convince me?
> 
> 
> glass.




First - my position has in fact been very, very consistent - except insofar as I did get convinced that there are TWO ways to support my view that the PHB supports INA being allowed for monks.

Second, it is not suprising I have not convinced you, as you have taken a position and refused to even admit that any other agurment has any validity at all.  I am dissapointed that you cannot at least admit that the argument has two sides, or that the rule is in any way unclear.

That's kind of... sad, really.  And unworthy of you, I think.  Most everyone else (I think) either agrees with me or thinks I am wrong but can understand how my position is based upon RAW.  Doesn't the fact that you think that you have the ONLY legitimate interpretation of the RAW make you kind of ... alone?


----------



## Artoomis

IcyCool said:
			
		

> If I had that opinion, I'd be afraid too.




It's not opinion - it's fact.  The FAQ does, in fact, change some rules and, in at least one case, a rule changed in the FAQ was published in a D&D book (PHB, I think) without ever making it into the "errata."  This means the FAQ was used to actually publish a changed rule.

I don't like it, but that's the way it is.  I once tried to argue that the FAQ could not, per WotC rules, publish any actual rule changes, but I was shown that they in fact DO publish rules changes in the FAQ and, further, I've been shown how, in at least one case, the rule change got published into the new printing of the core rulebook without ever being in errata.

That's NOT the way it was supposed to work, but it's what the've done, without doubt.

If the discussion on FAQ as errata contniues, I think it is off-topic and I'll start a new thread for it.  Only if it looks like it will make for a good discussion on its own.


----------



## glass

Artoomis said:
			
		

> It's not opinion - it's fact.  The FAQ does, in fact, change some rules and, in at least one case, a rule changed in the FAQ was published in a D&D book (PHB, I think) without ever making it into the "errata."  This means the FAQ was used to actually publish a changed rule.



It's not fact. The fact is, per the Errata rules, only the Errata can change the rules. The facts is, the FAQ doesn't change the rules, because it can't.


glass.


----------



## Artoomis

glass said:
			
		

> It's not fact. The fact is, per the Errata rules, only the Errata can change the rules. The facts is, the FAQ doesn't change the rules, because it can't.
> 
> 
> glass.




Well, you are correct that this is the way it is SUPPOSED to work.

In fact, it does not work that way.  I wish it did, and it should, but it does not.

I just proved it, if you take my word about rule change in the FAQ that was never errata but published in the updated printing of a core rule book.

You can jump up and down and proclaim how the FAQ is not allowed to make rule changes all you want (I did, once), but the FACT is that it does do that - even though it shouldn't.

Because of this, it's difficult to know what's what, sometimes, as I stated above.


----------



## IcyCool

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I just proved it, if you take my word about rule change in the FAQ that was never errata but published in the updated printing of a core rule book.




Actually, it doesn't look like you proved anything.  The rule change wasn't a rule change until it was published in the updated printing of the core book.


----------



## Artoomis

IcyCool said:
			
		

> Actually, it doesn't look like you proved anything.  The rule change wasn't a rule change until it was published in the updated printing of the core book.




ROFL.

They published the FAQ that stated "here's how this rule was was meant to be written" or words to that effect.  It was later published that way.

Does that not mean the FAQ published a rule change?  Yep, it sure does.

Now I'll be the first to agree that the rule books plus errata SHOULD be the only true rule source, with the FAQ as clarifiaction/interpretation.  I only wish WotC had followed their own rules for that, but they have not and they do, in fact, publish rules changes in the FAQ.

In truth, errata should be for actual errors ONLY and any actual rule CHANGES should be published another way - they seem to have chosen the FAQ for that - along with OTHER purposes for the FAQ, muddying up the waters for those who like precision.

WotC is really getting their act together and having customer service put out consistent messages on what the "offical" rules are and they are using the FAQ.  The real trick is to seperate out an offical rule change from just advice, and they've made that difficult by mixing the two together in the same document without always making it clear which is which.


----------



## Borlon

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Second, it is not suprising I have not convinced you, as you have taken a position and refused to even admit that any other agurment has any validity at all.  I am dissapointed that you cannot at least admit that the argument has two sides, or that the rule is in any way unclear.
> 
> That's kind of... sad, really.  And unworthy of you, I think.  Most everyone else (I think) either agrees with me or thinks I am wrong but can understand how my position is based upon RAW.  Doesn't the fact that you think that you have the ONLY legitimate interpretation of the RAW make you kind of ... alone?




*Fails Will Save*

Drat, here I am posting in this thread again...   

First, *glass* is not alone.  I don't think the Yes position has a leg to stand on.  Now, maybe it's because I'm pure evil, but I find that almost every time you state a position on the rules, I disagree with you.  Oddly, I tend to agree with *Patryn of Elvenshae* and *Hypersmurf* when they also post.

I conjecture that there is some kind of consistent rules posture that you take which is very different from what I (and some others) take.  I have not been able to put it into words exactly.  It may be that I am systematically misinterpreting the rules, and also what you are saying about the rules.  I don't think so, but I can't account for your rules decisions and so I have to suspend judgement.  

It is clear to me, though, that you are reading the rules according to different principles that I am, and I wish I knew what these principles were.


----------



## IcyCool

Artoomis said:
			
		

> ROFL.
> 
> They published the FAQ that stated "here's how this rule was was meant to be written" or words to that effect.  It was later published that way.
> 
> Does that not mean the FAQ published a rule change?  Yep, it sure does.




No, it doesn't, and I don't understand why you fail to see that.  It is entirely possible for the FAQ to state that A and B are new rules changes.  Later, A is published in either the Errata or a new core book.  B, however, is not.  Which of those is an *actual* rules change?  The answer here, is A.  B is not a rules change until it is either in the Errata or printed in the books.

The FAQ is about as reliable as a stopped clock.  Not a good source for the current time, but it is right every once in a while.


----------



## Pinotage

IcyCool said:
			
		

> The FAQ is about as reliable as a stopped clock.  Not a good source for the current time, but it is right every once in a while.




That's a terrible understatement. Yes, the FAQ gets it wrong, but it's exactly the other way around from your sentences above. It gets it right far more often than wrong.

Retract, or the FAW will sue you!   

Pinotage


----------



## IcyCool

Pinotage said:
			
		

> That's a terrible understatement. Yes, the FAQ gets it wrong, but it's exactly the other way around from your sentences above. It gets it right far more often than wrong.
> 
> Retract, or the FAW will sue you!
> 
> Pinotage





Ahh, but you got the analogy, and that's all I was really shooting for! 

And yes, the FAQ does get things right.  I figure it's more like 50/50 though.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Retract, or the FAW will sue you!




Frequently Annoyed Whoos?

I know I should've burned Whooville to the ground!


----------



## Artoomis

Borlon said:
			
		

> *Fails Will Save*
> 
> Drat, here I am posting in this thread again...
> 
> First, *glass* is not alone.  I don't think the Yes position has a leg to stand on...It is clear to me, though, that you are reading the rules according to different principles that I am, and I wish I knew what these principles were.




The difference is that you see that there might be a different way of viewing the rules that might be from a different point of view.  Glass, on the other hand, insists that HIS way is the ONLY WAY.

You both think I'm worng, which I respect.  I just don't respect a position that states that there is ONLY ONE WAY to look at the rules.


----------



## Artoomis

IcyCool said:
			
		

> No, it doesn't, and I don't understand why you fail to see that.  It is entirely possible for the FAQ to state that A and B are new rules changes.  Later, A is published in either the Errata or a new core book.  B, however, is not.  Which of those is an *actual* rules change?  The answer here, is A.  B is not a rules change until it is either in the Errata or printed in the books.
> 
> The FAQ is about as reliable as a stopped clock.  Not a good source for the current time, but it is right every once in a while.




The answer is BOTH A&B are rules changes if presented that way in the FAQ.  If B does NOT get published and is retracted later, than it was a temporary rules change.

The real trick is to figure out WHICH items in the FAQ are intended as rules changes.  Unfortunately, WotC does not make this clear in all cases, and that's what makes it hard to know what's an official rule and what is merely advice.

Now it's okay and very clear to say only the rurles plus errata are "offical," but that's not the way WotC treats it at all.

I don't know why YOU fail to see THAT.  I am recognizing the reality of how WotC is doing business with the rules.


----------



## jgsugden

Folks.  Its simple.

*The rules are not perfect.*  

The designers apparently did not consider this interaction of feat and class.  Accordingly, they had no great plan on if they should be allowed to work together.

Additionally, the fine details of the rules are not 100% consistent or clear regarding the minutia of this issue.  As such, there is no completely clear answer to this issue.

As the sage is often full of $&*@, and his rulings have been known to conflict with the clearly written rules,  we can take his guidance for a suggestion, but it certainly is not gospel.

In the end, each DM must decided if it works or not.  

FWIW: It doesn't break the game and it makes an underpowered class slightly more powerful.  Those are good things in my book and I allow it.


----------



## Pinotage

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Frequently Annoyed Whoos?
> 
> I know I should've burned Whooville to the ground!




LOL! Frequently Asked Whats? Frequently Arrived Wheres? Frequently Addled Whens?

Pinotage


----------



## Anubis

When are people gonna understand that the FAQ and Errata have equal official weight?  The designers have made it so by using that to publish pretty much all fixes.  The Errata is old and no longer updates anywhere near as much.  The designers are using the FAQ as a combination of Errata and clarifications.

If you don't wanna believe me, how about you ask the Sage?  Hahaha.  Ask Andy Collins, ask Skip Williams, ask anyone whose names appear in the design team section of the books.  They'll tell you, just as they have been by publishing this stuff in the FAQ all this time.

I'll take the word of the designers over your unfounded arguments any day.  After all, they wrote it, so their interpretations are automatically right.  Of course we don't have to agree, but that's what house rules are for ya?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Anubis said:
			
		

> When are people gonna understand that the FAQ and Errata have equal official weight?




When are you going to realize that they don't?

I'm still offering a lollipop, by the way.


----------



## Artoomis

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> When are you going to realize that they don't?
> 
> I'm still offering a lollipop, by the way.




Actually, I don't think they are equal weight, either.  On the other hand, I do think that WotC does indeed publish rules changes in the FAQ that are then equal weight to the errata, but not everything in the FAQ is a rule change. 

Basically, the FAQ needs to be read with a critical eye.  Sometimes they intentionally print a rule change in there.

Note tha errata is supposed to be about typos minor corrections, NOT rule changes, but they most certainly changed an item creation rule in errata, - you know, the creator level thing.

The point being, of course, that WotC does not follow their own rules but seems to do whatever feels right at the time.


----------



## Legildur

Anubis said:
			
		

> <snip>After all, they wrote it, so their interpretations are automatically right.



Yes, yes, yes, I should have known... the FAQ ALWAYS gets it right... NEVER any errors or outright rules contradictions.  Not even a single example .....<switches off brain as it is obviously no longer a requirement for D&D>


----------



## Artoomis

Legildur said:
			
		

> Yes, yes, yes, I should have known... the FAQ ALWAYS gets it right... NEVER any errors or outright rules contradictions.  Not even a single example .....<switches off brain as it is obviously no longer a requirement for D&D>




Now, now - Anubis is right as far as knowing what is "official."  Nothing stops you from doing whatever you want in your own game, of course.


----------



## Legildur

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Now, now - Anubis is right as far as knowing what is "official."  Nothing stops you from doing whatever you want in your own game, of course.



Mostly.  Except that there is a published heirarchy of rules to be observed and their purposes.  The FAQ (as observed by others) is creeping (well, running in some circumstances) outside its terms of reference.

And as the FAQ being rules, let me quote a little example from my own life, which can act as an analogy for the D&D rules set.  My previous job for a number of years required, amongst other things, interpretation of legislation.  Legislation, analagous to the core rule books, at times is found to have errors in it.  Sometimes related legislation (non-core material) has an apparent impact on the core legislation - primary legislation trumps ancilliary legislation, just as core rules trump non-core where there is a conflict.

Corrections or variations (or amendments as their are known) to legislation is undertaken regularly and analagous to the errata.

Underneath the legislation in the heirarchy was a thing called 'the guide'.  This was the policy interpretation of the legislation and analogous to the FAQ.  And while the guide held a degree of status in a legal sense (much like the FAQ) no amount of commonsense or wishing would allow the guide to trump the legislation - a fact driven home several times in administrative appeals courts.

Often legislation and guide did not necessarily provide the authority, under law, to operate in the way it was planned or drafted.  As a consequence, changes to the legislation and the guide were regularly undertaken to improve the clarity and hence operation of government policy.

If WotC want monks to be able to take Improved Natural Attack, then all they need to do is issue errata to that fact.  It's pretty simple really.  As it stands, I don't believe that by the RAW that a monk can take INA.  And based on my real life experiences with legislation, polciy interpratation of legislation, and exposure to administrative (and higher) court decisions, no amount of berating by Anubis will change my mind on that.

However, what I am willing to concede is that given the stance by A designer, I believe that a 'beneficial interpretation' of the quoted clauses could be taken to allow a monk to take INA.  That is, while the decision is not as per the rules, no appeals court would overturn the decision as the no-one is being hurt by it (except by maybe various opponents - who may then take out a writ much in the lines of what happened in a recent page of the Order of the Stick   ).


----------



## RigaMortus2

glass said:
			
		

> How does Andy Collins know what intent of the person who wrote the monk's ability and the person who wrote the INA feat (who may be different people) was? Is he a mindreader?
> 
> And of course, that's assuming that there was any intent. IMO it is just as likely (at least) that the interaction was not considered at all, so there was no intent.
> 
> IOW, you can speculate about intent all you like, but in the end, the best guide for what the designers intended is what they wrote! And that's really all you can go on.
> 
> 
> glass.




Because Andy Collins is a representative of WotC.  Perhaps that wasn't the intent of the feat back when it is originally written, but according to Andy, it is now.


----------



## Artoomis

To further support my position on FAQ as source for rule chages (an errata source):



			
				WotC said:
			
		

> Do you have questions about the D&D game rules? Download the official FAQ that best suits your needs. Each FAQ is presented in PDF format so that you can download it, print it, and take it to your game. They feature a date code in the footer so you can always be sure that you have the most current version. (These game rule FAQs do not cover errata found in the errata documents.)




N0te that the only errata NOT found in the FAQ is that already posted in errata documents - WotC is letting us know they will use the FAQ as a souce for errata NOT found in the errata documents.  And they do this.  The problem, of course, is that they do not clearly label when a statement is to be considerd errata and when it is not.


----------



## Artoomis

See discussion of FAQ as errata


----------



## glass

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Because Andy Collins is a representative of WotC.  Perhaps that wasn't the intent of the feat back when it is originally written, but according to Andy, it is now.



So if Andy Collins says in an after dinner speach that a D&D rules is X, that is official errata? I'll stick to the actual errata, thankyou very much!


glass.


----------



## glass

Artoomis said:
			
		

> You can jump up and down and proclaim how the FAQ is not allowed to make rule changes all you want (I did, once), but the FACT is that it does do that - even though it shouldn't.



I would argue (and I have, several times) that the FAQ has never made rules changes, because it cannot make rules changes. It's not a case of not being allowed, it's a case of not having the power.

I can say 'I sentance you to 20 years in prison', but you're not going to be going. If a judge says it (in the proper circumstances) better start marking of the days. The judge has the power. I don't.







> Because of this, it's difficult to know what's what, sometimes, as I stated above.



Whereas, if you stick to the Errata being errata and ignore the FAQ completely when it tries to act _ultra vires_, it's very easy to know what's what.  


glass.


----------



## glass

Artoomis said:
			
		

> They published the FAQ that stated "here's how this rule was was meant to be written" or words to that effect.  It was later published that way.
> 
> Does that not mean the FAQ published a rule change?  Yep, it sure does.



No, it means the published something in the FAQ that was either wrong, or a suggested variant rule, depending on how charitable you are feeling. I didn't become actual RAW until it was published in the book.

_EDIT: Even your own paraphrase, 'Here's how the rule was meant to be written', acknowledges that that is not how the rule _actually_ was written._


glass.


----------



## glass

Borlon said:
			
		

> *Fails Will Save*
> 
> Drat, here I am posting in this thread again...



Well, your Will Save was several point higher than mine...   


glass.


----------



## glass

Artoomis said:
			
		

> The difference is that you see that there might be a different way of viewing the rules that might be from a different point of view.  Glass, on the other hand, insists that HIS way is the ONLY WAY.



No I don't. I am reasonable in the literal sense of the word: If you can come up with a good enough argument, you can get me to change my position. You haven't.

I have been wrong before, and I probably will be again, but  obviously I don't think I am wrong in this case. And I will continue to think that unless and until someone can show me different.


glass.


----------



## glass

Artoomis said:
			
		

> To further support my position on FAQ as source for rule chages (an errata source):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WotC said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have questions about the D&D game rules? Download the official FAQ that best suits your needs. Each FAQ is presented in PDF format so that you can download it, print it, and take it to your game. They feature a date code in the footer so you can always be sure that you have the most current version. (These game rule FAQs do not cover errata found in the errata documents.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> N0te that the only errata NOT found in the FAQ is that already posted in errata documents - WotC is letting us know they will use the FAQ as a souce for errata NOT found in the errata documents.  And they do this.  The problem, of course, is that they do not clearly label when a statement is to be considerd errata and when it is not.
Click to expand...


That quote is from the WotC website, right? In which case, I'll refer you to my earlier comment:







			
				glass said:
			
		

> So, the final arbiters of D&D rules are webmasters? I'll stick with my PHB, thanks.



_EDIT: Wow, six replies in a row._


glass.


----------



## Gilwen

glass said:
			
		

> So if Andy Collins says in an after dinner speach that a D&D rules is X, that is official errata? I'll stick to the actual errata, thankyou very much!
> 
> 
> glass.




If that after dinner speech was given in an official capcity representing WOTC, then yes, granted though he should change the WOTC official dociuments to reflect that, but I am not getting into the arguement on how "official" a publicy produced WOTC document is.


Gil


----------



## Borlon

glass said:
			
		

> borlon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Fails Will Save*
> 
> Drat, here I am posting in this thread again...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, your Will Save was several point higher than mine...
> 
> 
> glass.
Click to expand...



Hmmm.  Failed six times in a row, I see.  

But at least the thread topic had moved from the discussion about whether unarmed strikes were natural attacks.  And it was being suggested that you were the lone voice of dissent; being a dissenter myself, I had to speak up.  Though Artoomis doesn't think I am really in agreement with you that the yes position is baseless.

I think there is a difference between a rule being easy to misinterpret, and the rule being ambiguous.  The fact that a rule is misinterpreted may be a good reason to think or say that the rule is ambiguous, but if, under close scrutiny, it turns out that the rule is quite precise, well, it isn't ambiguous after all.

I think that is what is happening with the ruling on INA.  My position is that the rules are not ambiguous, but that they are being misinterpreted by the Yes side.  I wonder if they would still be the Yes side if the FAQ had said that monks could *not* take INA?  According to the terms of the argument the FAQ ruling shouldn't make a difference, since we are seeing whether it is consistent with the rest of the rules.  But that's not the point.  The point is that we are interpreting the rules differently, and some of us are saying there is no ambiguity in the rules, only a propensity to be misinterpreted.

We can't all be right.  If the rules were ambiguous, each side could legitimately claim support for their position, but they would have to acknowledge the other side had support too.  But by claiming that the rules are not ambiguous, we rule that out.

If I knew what was the basis of the misinterpretation, I could address it.  But I don't know how Artoomis manages to come down on the opposite side from me in so many different rules issues.  Perhaps the problem is with Artoomis (or with me!); I suppose the problem might be with the rules, and they *are* ambiguous, though I don't see it.  But until I understand how Artoomis is getting those conclusions, I can't really say where the problem is.  

I can just say that I don't see any ambiguity in the rules about monks and INA (though they are tricky to understand correctly), and I don't know where the variant answers are coming from.

[edit]By "ambiguity" I mean "underdetermined": the command "Give me the book on the table" is ambiguous/underdetermined if there are two books on the table; I won't know which one is meant, and so I might choose to bring the closer of the two.  Someone else might choose differently; either choice might be justified.  But a complicated instruction can be perfectly determinate, even if I misunderstand what is meant.[/edit]


----------



## Artoomis

Borlon said:
			
		

> ...Perhaps the problem is with Artoomis (or with me!); I suppose the problem might be with the rules, and they *are* ambiguous, though I don't see it.  But until I understand how Artoomis is getting those conclusions, I can't really say ...[/edit]




The rules indeed ARE ambiguous.  Exactly when a monk's special attack counts as a natural weapon is NOT *precisely* defined.  Or, if you like, whether or not is applies to a feat that gives a bonus of some type to a natural attack is not made competely clear if you get very, very technical.  Splitting up whether it would count for the feat but not for the prerequisites of that feat is a rather hyper-technical argument.

I think BOTH sides have made legitimate, rules-based arguments -that, by it's very nature, makes the rule be amiguous, doesn't it?

How can the rule be clear if both sides to the agrument can make rules-based arguments that support their positions?

Now I, of course, think my way of looking at it is much better, but I do not discount your way as being a legitimate interpretation of the rules - I just think it's wrong way to look at it.


----------



## FireLance

I do feel somewhat miffed at the charge that I'm supporting a position that doesn't have a leg to stand on, since my arguments are based on the rules published by WotC. I'm fine if you don't agree with my arguments and interpretations, or if you don't accept them because the rules I cite aren't from the three core rulebooks. However, impying that there is no basis for what I'm saying seems to me to be questioning my integrity.


----------



## Cheiromancer

Off-Topic, sorry


----------



## Anubis

Legildur said:
			
		

> Big long post about legislation...




Apples and oranges.  You're comparing two very different sets of circumstances.  Legislation is one of three branches that operate under a separation of powers in a democracy.  The core books, errata, and FAQ are sources of absolute law as would be the law of a, say, dictatorship.

There is no balance of powers in D&D.  The designers worked together and created the system, therefore their word is bonded to that system.  Their word is law, as that of a dictator.  We may not always agree with the dictator, but if we live in his country, that is how we do things.  If we want to play a different way using house rules, we either do it underground or in another country.

. . .

Okay this is asinine trying to compare D&D with politics on any level.  I'll just give a touch of Occam's Razor and put this in the simplest possible terms:

The designers, hired by WoTC, designed the system.

The designers, as reps of WotC, are the experts on said system and the only ones who know the true intent behind every printed word therein.

As such, since the designers both created it, know it inside and out, and are officially handed the power by WotC with regards to what is and is not official, then any designer who builds an FAQ has just as much say as an editor who publishes errata.  In fact, this is so true that WotC puts their stamp of approval on the FAQ and offers it direct from their web site.

So if the designers, the publishers, and the owners of the copyright all agree, that makes it official.  Again, we don't have to follow the rules, when when someone asks the question "Can monks, by the official rules of D&D, take Improved Natural Attack?", then the only possible answer is "Yes."  Why?  Because WotC says so.

As for contradictions, well, let us remember that D&D is always a work in progress.  When contradictions arise, the *most recently published material* takes precedence.  In this case, that would be the FAQ.  I apologize if this sounds mean, by the way, as it is not my intention.  I just wanted to be as clear as possible.


----------



## moritheil

FireLance said:
			
		

> I do feel somewhat miffed at the charge that I'm supporting a position that doesn't have a leg to stand on, since my arguments are based on the rules published by WotC. I'm fine if you don't agree with my arguments and interpretations, or if you don't accept them because the rules I cite aren't from the three core rulebooks. However, impying that there is no basis for what I'm saying seems to me to be questioning my integrity.




You and anyone who has ever disagreed with saev or patryn.     Some posters just feel the need to repeatedly insinuate that.


----------



## moritheil

Anubis said:
			
		

> There is no balance of powers in D&D.  The designers worked together and created the system, therefore their word is bonded to that system.  Their word is law, as that of a dictator.  We may not always agree with the dictator, but if we live in his country, that is how we do things.




Except that when the writers are writing the books, they are the dictators.  When they are done writing the books, they are no longer the dictators; they have been deposed and forced into "retirement" by the new dictator (the Errata editor.)     

This is more like the law of the Persians and the Medes - that which is written into law is law, even above the one who wrote it - than the law of an arbitrary military dictator, who changes everything on whim from one day to the next on his word alone.


----------



## Legildur

Anubis said:
			
		

> Apples and oranges.  You're comparing two very different sets of circumstances. <snip> As for contradictions, well, let us remember that D&D is always a work in progress.  When contradictions arise, the *most recently published material* takes precedence.  In this case, that would be the FAQ.  I apologize if this sounds mean, by the way, as it is not my intention.  I just wanted to be as clear as possible.



I here I thought I had clearly labeled it as an analogy.....

Just because something is published does not make it 'law' or 'rules' unless it follows the standards to be met in the relevant 'consitution'.  In this case, WotC have not followed their own constitution in changing the rules.

Another analogy (I apologise in advance) is if the Prime Minister (or President in your case) issues a press release stating a policy position.  Unless the correct protocols are adhered to and legislation passed by whatever legislative committee has the authority to do so, then the PM's (or President's) words are meaningless, except to give vague direction on future activities or intention of government.

In this case, no errata, no INA for monks. (but this conclusion is based on my interpretation that the RAW does not allow monks to take INA).


----------



## Dinkeldog

This might become one of my new interview questions when I'm considering playing with a DM for the first time.


----------



## Artoomis

Legildur said:
			
		

> I here I thought I had clearly labeled it as an analogy.....
> 
> Just because something is published does not make it 'law' or 'rules' unless it follows the standards to be met in the relevant 'consitution'.  In this case, WotC have not followed their own constitution in changing the rules.
> 
> Another analogy (I apologise in advance) is if the Prime Minister (or President in your case) issues a press release stating a policy position.  Unless the correct protocols are adhered to and legislation passed by whatever legislative committee has the authority to do so, then the PM's (or President's) words are meaningless, except to give vague direction on future activities or intention of government.
> 
> In this case, no errata, no INA for monks. (but this conclusion is based on my interpretation that the RAW does not allow monks to take INA).




Bad analogy.  WotC is more like a dictatorship - they are not bound by a constitution.  They get to decide whether the FAQ can include more than mere clarifications.  See teh other thread on this topic.

In any case, it ought to be really, really clear by now that there is NOT general agreement on whether, by the RAW, monks can take INA.  In fact, most folks agree with me that the RAW supports monks taking INA - which does not necessarily mean we am right, but it does mean our position cannot be simply swept away as being non-RAW.

Bottom line - it should be very, very clear by now that the issue of whether monks can take INA per RAW is not clear-cut, and therefore an excellent candidiate for clarification by WotC.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> This might become one of my new interview questions when I'm considering playing with a DM for the first time.




And what answer would you be looking for?  

-Hyp.


----------



## moritheil

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Bad analogy.  WotC is more like a dictatorship - they are not bound by a constitution.  They get to decide whether the FAQ can include more than mere clarifications.  See teh other thread on this topic.




Can you show me where in the RAW it says this?    

I still hold to the "Law of the Persians and Medes" approach - the designers are not the ultimate authority; the RAW itself is.


----------



## Artoomis

moritheil said:
			
		

> Can you show me where in the RAW it says this?
> 
> I still hold to the "Law of the Persians and Medes" approach - the designers are not the ultimate authority; the RAW itself is.




You, know, I agree that the designers are not the ultimate authority.  The publisher/owner fo D&D is the ultimate authority, though, and that's who puts out the FAQ and that's who stated that the FAQ will only not  "cover errata found in the errata documents," leaving open the door to cover errata NOT found in the errata documents.

Having shown that the door is open, what remain is to show that they actually have done this, which I also have shown.  Again, see the other thread, where I am going to repost this reponse for comments.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I conjecture that there is some kind of consistent rules posture that you take which is very different from what I (and some others) take. I have not been able to put it into words exactly. It may be that I am systematically misinterpreting the rules, and also what you are saying about the rules. I don't think so, but I can't account for your rules decisions and so I have to suspend judgement.




I (and others) have stated it quite succinctly:  The PHB contains *explicit*, RAW sections that say that unarmed strikes are natrual weapons.  Subsequent publications do so as well.  There is *no* RAW section in the PHB that contradicts that- I personaly went through the PHB glossary and combat sections to point that out. (Post #607.)

The best that can be said, PHB RAW is that certain sections explicitly refer to US as NA and other sections reveal _inconsistencies_- but no true contradictions.

I also pointed out that the language in the spells in the PHB _changed from 3Ed to 3.5Ed into the more explicit language_ (one spell ADDED the language about US being NA) to illustrate that the 3.5Ed-itors clearly thought of US being NA at least part of the time during the revision.  (Post #643)



> Legildur
> Sometimes related legislation (non-core material) has an apparent impact on the core legislation - primary legislation trumps ancilliary legislation, just as core rules trump non-core where there is a conflict.




Even that isn't 100% the case: Often, in legislation as in RPG rules, subseqent (non-core) text is meant to supplant the original text.

Example:  The Texas State Constitution has a section dealing with marital property rights.  It has been changed many times- one section has been altered about 9 times in particular.  The Texas Constitution wasn't re-issued in a new (Nth Edition) core form- we lawyers merely need to know where the new section is located OR must be able to trace it through the revisions.



> So if Andy Collins says in an after dinner speach that a D&D rules is X, that is official errata? I'll stick to the actual errata, thankyou very much!




Not unless it gets adopted by WOTC.  Otherwise, its just dicta- aka talk - and thus has no real force.



> I wonder if they would still be the Yes side if the FAQ had said that monks could not take INA?




That would depend on what the FAQ actually said.

If it just said NO without a decent explanation, then I'd still be supporting Monks taking INA, because there are RAW sections that support that position.  Example- WOTC's errata on M:TG occasionally made distinctions between IDENTICAL language on different cards because the cards, as written, led to potential game-breaking combinations.  While it made no LINGUISTIC sense, it made sense for reasons of supporting their tournament environment.  (IMHO, the better decision would have been to ban the offending cards from tournament play and re-issue the card with a different name and corrected text in the next release- like they had done with other cards.)

IF, on the other hand, the FAQ stated that the language in the PHB was an editing error- language that should have been excised when the PHB went to print, then I would have to accept that Monks don't get to take INA.


----------



## Legildur

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Bad analogy.  WotC is more like a dictatorship - they are not bound by a constitution.  They get to decide whether the FAQ can include more than mere clarifications.  See teh other thread on this topic.



You may think it is a bad analogy, but others have already contradicted your dictatorship equivalence statement.  So I can't be too far off the track.  And WotC do not appear to have taken a decision (at least little evidence to prove that).  WotC may have become lazy in communicating possible changes to the rules, but they have not revised their heirarchy of rules sources or the purposes of the various elements of that heirarchy.  And, like others in your other thread, I see how you interpreted a single sentence to mean that the FAQ includes errata, but I also drew a different conclusion to the same sentence.  There is a possibility of that your conclusion exists, but the language used is incomplete, so it is unclear.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> In any case, it ought to be really, really clear by now that there is NOT general agreement on whether, by the RAW, monks can take INA. etc



Full agreement with you on this one.   



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> Bottom line - it should be very, very clear by now that the issue of whether monks can take INA per RAW is not clear-cut, and therefore an excellent candidiate for clarification by WotC.



Actually, I would say 'an excellent candidate for *errata*'.


----------



## Borlon

Hmmm.  Alright.  I take back what I said about the Yes side's position being baseless.  There are areas where the rules are inconsistent, and if you pick and choose you can support the conclusion that unarmed strikes are natural weapons, and that feats are effects, and other dubious results.

I wouldn't resolve the inconsistencies that way, though.  I still hold that humans do not have natural weapons.  I would add, however, that unarmed attacks can be used as an alternative to, or in the absence of, a manufactured weapon.  And since the use of fists, kicks, head-butts and so forth is analogous to what creatures with natural weapons do, the designers sometimes, on a case by case basis, allow these unarmed strikes to be enhanced with spells like _magic fang_.  That's how I would resolve the various inconsistencies in the rules.

The issue I worry about is whether regular humans can qualify for feats, prestige classes or what not that require natural weapons as prerequisites.  The Yes side would allow this, and I think this is a mistake.  I would dearly like to block at the root any chain of logic that would allow Joe Commoner to take INA.  The primary place in doing so is to break the link between benefiting from an effect that looks for X and qualifying for a prerequisite that looks for X.  My "principle of prerequisite conversion" is a means of interpreting the monk's NWE rule to allow the benefit/prerequisite switch to be made.  In the absence of a general rule associating unarmed strikes and natural weapons the PPC would not allow Joe Commoner to do the same.

Now the harm is not that obvious when it is just INA.  But it is quite plausible that there could be other feats and prestige classes that are intended to enhance natural weapons that would be inappropriate for humans and demihumans.  The best way to exclude humans and demihumans would be to add a "must have natural weapons" prerequisite.  But this is useless if the Yes side is right.


----------



## Dimwhit

Borlon said:
			
		

> The issue I worry about is whether regular humans can qualify for feats, prestige classes or what not that require natural weapons as prerequisites.  The Yes side would allow this, and I think this is a mistake.




I can't speak for all on the Yes side, but I've never argued that humans have 'natural weapons' as defined by the rules. Just Monks. Based on the wording in the Monk description. It seems like a very clear exception that allows their unarmed strike to be considered a natural weapon for the purpose of...yada yada. No sense getting back into that part of the argument.

But I don't think I'd argue that ALL humans have natural weapons. Just Monks, be they human or otherwise.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> There are areas where the rules are inconsistent, and if you pick and choose you can support the conclusion that unarmed strikes are natural weapons, and that feats are effects, and other dubious results.




The rules ARE inconsistent, and I strongly object to your characterization of the "Yes" side as "picking and choosing" when it is the "No" side that is "picking and choosing."

WE pointed out RAW PHB text that says that US are NW _and_ that such sections were ADDED to the 3.5 versions of the relevant sections.  WE pointed out subsequent publications that contain references to US as NW.  WE pointed out that the PHB's glossary, equipment, and combat sections do not contradict this position.

Can the "No" side point to Core, RAW text that says US are not NW?  Not so far.

The closest the "No" side can come to that is pointing out how US differ from NW.  Of course, US ALSO differ from all other weapons in the game, so that doesn't forward their position at all.

Now, I didn't dip a toe into the argument about feats as effects- I thought it was a non-issue and still do, however I will confess that, AFAIK, I am the ONLY one who has forwarded the position that humans (as well as all other living beings) have natural weapons, and that the text of the Monk description was meant to add the classification of manufactured weapon, not natural weapon, to the Monk's US.  To the best of my knowledge, this is UNIQUE among all the published classes- not even the similar OA Shaman can treat his US as manufactured weapons.


----------



## Anubis

moritheil said:
			
		

> Can you show me where in the RAW it says this?
> 
> I still hold to the "Law of the Persians and Medes" approach - the designers are not the ultimate authority; the RAW itself is.




Say WHAT?!  I'm speechless.  That statement made me completely dumbfounded.  The mind boggles how you can arrive at such a conclusion.

The RAW being published does not make it a self-sustaining entity; it is a creation and therefore is only the ultimate authority when the creators are no longer around.  Well, guess what?  The creators are still around.  The publishers are still around.  WotC is still around.  Andy Collins is still around.  Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet, Skip Williams, Rich Baker, David Noonan, Rich Redman, all still around.  Not sure if they all still work for WotC, but they're all alive and kicking and (presumably) still in the D&D business in some (most often official) capacity.  As such, all the above stated entities are the final authority.

If I write a novel and publish it, and I intend one thing yet wrote it in an unclear fashion, and you interpret it differently based on wording, and I published a "novel FAQ" stating it was some other way, you have absolutely no place to contest what I say, no matter how ridiculous it may be.  The final authorities are in two groups:

Group A: Those who created it.  They know the system and how it should work.

Group B: The holders of the copyright.  They have the legal place to do whatever they like.

Seeing as both Group A *and* Group B have stated that monk's can take Improved Natural Attack, that means that as per the RAW, they can.  Their words are equal to RAW, even if they are changes, because they have that right as the creators.  You can't tell the creator of a fictional work that he's wrong, sorry to say.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I still hold to the "Law of the Persians and Medes" approach - the designers are not the ultimate authority; the RAW itself is.




Then...you don't buy into any of the errata or rulings until its "made official" in some kind of subsequent text, like a new edition?

You MUST have hated 2Ed, with classes being proficient in weapons that weren't in the weapons charts (thief & broadsword), or different lists of what multiclass options were permissible (Bards?  Yep, Bards!).  How could you ever decide what to do?

Which book was correct- the 1st printing or the 2nd or the Nth?

As for RAW vs Designers vs Copyright Holders...I'll use a combination of criteria.

I start with RAW, then see what the D's & CH's say.  After all, if a typo exists in RAW, that doesn't make the RAW right- it just means an error was enshrined in the rules by mistake.  If the D's tell me what they intended, I weigh that fact alongside the RAW.  Ditto the CH's commentary.  Hopefully, there is either accord or some kind of consensus between 2 of the 3 sources.  If not, I try to determine what makes the most sense- _even if it is contrary to the consensus!_ (See my earlier commentary about WOTC's rulings on M:TG cards Post #718.)


----------



## Artoomis

Borlon said:
			
		

> ...The issue I worry about is whether regular humans can qualify for feats, prestige classes or what not that require natural weapons as prerequisites.  The Yes side would allow this...




Actually, not ALL the Yes side would allow this.

My personal postion is that there are two distinct ways to get to the same result for INA for monks.

One way says monks can take it based on the language in the monk class description.  This way relies on common sense and on strained wording about a prerequisite being an "effect" or not as "effect" is, except for spells, an entirely undefined game term.

The other way says pretty much anyone can take it (though it is of almost no benefit for most humanoids), because everyone (pretty much) has a "special" natural weapon of "unarmed strike."

Either way is fine with me.  The first way makes perfect sense to me, the second also works and does not seem to raise any serious game-breaking issues.


----------



## Artoomis

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> ...Now, I didn't dip a toe into the argument about feats as effects- I thought it was a non-issue and still do, however I will confess that, AFAIK, I am the ONLY one who has forwarded the position that humans (as well as all other living beings) have natural weapons, and that the text of the Monk description was meant to add the classification of manufactured weapon, not natural weapon, to the Monk's US.  To the best of my knowledge, this is UNIQUE among all the published classes- not even the similar OA Shaman can treat his US as manufactured weapons.




I may not have "put forward" the position but I defended it.  I do not see it breaking anything in the game, either.


----------



## Borlon

Hmmm.  I am starting to lose track about what this thread is about.  It has partly been about the role of the FAQ in establishing rulings.  Clarifying/changing/whatever- but that has been relegated to a couple of other threads.

Another part of it is to explore various RAW justifications for the ruling that monks can take the INA feat.  Among the issues addressed have been whether a feat counts as an effect, whether a feat's prerequisite is an effect of a feat, and other "effect" related matters.  Then there has been a whole line of argument that explores the idea that unarmed strikes are natural weapons; that is, that their default status under the rules is that of a natural weapon.  Another theme, fairly muted, has been whether granting the feat to monks would be unbalancing or not.

I know that I have a definite opinion on several of these issues, but not on the last one.  I am solidly "no" as to whether a prerequisite is an effect, but I am agnostic as to whether I would allow the feat; I rather doubt that it is unbalancing, so what would the harm be? I am not DMing right now, so it hasn't come up.

Could some of the main posters clarify their positions on which issues seem important, and where they stand on them?  For instance, a Yes poster who doesn't think that unarmed strikes are natural weapons would have a lot in common with me.  Someone who thinks that because monks are underpowered and so should have access to the feat; well, I probably have no point of disagreement with them at all.

All I'm saying is that it might be a good time to take stock of where we stand on the various issues.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

My position:

1.  Unarmed strikes are not natural weapons, nor are they "special natural weapons."  Fists can be, but are not necessarily so.  Any rules to the contrary are in error; not every creature has a natural weapon.

2.  A feat has effects, but a prereq is not an effect.

3.  No, monks cannot take INA.

4.  IMHO, it would not be unbalancing to allow them to do it anyway.


----------



## Anubis

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> My position:
> 
> 1.  Unarmed strikes are not natural weapons, nor are they "special natural weapons."  Fists can be, but are not necessarily so.  Any rules to the contrary are in error; not every creature has a natural weapon.
> 
> 2.  A feat has effects, but a prereq is not an effect.
> 
> 3.  No, monks cannot take INA.
> 
> 4.  IMHO, it would not be unbalancing to allow them to do it anyway.




According to the powers-that-be, you are wrong.

Quoted from my question straight to the source:

_
Response (Chris L.) 10/24/2005 03:11 PM 
The reference, under the kyton on page 53, is incorrect.

Yes, everything in the FAQ is meant to be official.

I hope this information is useful.
Good Gaming!
We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.

To login to your account, or update your question please click here.

Chris L.

Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 7am-6pm PST / 10am-9pm EST 
 Customer (Brandon Harwell) 10/24/2005 03:07 PM 
Well, on page 39, the entry states that hardness applies to acid, sonic, and force effects; On page 53, the entry states that acid, sonic, and force effects ignore hardness. Based on your previous answer, can I take that to mean the entry on page 53 is in error from a previous ruling and that hardness does indeed apply to acid, sonic, and force effects?

Oh, and a clarification of my first question. Does your response mean that actual rules changes in the FAQ are official as well and that there are instances of errata in it? 
 Response (Chris L.) 10/24/2005 02:29 PM 
Thank you for contacting us.
1. Absolutely, the FAQ is considered to be a log of official rules clarifications. It is considered to be official.

2. The confusion may be with regards to the differences between Hardness and Damage Reduction? All damage is reduced by hardness, while some aren't reduced by damage reduction. Let me know if this is the question. If it isn't, could you be more specific about which entry you're referring to on page 53. Thank you for your patience.

I hope this information is useful.
Good Gaming!
We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.

To login to your account, or update your question please click here.

Chris L.

Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 7am-6pm PST / 10am-9pm EST 
 Customer (Brandon Harwell) 10/23/2005 05:16 PM 
I have two questions.

1. Does the D&D Rules FAQ carry as much weight as the errata? Several rules changes have been implemented through the FAQ, and the errata is no longer being updated, leading me to believe the FAQ is for clarifications and changes. As such, is all the material in the FAQ official, just as if errata had been issued?

2. Regarding the FAQ, there is a contradiction. Previously, the FAQ confirmed that sonic, acid, and force attacks ignored hardness. In the newest FAQ, however, page 39 reverses that ruling (which now states that hardness applies to sonic, acid, and force attacks) while page 53 still upholds the previous ruling that such attacks all ignored hardness. Which is correct?

Thank you for your time. 
_

Hopefully, now that I've posted this in the three proper threads, everyone will see it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I'm discussing this entire issue elsewhere, and someone suggested 2 ideas I had not considered, nor AFAIK, has anyone on this thread suggested.

1)  INA is a "Monster Feat," and thus, should be limited to monsters.  That is, since they are all under the heading of Monster Feats, being a "monster or animal" is a prerequisite.  I'm OK with that, but "monster" is a pretty broad term.  It obviously couldn't just apply to anything in the various MMs, because that wouldn't solve anything.

2)  INA works 1 of 2 ways: either by improving how the creature uses its natural weapons (essentially making it the equivalent of IUC), or by changing the physical characteristics of the actual natural weapons- making them larger or sharper.  If it is the former, it is the same kind of change that being a monk, OA shaman, or PC with IUC already has, and thus should not stack with it- either you're one of those 3 or you can have INA, but not both.  If it is the latter, it would be something that would be "physically impossible" for virtually any PC race to satisfy, barring INA being a supernatural feat.

Either of these possible paths gives the reward of disallowing INA to most (but not all) PCs without a tortured reading of the rules or delving into drafter intent or implied rulings.


----------



## Anubis

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I'm discussing this entire issue elsewhere, and someone suggested 2 ideas I had not considered, nor AFAIK, has anyone on this thread suggested.
> 
> 1)  INA is a "Monster Feat," and thus, should be limited to monsters.  That is, since they are all under the heading of Monster Feats, being a "monster or animal" is a prerequisite.  I'm OK with that, but "monster" is a pretty broad term.  It obviously couldn't just apply to anything in the various MMs, because that wouldn't solve anything.
> 
> 2)  INA works 1 of 2 ways: either by improving how the creature uses its natural weapons (essentially making it the equivalent of IUC), or by changing the physical characteristics of the actual natural weapons- making them larger or sharper.  If it is the former, it is the same kind of change that being a monk, OA shaman, or PC with IUC already has, and thus should not stack with it- either you're one of those 3 or you can have INA, but not both.  If it is the latter, it would be something that would be "physically impossible" for virtually any PC race to satisfy, barring INA being a supernatural feat.
> 
> Either of these possible paths gives the reward of disallowing INA to most (but not all) PCs without a tortured reading of the rules or delving into drafter intent or implied rulings.




Monster feat my rear.  It's not.  Monster feats all have a descriptor of "[Monstrous]".  Improved Natural Attack is a "[General]" feat and thus can be taken by anyone who satisfies the prerequisites.  According to the FAQ, monks satisfy said prerequisites, and since WotC has stated that *everything* in the FAQ is official (including clarifications, changes, and errata), that means monks can take it.

There is no discussion left as to whether the official rules allow this.  If you don't want monks to have it, house rule it as such, but when people ask if the rules allow it, the answer is a clear "yes".


----------



## Borlon

Did Customer Service actually answer what Anubis asked?  He asked if the FAQ was errata, and they said it was official.  He asked if they represented clarifications and changes, and they said they were clarifications.[edit] I know they said "Absolutely" but I would be happier if they said "Absolutely; the FAQ counts as errata for all intents and purposes.  They trump any contrary statements that you might find in the printed rulebooks."  Or something equally decisive.  As it is, the Customer Service answers don't match up well to the questions.[/edit]

I seem to recall a rule about the hierarchy of sources; in case of a difference between sources, a primary source trumps other sources, even if those sources are official.  For example, a table and the associated text are both official, but the text trumps the table if they are different.  The PHB is the primary source for feats and classes, and so trumps the DMG if the two differ, and so on.

I guess what I am suggesting is that even if the FAQ is official, it need not trump other sources.  Unless it is errata, that is, in which case it would trump other sources, even primary sources.  

But can we rely on Customer Service to specify the authority of a FAQ?  After all, the position of Customer Service replies in the hierarchy of sources is unclear.  If its statement of the hierarchy of sources contradicts something official written elsewhere, which statement trumps the other?

[edit]Oh, and I at least am not disputing whether the FAQ allows monks to take INA.  What I want to know is if this represents a change in the rules or not.  I say that it is a change, not merely a clarification.  [/edit]


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> If you don't want monks to have it, house rule it as such, but when people ask if the rules allow it, the answer is a clear "yes".




Fangs in, Anubis- remember, I'm on the "Yes" side.

Question for you though- "Monstrous" as a prerequisite is defined how and where?


----------



## Caliban

A response from WOTC Customer Service is irrelevant.   They give obviously wrong answers to often, and if you send the same question in multiple times you will often get contradictory answers if you get responses from two different employees. 

Customer Service Representative does not equal Rules Guru.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I seem to recall a rule about the hierarchy of sources; in case of a difference between sources, a primary source trumps other sources, even if those sources are official. For example, a table and the associated text are both official, but the text trumps the table if they are different. The PHB is the primary source for feats and classes, and so trumps the DMG if the two differ, and so on.




That's probably a good general rule, but even that rule gets trumped!

I've seen a couple of sourcebooks where they said that the subsequently published version of a class, feat, spell, etc. is the one that should be considered the official one.  Thankfully, in most cases I can think of, they have been explicit in doing so.


----------



## Anubis

Borlon, Caliban, you two have the most convoluted logic I've ever seen.

The bottom line is simple: WotC, the designers, everyone who has any authority to say something official about the D&D system has said that the FAQ is official, it can make changes to the rules, and it can list errata.  The customer service has more power than anyone here does.

Or should I go ask Andy Collins (who is higher up on the hierarchy) if the FAQ is official and allows for changes and errata?

In my second question to the customer service, I asked "Does your response mean that actual rules changes in the FAQ are official as well and that there are instances of errata in it?", and the answer was "Yes, everything in the FAQ is meant to be official."  That makes the FAQ the primary source in all cases of contradictions.  I mean you people aren't even understanding why the statement about primary sources was even made; it was made in case of a difference in text within the same book or between books with different purposes, it was not meant to be used how you are using it.

The spin stops here, folks.  If you want to make changes to what's official, well, I would think that belongs in the "House Rules" forum.  The designers and the copyright holders trump the RAW.  As I said, if I write a novel and then an FAQ explaining things in the novel or making changes, you have no right to dispute that because, as I am the owner, my word is the gospel on that.  Same goes for this.


----------



## Legildur

Anubis said:
			
		

> <snip>There is no discussion left as to whether the official rules allow this.  If you don't want monks to have it, house rule it as such, but when people ask if the rules allow it, the answer is a clear "yes".



Yeah, so obviously really, really clear that more than 700 posts on this thread were made simply for the fun of it to see how long we can sustain a completely baseless argument.  Your arm waving and blatant dismissal of the 'No' side (which obviously has some merit) is .... entertaining.

And the funny thing is, I want monks to have it (as I occasionally play a monk to the rest of my group's disgust).  But with the way things have been 'clarified' I don't feel that I have a strong rules case to present to either of my DMs to support it (and they have both previously ruled [or house-ruled if you like] that monks are ineligible for INA).

This whole thread would have been a lot shorter if WotC had issued errata (which has a higher degree of internal scrutiny than the FAQ prior to publishing).


----------



## Anubis

Legildur said:
			
		

> Yeah, so obviously really, really clear that more than 700 posts on this thread were made simply for the fun of it to see how long we can sustain a completely baseless argument.  Your arm waving and blatant dismissal of the 'No' side (which obviously has some merit) is .... entertaining.
> 
> And the funny thing is, I want monks to have it (as I occasionally play a monk to the rest of my group's disgust).  But with the way things have been 'clarified' I don't feel that I have a strong rules case to present to either of my DMs to support it (and they have both previously ruled [or house-ruled if you like] that monks are ineligible for INA).
> 
> This whole thread would have been a lot shorter if WotC had issued errata (which has a higher degree of internal scrutiny than the FAQ prior to publishing).




The errata file itself is no longer updated.  Errata is now placed within the FAQ.  WotC has said as such.  I'm positive Andy Collins would say the same and he's one of the top designers there.

You have plenty of rules basis.  You have a designer (Andy Collins) on your side, you have WotC on your side, and you have at least one interpretation of the original RAW on your side.


----------



## Artoomis

Well, let's keep in mind that this thread is ABSOLUTLEY NOT about whether a monk can take INA.  That was settled, officially.  They can.

This thread was whether that position was in accordance with the rules as written - a very different and mostly intellectual discussion with little, if any, practical application.  Just for fun, really.

Technically, disallowing a monk from taking INA would be a house rule, albeit one that has *some* justification from the rules as written but at variance with the official clarifcation of the question.


----------



## Legildur

<shrug> And I'm still not convinced it is right, no matter how much I would like it to be the case.  That in itself should tell you something.  The issuing of errata in FAQ is inappropriate and contentious.  If WotC want clarity, then they need to be consistent with their messaging.


----------



## Artoomis

Legildur said:
			
		

> Yeah, so obviously really, really clear that more than 700 posts on this thread were made simply for the fun of it to see how long we can sustain a completely baseless argument.  Your arm waving and blatant dismissal of the 'No' side (which obviously has some merit) is .... entertaining.
> 
> And the funny thing is, I want monks to have it (as I occasionally play a monk to the rest of my group's disgust).  But with the way things have been 'clarified' I don't feel that I have a strong rules case to present to either of my DMs to support it (and they have both previously ruled [or house-ruled if you like] that monks are ineligible for INA)...




No errata is needed because BOTH the "Yes" and "No" side have reasonable arguments drawn from the rules.  In such a case it is not errata that is needed, but clarification - the prime purpose of the FAQ, I think everyone agrees.  Thus monks can take INA - a very strong argument for your DMs unless they just dismiss the FAQ out of hand.


----------



## Artoomis

Legildur said:
			
		

> ...The issuing of errata in FAQ is inappropriate and contentious.  If WotC want clarity, then they need to be consistent with their messaging.




I agree with you.  I see and understand what they've done (using the FAQ to issue rule changes/errata), but they have not made it clear that this is what they are doing, and do  not always make clear the distiction between simple advice in the FAQ and a rule change.


----------



## Borlon

Artoomis said:
			
		

> No errata is needed because BOTH the "Yes" and "No" side have reasonable arguments drawn from the rules.  In such a case it is not errata that is needed, but clarification - the prime purpose of the FAQ, I think everyone agrees.  Thus monks can take INA - a very strong argument for your DMs unless they just dismiss the FAQ out of hand.




The inconsistencies in the rules could better be addressed with errata, I think.  These errata could also supplement those rules here and there.  For example, it could be added to the monk's natural weapon/manufactured weapon equivalency rule that it applied to prerequisites too.  And maybe it could be mentioned under unarmed strikes that they benefit from effects that benefit natural weapons, but do not qualify as natural weapons for the purpose of prerequisites.   Or something along those lines.

'Clarification' would be appropriate for something like the Improved Spell Resistance epic feat, where they could say that "feats or other effects" was an example of synecdoche, and did not imply that a feat was an effect.  That could be done in a FAQ, I think. 

But I believe that most of the rules we have been arguing about could actually use errata.


----------



## Caliban

Anubis said:
			
		

> Borlon, Caliban, you two have the most convoluted logic I've ever seen.




You must be new here.  That's nothing. 



> The bottom line is simple:



  You don't get to tell us what the bottom line is. Your right, that is simple.  



> WotC, the designers, everyone who has any authority to say something official about the D&D system has said that the FAQ is official, it can make changes to the rules, and it can list errata.



  I pretty much agree you have said, with the caveats I mentioned above.   If the Sage doesn't state that he making a rule change, then he's not.  He's making a mistake.  




> The customer service has more power than anyone here does.



  Customer Service has no power whatsoever.   It's not official in any way, it's just a poorly paid phone jockey doing their best to answer the inane questions we send in.  It's not their primary job, and they have no special access to WOTC R&D or the Game Designers.   They try to be nice and give it their best shot, but they are just people.  Most of them probably don't even play D&D. 



> Or should I go ask Andy Collins (who is higher up on the hierarchy) if the FAQ is official and allows for changes and errata?



  Knock yourself out.  No matter what answer you get, it won't change anyones mind.   




> The spin stops here, folks.  If you want to make changes to what's official, well, I would think that belongs in the "House Rules" forum.  The designers and the copyright holders trump the RAW.  As I said, if I write a novel and then an FAQ explaining things in the novel or making changes, you have no right to dispute that because, as I am the owner, my word is the gospel on that.  Same goes for this.




Not the same thing at all.   The FAQ is not gospel, and the rules are not holy writ, no matter how much you want to worship them.

The designers are human, Andy Collins is human.  They make mistakes.  I am not bound by their mistakes.


----------



## Anubis

They created it, so they have the final say.

How can you be wrong about something you create?

The mind boggles . . . Typos are the extent of "mistakes" a creator can make.  In my novel, when one character dies and later comes back to life, no one has any right to say "you can't do that because people don't come back to life"; nope, I create the world and the story, so what I say goes.  If I want the sky to turn pink, well by golly the sky will turn pink.

Just the same, the designers created D&D and WotC holds the copyright.  As such, they could say _fireball_ does 10d100 points of cold damage and we'd have no place to say they're wrong.  Sure, none of us would go along with it, but that wouldn't make it any less official, no matter how inane is.

Given that these clarifications/changes (however you wanna look at it) aren't anywhere close to inane (it's not illogical or broken to be able to sheathe for free as part of a move or to let monks take Improved Unarmed Strike), there's no reason to complain and gripe and moan about it.  Just accept that them's the rules, and if you don't like it, fall back on Rule 0.


----------



## Caliban

Anubis said:
			
		

> They created it, so they have the final say.
> 
> How can you be wrong about something you create?




Since there were several designers, and human memory is fallible, it's pretty easy.


----------



## FireLance

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Question for you though- "Monstrous" as a prerequisite is defined how and where?



Not in the core rules, but Libris Mortis (and possibly Savage Species, but that's so 3.0 ) has "Monstrous" feats. It states on p. 23 that "Only creatures and characters with a monstrous form or one or more monstrous abilities may select these feats. Monstrous forms and abilities are those that are typically unavailable to humanoid or animal creatures, including but not limited to extra appendages, nonstandard appendages, and extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like abilities."

Of course, that doesn't in itself bar a character from taking those feats if they somehow meet the prerequisites, e.g. through prestige classes. For example, a 10th-level Walker in the Waste (from Sandstorm) who becomes a dry lich gains the Undead type and may qualify for some of the Monstrous feats in Libris Mortis.


----------



## FireLance

My position:

1. Unarmed strikes are not natural weapons. It seems to me that _magic fang_ may have been written with the intention of affecting an unarmed strike as if it was a natural weapon, but that is not the matter under debate here .

2. A feat is an effect. 

3. Yes, monks can take INA.

4. In any case, I don't think it is unbalancing.


----------



## Nail

Oh, I gotta post in this thread.......


----------



## Pinotage

FireLance said:
			
		

> My position:
> 
> 1. Unarmed strikes are not natural weapons. It seems to me that _magic fang_ may have been written with the intention of affecting an unarmed strike as if it was a natural weapon, but that is not the matter under debate here .
> 
> 2. A feat is an effect.
> 
> 3. Yes, monks can take INA.
> 
> 4. In any case, I don't think it is unbalancing.




That's pretty much my position as well.

Pinotage


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Ah...I don't have Libris Mortis, and nobody's been interested in Savage Species but me, so I haven't cracked that one open in over a year.

My position:

1. Unarmed strikes are a subset of natural weapons with special rules. It seems to me that it is nonsensical to call my hands and feet "manufactured weapons." 

2. A feat is an effect.

3. Yes, monks can take INA.

4. In any case, I don't think it is unbalancing.


----------



## Anubis

Well, since people still felt the previous answer I got was vague, I e-mailed WotC again asking the question directly.  Here it is for you all:

_
Response (Zephreum H.) 10/26/2005 08:14 AM 
Thank you for contacting us.

Yes the D&D FAQ is also a source for Errata. It is considered official for purposes regarding the rules of D&D.

Take Care!
We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.

To login to your account, or update your question please click here.

Zephreum H.

Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 7am-6pm PST / 10am-9pm EST 
 Customer (Brandon Harwell) 10/25/2005 09:03 PM 
Some folks at a popular D&D web site continue to think that, after my previous two questions, that the FAQ is used only for clarifications. Seeing as several rules changes have been implemented in the FAQ, I have decided to follow through and try to get as direct an answer as I can on this subject. My question is simple:

Is the FAQ also a source of rules changes and errata? 
_

There you have it, the bottom line.  Now can we stop debating this ridiculous topic?  It's over.  WotC has spoken.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

So - how many times are you going to post this exact same thing?  I mean, seriously ...

Oh - and you're still wrong.


----------



## Borlon

It is really hard to keep these three threads distinct when the same material gets posted to all of them.


----------



## Dimwhit

Borlon said:
			
		

> It is really hard to keep these three threads distinct when the same material gets posted to all of them.



 No doubt. We should just have them all merged into one mega thread and change the title to The Eternal (and Infernal) FAQ v ERRATA Thread.


----------



## IcyCool

Caliban said:
			
		

> Not the same thing at all.   The FAQ is not gospel, and the rules are not holy writ, no matter how much you want to worship them.




You know, I wondered where you got this bit of strangeness, now I know.  Then next time you send it my way, I'll be sure to remind you that it is Anubis you are angry at, and not me.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Anubis- I think Patryn (and others) are in what has been called a "state of invincible ignorance"- No insult intended, y'all!

It simply means that you cannot convince them because you are citing a source that has proven itself fallible- even if that source claims to have access to the font of all wisdom, they need only point to past mistakes and ask "what if they're wrong again?"  There is a point beyond which our knowledge of the facts and FAQ cannot go.

I would assume that ONLY some kind of statement by a true, originating source- eg. some/most/all of the 3.5 designers- that detailed why the language changed in 3.5 that is causing all of this folderol in this thread would be considered dispositve.

And maybe not even that would be effective.


----------



## Artoomis

Borlon said:
			
		

> It is really hard to keep these three threads distinct when the same material gets posted to all of them.




Sorry - I really tried to get all this FAQ vs. other rules stuff out of this thread.  I really did.  Really.  No..., really!


----------



## Infiniti2000

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Anubis- I think Patryn (and others) are in what has been called a "state of invincible ignorance"- No insult intended, y'all!



 Yeah, because being called ignorant should not be taken as an insult when it's not true, right?



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> It simply means that you cannot convince them because you are citing a source that has proven itself fallible...



 The fact that the source is fallible is a secondary issue.  Even the original rulebook is fallible.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

"Invincible ignorance" is a technical term derived from theological discussion.

The first person described as being invincibly ignorant was the Apostle Thomas who could not accept the word of his fellow disciples that Jesus had risen from the dead, and would only accept the Resurrection if he placed his fingers in wounds in Jesus' hands and side.

It is not an insult, it is a description of a mental state in which someone cannot be convinced of a fact (or in this case, the FAQ) without directly experiencing evidence from a primary source.

Here, the primary source would be the people who did the 3.5Ed revision.  Only they could tell us why the language was changed in those spells, or why the rules are inconsistent or unclear...

Even if their answer is  "we didn't notice the problem until it was too late."


----------



## Infiniti2000

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> It is not an insult, it is a description of a mental state in which someone cannot be convinced of a fact (or in this case, the FAQ) without directly experiencing evidence from a primary source.



 I maintain it's an insult and intended as such when it isn't true and the person making the statement knows it isn't true.  As an example, I could ascribe the same "mental state" to those who adhere to the FAQ in ignorance of the errata.  It doesn't make it a true statement, though.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Here, the primary source would be the people who did the 3.5Ed revision.



 No, the primary source is the core books + errata.  WotC can change those if they wish, but until they do change them, then, well, they remain unchanged.  The FAQ and the designers are important, to be sure, but they are not primary sources by any stretch of the imagination.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Anubis- I think Patryn (and others) are in what has been called a "state of invincible ignorance"- No insult intended, y'all!




I disagree (and understand the lack of insult in the above).

This is much more analogous to the Constitutional Law analogy brought up earlier.

The Core is the Constitution.  The Errata are Amendments.  The list of "accepted books" for a given campaign - like campaign settings, the Complete series, etc. - are Amendments that need to be passed by, generally, the DM before they may go into effect.

The FAQ is supposed to be the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, it sometimes tries to act like Congress and pass laws on its own (whether or not it knows it is doing it).  Anyway, when it offers up a law that is unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional - no matter how many years the distinguished Senator from Umptysquat has been serving and no matter how many bills he's authored (i.e., no matter how "official" the Sage is).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Fine.  You can take it as an insult.  Be insulted all you want.

It is not an insult, however, and should not be taken as one.


> No, the primary source is the core books + errata. WotC can change those if they wish, but until they do change them, then, well, they remain unchanged. The FAQ and the designers are important, to be sure, but they are not primary sources by any stretch of the imagination.




Again, you misunderstand.  I'm not debating the primary source of the rules, but the source of the statement "FAQ=Errata."  Anubis has come up with several postings from his communication with WizCustServ to that effect, and it is still not acceptible to some.

In this thread, those who refuse to accept that WOTC considers the FAQ to be the current source of official errata are doing so because the group making the assertion "FAQ=Errata" has proven to be wrong in the past.  Despite the possible *truth* of the statement, the *source* of the statement has proven to be of dubious credibility.  Anubis and others can post as many discussions with WizCustServ as they want containing statements equivalent to "FAQ=Errata" and Patryn and others will still be able to say that WizCustServ is an unreliable source for that statement because WizCustServ has been unreliable in general.

Thus, the only primary source those people might consider believing "FAQ=Errata" are the designers themselves, not their employees in Wizard's Customer Service department.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Actually, you're still wrong, Danny.

The reason that FAQ =\= Errata is not because I don't trust CustServ, it's because:



> When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct.




You'll note that there are two particular sections on the WotC website: FAQs and Erratas.  You find official Errata files in the Errata section.  You don't find official Errata files in the FAQ section.


----------



## Anubis

Heh, they wouldn't even believe it then.  They're obviously entrenched in their erroneous ways.

Anyway, enough of posting this stuff here.  I'll link you to the new thread that will converge this discussion into a single thread.  I ask everyone to begin posting there from here on out.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=153953


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Right, Patryn, but Anubis posted several times that WOTC's Customer Service Department 
considers FAQ to be Errata now.

There are only 2 reasons why WizCustServ would make that claim: it is either true and they are telling people this per instruction from higher-up, or WizCustServ is incorrect in the statement (for whatever reason).

If its the former, the structure of their website is confusing, but irrelevant.  If it is the latter, then you're absolutely correct and WizCustServ is just reinforcing its unreliability.  (The problem, of course, is that you cannot know whether the former or the latter is true without being able to query the higher echelons of WOTC.)

Might I suggest you ask them the question yourself?  If their response to you is equivalent to the response to Anubis and you continue to dispute "FAQ=Errata", all I can say is that you distrust WizCustServ (albeit not without justification).


----------



## Dimwhit

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Actually, you're still wrong, Danny.
> 
> The reason that FAQ =\= Errata is not because I don't trust CustServ, it's because:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll note that there are two particular sections on the WotC website: FAQs and Erratas.  You find official Errata files in the Errata section.  You don't find official Errata files in the FAQ section.



 You realize that Wizards doesn't update the errata anymore, right? It's been over a year for the PHB. By your thinking, there will never be a clarification on any ambiguous rule again, because they've been doing it in the FAQ instead.

So enjoy that. Personally, I'll take the rules clarifications when they come.

(And, by the way, since this is the INA thread, the FAQ answer is just that. It clarifies what the core rules say, it doesn't contradict or provide errata. There's really no reason to argue the matter.)


----------



## Anubis

Yeah, this is the INA thread.  I tried to converge all the FAQ discussion into one thread about the FAQ/errata, but Hypersmurf is too busy arguing with me and making sarcastic comments to actually be a moderator.


----------



## Legildur

Anubis said:
			
		

> Heh, they wouldn't even believe it then.  They're obviously entrenched in their erroneous ways.



You do realise that the same statement could equally be made about your position in this debate?

And perhaps you need to edit your comment (and perhaps even add an apology) about the moderator as I just noticed that the numerous other threads about FAQ v Errata have now been locked by said moderator with a polite explanatory note.


----------



## Caliban

Anubis said:
			
		

> Yeah, this is the INA thread.  I tried to converge all the FAQ discussion into one thread about the FAQ/errata, but Hypersmurf is too busy arguing with me and making sarcastic comments to actually be a moderator.




That's probably the only reason you haven't been banned again.


----------



## Anubis

Legildur said:
			
		

> You do realise that the same statement could equally be made about your position in this debate?
> 
> And perhaps you need to edit your comment (and perhaps even add an apology) about the moderator as I just noticed that the numerous other threads about FAQ v Errata have now been locked by said moderator with a polite explanatory note.




Won't happen.  Hypersmurf closed the converging thread on purpose just to aggravate me.  How do I know this?  Simple.  The "one he left open" doesn't say _anything_ about the FAQ/errata in the title, it's only about "free action to sheathe", which means anyone coming into this fresh won't even know the topic exists.  Had he left mine _or_ Artoomis's poll thread open, that would make sense, but I feel he did it the way he did solely to annoy me.

Mission accomplished on annoying me.  Just note, though, that I won't be visiting that thread since it's "topic" has nothing to do with the FAQ/errata, but rather one point inside it.  As such, if I get any new information from WotC or Andy Collins, I'll be posting it in a fresh thread, the topic of which will clearly state what it is.

Not sure why Hypersmurf seems to have it out for me (Aren't mods supposed to have no bias?), but I'll just work around him if I have to.



			
				Caliban said:
			
		

> That's probably the only reason you haven't been banned again.




Except that I haven't, you know, broken any rules.  Making sarcastic comments in response to another's sarcastic actions breaks no rules nor does pointing out bias on the part of a mod.  If he banned me, he'd have to ban all those who attacked me as well, which would of course include you, Caliban.  That is, unless he wanted everyone to see his bias.

All I've done is try to put all the info in one place with a clear topic title to converge the discussions, and I even asked Hypersmurf for his support, but he's too busy disliking me to do the right thing.  Again, I could say more, but I won't.  Don't wanna give him a reason to exercise his "smurf smite" power after all.


----------



## Artoomis

Anubis said:
			
		

> Won't happen.  Hypersmurf closed the converging thread on purpose just to aggravate me.  How do I know this?  Simple.  The "one he left open" doesn't say _anything_ about the FAQ/errata in the title, it's only about "free action to sheathe", which means anyone coming into this fresh won't even know the topic exists.  Had he left mine _or_ Artoomis's poll thread open, that would make sense, but I feel he did it the way he did solely to annoy me.




He left "Rules - Can the FAQ be used to issue errata (create new rules)? " open.  Your facts are wrong, I'm afraid.  In fact, *I* started that thread to get the FAQ/Errata discussion out of this one.  See posts # 696 and 697 in this thread.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> ..All I've done is try to put all the info in one place with a clear topic title to converge the discussions, and I even asked Hypersmurf for his support, but he's too busy disliking me to do the right thing...




Whoops - you were late in doing that as I did it earlier in posts 696/697 and THAT thread is the one he kept open.  The other one was to re-phrase the survey, but now it's closed.  Oh, well, such is life.

Hyp did the right thing.


----------



## Hypersmurf

Anubis said:
			
		

> Won't happen.  Hypersmurf closed the converging thread on purpose just to aggravate me.  How do I know this?  Simple.  The "one he left open" doesn't say _anything_ about the FAQ/errata in the title, it's only about "free action to sheathe", which means anyone coming into this fresh won't even know the topic exists.  Had he left mine _or_ Artoomis's poll thread open, that would make sense, but I feel he did it the way he did solely to annoy me.




Hmm?  Free Action to Sheathe is closed.

The one left open _is_ Artoomis' poll thread.  I closed Artoomis' other poll thread and left that one open based on the number of replies.

-Hyp.


----------



## Caliban

Anubis said:
			
		

> Won't happen.  Hypersmurf closed the converging thread on purpose just to aggravate me.  How do I know this?  Simple.  The "one he left open" doesn't say _anything_ about the FAQ/errata in the title, it's only about "free action to sheathe", which means anyone coming into this fresh won't even know the topic exists.  Had he left mine _or_ Artoomis's poll thread open, that would make sense, but I feel he did it the way he did solely to annoy me.




Again with the misinformation.  This is a bad habit of yours.   The "free action to sheathe" thread is closed as well.   

Hype is not vindictive.  Get over yourself.




> Mission accomplished on annoying me.




From what I've seen, it's not that hard.  You fly off the handle at the drop of a hat. 



> Just note, though, that I won't be visiting that thread since it's "topic" has nothing to do with the FAQ/errata, but rather one point inside it.




Is that a promise? 



> As such, if I get any new information from WotC or Andy Collins, I'll be posting it in a fresh thread, the topic of which will clearly state what it is.




Whee!



> Not sure why Hypersmurf seems to have it out for me (Aren't mods supposed to have no bias?), but I'll just work around him if I have to.




Paranoid much?  



> Except that I haven't, you know, broken any rules.



  Other than calling people liars you mean?   You got a warning about that one.   And I provided proof that none of us were lying, but you refused to accept any form of proof that would indicate that you had made a mistake.   Kind of ironic, really. 



> Making sarcastic comments in response to another's sarcastic actions breaks no rules nor does pointing out bias on the part of a mod.  If he banned me, he'd have to ban all those who attacked me as well, which would of course include you, Caliban.  That is, unless he wanted everyone to see his bias.




This is a rather transparent attempt to avoid getting banned for your behavior by pre-emptively crying bias.   Your big mistake is trying to do this to Hypersmurf, who is the least biased and most unflappable person I have ever seen, and that was before he became a moderator.    (Not to say that his way of arguing the rules doesn't annoy the hell out of me sometimes, but that's neither here nor there.)



> All I've done is try to put all the info in one place with a clear topic title to converge the discussions, and I even asked Hypersmurf for his support, but he's too busy disliking me to do the right thing.  Again, I could say more, but I won't.  Don't wanna give him a reason to exercise his "smurf smite" power after all.




All you've done is continually insult and attack anyone who disagrees with you in any way.  This has done more to obscure your (very few) valid points than anything else.  

Answers from WOTC customer service are irrelevant, they are far to unreliable.   This has been demonstrated multiple times on this forum in the past, where we have sent in the same question multiple times and have received contradictory answers in response.  They are nice people, but not a reliable source of information about the rules.


----------



## Anubis

I only posted the information as it was at the time.  Maybe I'll give Hypersmurf the benefit of the doubt this time, seeing as he fixed the, ahem, mistake, and things are as they should be now.

I'll only say one more thing about this; I don't lie and my reading skills are perfectly fine.  Read those little facts however you like.  Doing so will show you that one truth prevails.


----------



## Caliban

Anubis said:
			
		

> I only posted the information as it was at the time.  Maybe I'll give Hypersmurf the benefit of the doubt this time, seeing as he fixed the, ahem, mistake, and things are as they should be now.




I'm sure he's relieved that your going to go easy on him.  



> I'll only say one more thing about this; I don't lie and my reading skills are perfectly fine.  Read that however you like.




Say it all you want.  Fact is, you called several other people (including myself) liars, but couldn't actually support your statement.

I, on the other hand was able to provide proof to support my statements.  So until you apologize for calling me liar, you can count on being reminded of it whenever you try to acta all high and mighty.


----------



## Anubis

Caliban said:
			
		

> I, on the other hand was able to provide proof to support my statements.




You were?  Funny, I never saw proof.  As I said, you would have to show that every single FAQ released in the time frame I spoke of included the contradiction.  You have plenty of FAQs, but no proof that you have _all_ of them.

So as far as that goes, as much as I hate it, it's a stalemate; in other words, neither of us could show absolute undeniable proof.  I know what I read and I know that I downloaded the FAQ I had sometime shortly before (as I said countless times before, within six months at the absolute most) my move in May.

_If_ you're allowed to call me a liar, well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so to speak.  You can't prove your point and I can't prove mine.  That's a stalemate.  Just accept it.


----------



## Caliban

Anubis said:
			
		

> You were?  Funny, I never saw proof.  As I said, you would have to show that every single FAQ released in the time frame I spoke of included the contradiction.  You have plenty of FAQs, but no proof that you have _all_ of them.




I offered to post them, not that it really matters.  The answer was only changed once, not mutliple times like you claim.   



> So as far as that goes, as much as I hate it, it's a stalemate; in other words, neither of us could show absolute undeniable proof.  I know what I read and I know that I downloaded the FAQ I had sometime shortly before (as I said countless times before, within six months at the absolute most) my move in May.




You keep saying it's a stalemate, but that's only because you refuse to look at my proof. 

And as I said before, if it was indeed 6 months before May, then it would be late 2004, not early 2005.   And in late 2004 the FAQ did indeed say that acid/sonic/force ignored hardness in all the answers.

So yeah, you made a mistake.   But rather than consider that possibility, you got huffy and called everyone else a liar.   I happen to take my integrity pretty seriously, so I'm not in the mood to let it pass.  



> _If_ you're allowed to call me a liar, well, what's good for the goose is good for the gander, so to speak.  You can't prove your point and I can't prove mine.  That's a stalemate.  Just accept it.




More misinformation.   I never called you a liar.   I said that you made a mistake about the the FAQ you were reading (i.e. The FAQ in question could not have been from early 2005.)   

You were the one who called people liars.  We just said if you were reading the FAQ you said you were, your reading skills need work.   It looks like you made a mistake about the date of the FAQ you were using, and went off on everyone else rather than own up to it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I love discussions about arguments, and arguments about discussions.


----------



## Infiniti2000

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Right, Patryn, but Anubis posted several times that WOTC's Customer Service Department
> considers FAQ to be Errata now.
> 
> There are only 2 reasons why WizCustServ would make that claim: it is either true and they are telling people this per instruction from higher-up, or WizCustServ is incorrect in the statement (for whatever reason).



 Actually, the point we're making is that it doesn't matter why WotC Customer Service would make that claim -- if even the two representatives quoted previously would agree.  The fact is that for WotC to change the errata, they must -- guess what -- change the errata.  Having what basically amounts to an unauthoritative voice attempt to change it without changing it is meaningless.  WotC has given authority to the rulebooks and the errata, with all other sources being secondary.  Unless the rulebooks change or the errata change, nothing overrules them -- nothing at all.  WotC has the power to change them or even delete them, but until they do then whatever Customer Service says, or whatever the designers say, or whatever the President of Hasbro says is Advice Worth Listening To at best.


----------



## Artoomis

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Actually, the point we're making is that it doesn't matter why WotC Customer Service would make that claim -- if even the two representatives quoted previously would agree.  The fact is that for WotC to change the errata, they must -- guess what -- change the errata.  Having what basically amounts to an unauthoritative voice attempt to change it without changing it is meaningless.  WotC has given authority to the rulebooks and the errata, with all other sources being secondary.  Unless the rulebooks change or the errata change, nothing overrules them -- nothing at all.  WotC has the power to change them or even delete them, but until they do then whatever Customer Service says, or whatever the designers say, or whatever the President of Hasbro says is Advice Worth Listening To at best.




This discussion belongs in the FAQ thread, not this one, as it is only about the validity of the FAQ.


----------



## KarinsDad

My position:

1. Improved Unarmed Strikes are not natural weapons. They are merely treated as natural weapons in some specific circumstances.

2. A feat is not an effect. A feat does not appear to be able to have an effect. A feat has a benefit. A spell can have an effect. Acid has an effect. Smoke has an effect. Ice has an effect. Lava has an effect. Supernatural abilites can have an effect. A feat is a "special capability". Nowhere does it state (TMK) that a feat is or has an effect. I cannot find a "feat effect" like I can a "spell effects" in the books.

3. No, monks cannot take INA according to RAW.

4. In any case, I don't think it is unbalancing.

Note: I view this as a literal interpretation of RAW. I can understand the view that feats affect the game, hence, they have an effect.


I'm hung up on the phrase:

"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."

If they had wanted it to be a natural weapon, they should have just said so. But they did not, probably because it does not follow the rules of natural weapons.

I think this statement was originally here solely to allow Magic Fang and Magic Weapon (and similar spell and spell-like effects) to be cast on Monk's hands.

I also do not think that the Weapon Finesse feat is an effect that can be applied to Monks Improved Unarmed Strikes, even though it improves manufactured weapons and improves natural weapons. Unlike Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization (and the Greater versions of these), Weapon Finesse does not explicitly include unarmed strikes. Natural weapons are listed in this feat as light weapons, but unarmed strikes are mysteriously silent here. Unarmed strikes are also not listed in the weapons table as light weapons (like natural weapons are considered), rather they are listed as unarmed attacks.


The definition of Natural Weapons does not appear to apply to Monks. For example, Monks DO receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus. Natural Weapons do not. Some of the text of Natural Weapons is similar, but much of it is different and does not apply to the Monks Unarmed Attacks, hence, they are not Natural Weapons. For example, Improved Unarmed Strike is not listed anywhere as a Natural Weapon type.


"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.

Unless otherwise noted, a natural weapon threatens a critical hit on a natural attack roll of 20.

When a creature has more than one natural weapon, one of them (or sometimes a pair or set of them) is the primary weapon. All the creature’s remaining natural weapons are secondary. 

The primary weapon is given in the creature’s Attack entry, and the primary weapon or weapons is given first in the creature’s Full Attack entry. A creature’s primary natural weapon is its most effective natural attack, usually by virtue of the creature’s physiology, training, or innate talent with the weapon. An attack with a primary natural weapon uses the creature’s full attack bonus. Attacks with secondary natural weapons are less effective and are made with a –5 penalty on the attack roll, no matter how many there are. (Creatures with the Multiattack feat take only a –2 penalty on secondary attacks.) This penalty applies even when the creature makes a single attack with the secondary weapon as part of the attack action or as an attack of opportunity.

Natural weapons have types just as other weapons do. The most common are summarized below.

Bite: The creature attacks with its mouth, dealing piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning damage.

Claw or Talon: The creature rips with a sharp appendage, dealing piercing and slashing damage.

Gore: The creature spears the opponent with an antler, horn, or similar appendage, dealing piercing damage.

Slap or Slam: The creature batters opponents with an appendage, dealing bludgeoning damage.

Sting: The creature stabs with a stinger, dealing piercing damage. Sting attacks usually deal damage from poison in addition to hit point damage.

Tentacle: The creature flails at opponents with a powerful tentacle, dealing bludgeoning (and sometimes slashing) damage. "


Finally, the FAQ argument is just as silly in this thread as in every other thread.


----------



## Hypersmurf

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I also do not think that the Weapon Finesse feat is an effect that can be applied to Monks Improved Unarmed Strikes, even though it improves manufactured weapons and improves natural weapons. Unlike Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization (and the Greater versions of these), Weapon Finesse does not explicitly include unarmed strikes. Natural weapons are listed in this feat as light weapons, but unarmed strikes are mysteriously silent here. Unarmed strikes are also not listed in the weapons table as light weapons (like natural weapons are considered), rather they are listed as unarmed attacks.




See the Two-Weapon Fighting feat text (_(An unarmed strike is always considered light.)_) and the Power Attack feat text (_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)_) and the Two-Weapon Fighting special attack text (_(An unarmed strike is always considered light.)_) and the Disarm special attack text (_(An unarmed strike is considered a light weapon, so you always take a penalty when trying to disarm an opponent by using an unarmed strike.)_).

Do you consider that someone attempting to Sunder with an unarmed strike does not take a -4 penalty, or that someone attempting to Disarm or Sunder with a natural weapon does not take a -4 penalty?

-Hyp.


----------



## Infiniti2000

Artoomis said:
			
		

> This discussion belongs in the FAQ thread, not this one, as it is only about the validity of the FAQ.



 I must have lost track of what thread I was in.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> The fact is that for WotC to change the errata, they must -- guess what -- change the errata...Unless the rulebooks change or the errata change, nothing overrules them -- nothing at all. WotC has the power to change them or even delete them, but until they do then whatever Customer Service says, or whatever the designers say, or whatever the President of Hasbro says is Advice Worth Listening To at best.




I beg to differ.

If the official policy at WOTC is now to consider the FAQ to *be* the present and future source of errata, then it *is* errata.  Essentially, they HAVE changed the errata..._into being accessed through the FAQ only._

The problem is that the only word we have for this is WisCustServ- as pointed out, a source of dubious veracity.

If they don't deign to merge the errata and FAQ on their website if this TRULY is the case, then it's pretty stupid on their part, but it doesn't rob the FAQ of the authority.  (Ditto if they don't make some kind of announcement, either on the main D&D page, somewhere at the end of the errata section etc.)  They are, however, not obligated to make it easy for us.

If the FAQ = Errata by WOTC decree, then you'll not see another update for a while, perhaps until 4Ed.



> I think this statement was originally here solely to allow Magic Fang and Magic Weapon (and similar spell and spell-like effects) to be cast on Monk's hands.




Except that, by RAW, the 3.5 version of the spell Magic Fang can be cast on ANYONE'S fists.


----------



## KarinsDad

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> See the Two-Weapon Fighting feat text (_(An unarmed strike is always considered light.)_) and the Power Attack feat text (_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)_) and the Two-Weapon Fighting special attack text (_(An unarmed strike is always considered light.)_) and the Disarm special attack text (_(An unarmed strike is considered a light weapon, so you always take a penalty when trying to disarm an opponent by using an unarmed strike.)_).
> 
> Do you consider that someone attempting to Sunder with an unarmed strike does not take a -4 penalty, or that someone attempting to Disarm or Sunder with a natural weapon does not take a -4 penalty?




I stand corrected (you can tell I have never played a Monk  ).

Weapon Finesse affects Light Weapons.

Improved Natural Attack affects Natural Weapons.

Two different things.


----------



## Artoomis

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> I stand corrected (you can tell I have never played a Monk  ).
> 
> Weapon Finesse affects Light Weapons.
> 
> Improved Natural Attack affects Natural Weapons.
> 
> Two different things.




Right.  Except monk's attacks ARE natural weapons for any effect that enhances them.  Feats are a type of effect (they are referred to as effects in at least a couple of places).  Therefore monk's special attacks qualify for INA - simple as that.

The argument about feats being effects but prerequsiites not being effects is... silly.


----------



## KarinsDad

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Except that, by RAW, the 3.5 version of the spell Magic Fang can be cast on ANYONE'S fists.




So could the 3E version.

A better example would be Painful Strike.


----------



## KarinsDad

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Right.  Except monk's attacks ARE natural weapons for any effect that enhances them.  Feats are a type of effect (they are referred to as effects in at least a couple of places).




Where?


----------



## Kem

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Where?




If they where not an effect, they would not do anything.


----------



## Pinotage

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Where?




Nowhere in the core rules. However, the discussion on the Human Heritage feat in Races of Destiny cites feats and their prerequisites as effects. There was something similar in Races of Stone, I believe.

Pinotage


----------



## Pinotage

Kem said:
			
		

> If they where not an effect, they would not do anything.




I think the argument here is that feats *have * effects, but *aren't themselves * effects. Since a feat consists of a benefit and its prerequisites, the benefit is considered an effect, but the prerequisites not. Hence the debate on whether a monk is elligable to take INA since many consider prerequisites not to be effects, and hence feats as a whole not to be effects.

Pinotage


----------



## Plane Sailing

Anubis and Caliban, I think you ought to drop your mutual argument now. You've probably said all that you need to say to one another in this thread.

Also Anubis, I'd also note that while moderators may or may not have personal bias about individuals, they make every effort to not allow that to spill over into moderating decisions - even to the extent of discussing those issues privately with the other moderators. If anyone ever has an issue with a moderator decision the thing to do is either:

a) email the moderator and talk it over in person (and the moderator will discuss it with all the mods), or failing that
b) report the post so that you can bring it to the attention of all moderators who again will discuss it together.

You'll notice that this list doesn't include complaining about them in the public forums, so please don't do it.

Regards


----------



## Borlon

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Nowhere in the core rules. However, the discussion on the Human Heritage feat in Races of Destiny cites feats and their prerequisites as effects. There was something similar in Races of Stone, I believe.




Improved Spell Resistance in the Epic Handbook also refers to feats as effects- your more current examples are better, though.  And anyway ISR is not terribly convincing, since it could very well be employing synecdoche to refer to the "effect of a feat" more concisely.

I think the sidebar concerning the Human Heritage feat gives the right answer (having human heritage makes you count as human for the purpose of prerequisites) but for the wrong reason (it is not simply because the feat allows you to benefit from effects that target humans.  The feat does lots of other things).  I think this text was quoted up thread, though no firm conclusion was drawn.  Perhaps we need to revisit it.  The issue is complicated by the existence of racial paragon classes.  You can count as an elf but still not be able to take the elf paragon class.  Not relevant to the discussion of INA, but it does muddy the waters as to how satisfying prerequisites is related to the "counts as" rules text.


----------



## Pinotage

Borlon said:
			
		

> I think the sidebar concerning the Human Heritage feat gives the right answer (having human heritage makes you count as human for the purpose of prerequisites) but for the wrong reason (it is not simply because the feat allows you to benefit from effects that target humans.  The feat does lots of other things).  I think this text was quoted up thread, though no firm conclusion was drawn.  Perhaps we need to revisit it.  The issue is complicated by the existence of racial paragon classes.  You can count as an elf but still not be able to take the elf paragon class.  Not relevant to the discussion of INA, but it does muddy the waters as to how satisfying prerequisites is related to the "counts as" rules text.




The reason I suppose it was not taken as convincing evidence was the paragon issue. Also, it's not in the core three books, hence not 'primary' source. I quoted it earlier, but it generated little response presumably for the above reasons.

Pinotage


----------



## Kem

Pinotage said:
			
		

> I think the argument here is that feats *have * effects, but *aren't themselves * effects. Since a feat consists of a benefit and its prerequisites, the benefit is considered an effect, but the prerequisites not. Hence the debate on whether a monk is elligable to take INA since many consider prerequisites not to be effects, and hence feats as a whole not to be effects.
> 
> Pinotage




And magic fang is not itself an effect, it only has an effect.

However, the fact that a feat has prereqs does NOT change the fact that it is an effect, and has an effect.

A feat is not a pair of legoes one being Prereq the other being benefit.  It is a single lego that is the benefit, while the prereq is that you have to have something before you can take it.

Just like you can't play a game unless you have the game.  Does that mean that the game has a game and a prereq?

Or even better, some games have 12&up on them.  Does that mean the game is no longer just a game but a game and a prereq to play it?  Wherein if something says bring a game you can't bring it as "Box" has a prereq and a game in it and isn't a game?


----------



## Dimwhit

Kem said:
			
		

> And magic fang is not itself an effect, it only has an effect.
> 
> However, the fact that a feat has prereqs does NOT change the fact that it is an effect, and has an effect.
> 
> A feat is not a pair of legoes one being Prereq the other being benefit.  It is a single lego that is the benefit, while the prereq is that you have to have something before you can take it.
> 
> Just like you can't play a game unless you have the game.  Does that mean that the game has a game and a prereq?
> 
> Or even better, some games have 12&up on them.  Does that mean the game is no longer just a game but a game and a prereq to play it?  Wherein if something says bring a game you can't bring it as "Box" has a prereq and a game in it and isn't a game?



 I'm with you, Kem. How people come up with this whole 'a prereq is not an effect' stuff baffles me.

And one other point: There is NO definition of the term 'effect' in the D&D game. It is used generically. Therefore, by a dictionary definition, feats are absolutely effects. Unless someone can point out a specific way the RAW defines 'effect' (and I'm perfectly willing to concede the point if it does have specific meaning), then I just don't see how there can be an argument.


----------



## dcollins

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> And one other point: There is NO definition of the term 'effect' in the D&D game. It is used generically.




Actually, in context, I always see "effect" used in reference to a magical ability. Consider the Glossary for "fear effect", "line of effect", etc. Or in the PHB under "Special Abilities": "These effects come in two types: spell-like and supernatural".

To my knowledge, every place in the core rules that says "effect" is referring to a magical ability. I can't think of any exceptions.


----------



## Dimwhit

dcollins said:
			
		

> Actually, in context, I always see "effect" used in reference to a magical ability. Consider the Glossary for "fear effect", "line of effect", etc. Or in the PHB under "Special Abilities": "These effects come in two types: spell-like and supernatural".
> 
> To my knowledge, every place in the core rules that says "effect" is referring to a magical ability. I can't think of any exceptions.



 There are a number of feats that refer to effect. One example (there are several):



> IMPROVED CRITICAL [GENERAL]
> 
> Choose one type of weapon.
> 
> Prerequisite: Proficient with weapon, base attack bonus +8.
> 
> Benefit: When using the weapon you selected, your threat range is doubled.
> 
> Special: You can gain Improved Critical multiple times. The *effects* do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.
> 
> This *effect* doesn’t stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon.
> 
> A fighter may select Improved Critical as one of his fighter bonus feats.


----------



## dcollins

Interestingly, use of "effect" in the singular in the preceding does not exist in 3.0, only 3.5. As usual, lots of stuff that was clear in the original gets muddied in the revision.


----------



## Dimwhit

dcollins said:
			
		

> Interestingly, use of "effect" in the singular in the preceding does not exist in 3.0, only 3.5. As usual, lots of stuff that was clear in the original gets muddied in the revision.



 I just think it's because they don't attribute any in-game meaning to the term 'effect.'

But yes, it has led to some confusion.


----------



## KarinsDad

dcollins said:
			
		

> Actually, in context, I always see "effect" used in reference to a magical ability. Consider the Glossary for "fear effect", "line of effect", etc. Or in the PHB under "Special Abilities": "These effects come in two types: spell-like and supernatural".
> 
> To my knowledge, every place in the core rules that says "effect" is referring to a magical ability. I can't think of any exceptions.




Ice, Smoke, Lava, Acid, etc. in the DMG.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Not griping, but just curious, KarinsDad- where in the DMG did you find that?  (It IS a biggish book, you know!)


----------



## Hypersmurf

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Not griping, but just curious, KarinsDad- where in the DMG did you find that?  (It IS a biggish book, you know!)




Under "The Environment".

Check the SRD here for the relevant text: "Acid Effects", "Ice Effects", etc.

-Hyp.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Thanks!


----------



## dcollins

Thanks for the citations.


----------



## Anubis

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Actually, the point we're making is that it doesn't matter why WotC Customer Service would make that claim -- if even the two representatives quoted previously would agree.  The fact is that for WotC to change the errata, they must -- guess what -- change the errata.  Having what basically amounts to an unauthoritative voice attempt to change it without changing it is meaningless.  WotC has given authority to the rulebooks and the errata, with all other sources being secondary.  Unless the rulebooks change or the errata change, nothing overrules them -- nothing at all.  WotC has the power to change them or even delete them, but until they do then whatever Customer Service says, or whatever the designers say, or whatever the President of Hasbro says is Advice Worth Listening To at best.




According to what law?

You've got nothing.  Give it up.


----------



## Dimwhit

Anubis said:
			
		

> According to what law?
> 
> You've got nothing.  Give it up.



 He also refuses to accept that, in the case of INA, it's allowable by the RAW. Oh well. I guess that's why this thread has gone for more than 800 posts.

Honestly, I'm just entertained by it now.


----------



## Pinotage

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> I'm with you, Kem. How people come up with this whole 'a prereq is not an effect' stuff baffles me.
> 
> And one other point: There is NO definition of the term 'effect' in the D&D game. It is used generically. Therefore, by a dictionary definition, feats are absolutely effects. Unless someone can point out a specific way the RAW defines 'effect' (and I'm perfectly willing to concede the point if it does have specific meaning), then I just don't see how there can be an argument.




Yeah, I agree too. I was just pointing out to Kem where the argument lies.

Pinotage


----------



## Caliban

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> I'm with you, Kem. How people come up with this whole 'a prereq is not an effect' stuff baffles me.




That's ok, it baffles me how someone can think that a requirement or prerequisite that you must meet before you can take the feat is an effect of the feat.  

The difference seems very obvious to me. 

*shrug*  One of those mysteries of life.


----------



## Infiniti2000

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> He also refuses to accept that, in the case of INA, it's allowable by the RAW. Oh well. I guess that's why this thread has gone for more than 800 posts.
> 
> Honestly, I'm just entertained by it now.



 Hey, I'm not the only one being so stubborn, so right back at ya.   



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> According to what law?
> 
> You've got nothing. Give it up.



 Iamdalaw!  Or, rather, the law as written in the errata itself.


----------



## Artoomis

Caliban said:
			
		

> That's ok, it baffles me how someone can think that a requirement or prerequisite that you must meet before you can take the feat is an effect of the feat.
> 
> The difference seems very obvious to me.
> 
> *shrug*  One of those mysteries of life.




On the other hand, I think it should be intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer that if you get to have a natural attack for the purposes of the feat, that means for the prerequisites of the feat, too.  Seperating those two out as folks want to is, well... ludicrous.


----------



## Infiniti2000

Artoomis said:
			
		

> On the other hand, I think it should be intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer that if you get to have a natural attack for the purposes of the feat, that means for the prerequisites of the feat, too.  Seperating those two out as folks want to is, well... ludicrous.



 On the other other hand, I think it should be _intuitively obvious_ to even the _most casual observer_ that if you get to have a natural attack for the purposes of the feat, that it doesn't mean you have a natural attack for the prerequisites of the feat, too.  Merging those two as folks want to is, well . . . _ludicrous_.

Okay, now that we come full circle back into ad hominem, I say it's time to close the thread.


----------



## Dimwhit

Caliban said:
			
		

> That's ok, it baffles me how someone can think that a requirement or prerequisite that you must meet before you can take the feat is an effect of the feat.
> 
> The difference seems very obvious to me.
> 
> *shrug*  One of those mysteries of life.



 Well, I don't understand how that even matters.


----------



## Artoomis

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> On the other other hand, I think it should be _intuitively obvious_ to even the _most casual observer_ that if you get to have a natural attack for the purposes of the feat, that it doesn't mean you have a natural attack for the prerequisites of the feat, too.  Merging those two as folks want to is, well . . . _ludicrous_.
> 
> Okay, now that we come full circle back into ad hominem, I say it's time to close the thread.




Yes, well, I thought this topic had died a natural death before, but it got ressurected.


----------



## Borlon

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Yes, well, I thought this topic had died a natural death before, but it got ressurected.




Nah.  It had only been dead a few weeks.  Well within the limits of _raise dead_.


----------



## Anubis

I think Infiniti2000 and Caliban just love arguing for the sake of arguing.  That and they like hearing the sounds of their own voices I imagine.  I can't find any validity in what they're saying given that the people who have authority to say one way or another have stated in no uncertain terms what the rule is.

Andy Collins > Infiniti2000 + Caliban

That's the bottom line here.  Andy Collins has the "power" given to him as a designer to say how it is.  Since the RAW is _sooo_ unclear, it's his job to _make it clear_, and he has done so, as it is his job to do.  Infiniti2000, Caliban, what credentials do you have to have any right whatsoever to say Andy Collins is wrong?  Especially given that he was handed the reigns by WotC to do exactly what he did.  WotC owns the product, so what they say goes.  They say that what Andy Collins says goes.  Andy Collins says you two are wrong.

Simple math.


----------



## Infiniti2000

Anubis said:
			
		

> Andy Collins > Infiniti2000 + Caliban



 Hey, you're really being unfair.  You need to include everyone else who supports your opposing viewpoint.  Hyp, Patryn, etc.


----------



## Anubis

Okay, how about this:

Andy Collins > Anyone at EN World who doesn't work for WotC

No matter what any of us say, he's the one with the "official" say that should be used in answers on the _Rules_ forum.

Do we think he's wrong somtimes?  Yes.  Is he human?  Yes.  Does he make mistakes?  Yes.  Doesn't the actual RAW make mistakes as well in the form of typos?  Yes.  Is anything perfect?  No.  Does WotC and parent companies own the copyrights for D&D?  Yes.  Do they have the authority to give Andy Collins the reigns on rules?  Yes.  Have they done so?  Yes.  Do they embrace, validate, and put their stamp of approval on the FAQ and his answers within?  Yes.

Everything in the previous paragraph shows us that, we may think he's wrong and we may disagree, but that doesn't matter.  He's been given the authority by WotC, and nothing anyone here at this FAN SITE says can do a dang thing about it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Anubis, they're not going to take your word for it, nor AC's, nor WizCustServ.

Essentially, unless it appears in the Errata section, something WOTC implies will never happen if they are indeed now using the FAQ _as_ Errata (according to WizCustServ), they will remain unconvinced of the ruling.


----------



## Artoomis

Anubis:

*Please* lay off the discussion of what's offical and what's not.  We ALL know that, officially, monk's can take INA.  This thread is not about not, nor about what's the most authoritative source.  Save that for the FAQ as Errata thread, please.

This thread is about whether the offical ruling is correct per the RAW.  It's not really about anything practical, it's about an intellectual debate about what the rules do and do not say.

The other thread is about who's an authoritative source.  Let's keep these two topics seperate, okay?  Please?


----------



## Caliban

Anubis said:
			
		

> I think Infiniti2000 and Caliban just love arguing for the sake of arguing.  That and they like hearing the sounds of their own voices I imagine.




Um, this is text.  No one can hear what I'm saying, they can just read it.    




> I can't find any validity in what they're saying given that the people who have authority to say one way or another have stated in no uncertain terms what the rule is.




Where in this thread have I said that monks can't take Improved INA?   You spreading misinformation again.  

Everything else you posted was pretty much irrelevent.


----------



## Caliban

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Well, I don't understand how that even matters.





I understand that.  We just approach the question from different viewpoints, different enough what seems obvious to you and what seems obvious to me are completely different. 

That's why I eventually accepted that this is a truly ambigous rules situation, even though it didn't seem that way to me at first. (And by "at first" I mean when this question was raised many moons ago in 3.0.)


----------



## Dimwhit

Caliban said:
			
		

> I understand that.  We just approach the question from different viewpoints, different enough what seems obvious to you and what seems obvious to me are completely different.
> 
> That's why I eventually accepted that this is a truly ambigous rules situation, even though it didn't seem that way to me at first. (And by "at first" I mean when this question was raised many moons ago in 3.0.)



 I hear ya.


----------



## Anubis

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Anubis:
> 
> *Please* lay off the discussion of what's offical and what's not.  We ALL know that, officially, monk's can take INA.  This thread is not about not, nor about what's the most authoritative source.  Save that for the FAQ as Errata thread, please.
> 
> This thread is about whether the offical ruling is correct per the RAW.  It's not really about anything practical, it's about an intellectual debate about what the rules do and do not say.
> 
> The other thread is about who's an authoritative source.  Let's keep these two topics seperate, okay?  Please?




The thing is, the FAQ's validity is at the heart of this matter.  People who think the rule is vague are directed to the FAQ under every interpretation out there as a source of clarification, and it makes the rule clear.  For those thinking errata is required, well, official word is that errata comes from the FAQ as well.  As such, people arguing the validity of the FAQ is trying to confuse this particular issue even more.

The fact is there is absolutely no way monk's can't take the feat unless you ignore the errata, the FAQ, the designers, *and* WotC's word.  That's why this overlaps.  The problem is this issue can't be resolved until the FAQ issue is.  The question is, do the rules allow for monks to take Improved Natural Attack?  No logical interpretation can come to a specific "no" conclusion, as the rules are either vague or clearly pointing to "yes".  In the former case, of course, the FAQ gets the say.  On the _Rules_ forum, we should give only one answer, it shouldn't even be debatable.  It's either allowed by the rules or it isn't.

Since certain people continue to argue the validity of the FAQ, though, it continues to loop back on itself.  Can monks take it by the RAW?  There are only two clear interpretations: "yes" or "the rules are unclear".  In problem is that several people seem to come to this weird conclusion that the rules are perfectly clear that the answer is "no".  Either way, the FAQ is what this keeps going back to, as it stated ver batum that the answer is "yes".  Therein lies the circle.  If errata is needed, well, WotC says the FAQ is errata; if only a clarification is needed, well, the FAQ does that as well.

This means that, until the FAQ issue is resolved, this issue of monks and that dang feat is gonna keep going in circles.


----------



## Legildur

Anubis said:
			
		

> The fact is there is absolutely no way monk's can't take the feat unless you ignore the *errata*, the FAQ, the designers, *and* WotC's word.



(my emphasis) Show me that 'monks can take INA' is errata!

It MAY be errata (if you follow WotC's flawed method of communicating rules changes), but there are so many answers in the FAQ that are clarification or otherwise that are NOT errata, that there is no way to distinguish or be certain which is errata, clarification, house rules, or helpful advice.

So, by the RAW (which is, afterall, what this whole forum is about), it is not sufficiently clear that monks can take INA.


----------



## Artoomis

Legildur said:
			
		

> (my emphasis) ...So, by the RAW (which is, afterall, what this whole forum is about), it is not sufficiently clear that monks can take INA.




No, this forum is not really ALL ABOUT the RAW.  It's about D&D rules, which does include the RAW - as well as FAQ, etc.  In THIS particular case, the topic we are talking about is whether RAW supports WotC's offical view that monks can talk INA.

Let's get back on topic, okay?


----------



## Legildur

Rules Forum. Rules as Written.  You'll forgive me if I might get it confused.   

And with there being so many threads around covering very similar ground, it tends to get a little blurred.

And just to get back on track, Monks still can't take INA without a rule 0, or errata from WotC (and the FAQ is not errata in my view, no matter how WotC peddle it).

But I'll be a very happy player if/when they do errata it.


----------



## Anubis

Legildur said:
			
		

> And just to get back on track, Monks still can't take INA without a rule 0, or errata from WotC (and the FAQ is not errata in my view, no matter how WotC peddle it).




Not according to the RAW.  By the _original_ RAW (the printed text of the book), it's merely "unclear".  Nowhere is it stated that monks can't take it.  In fact, the whole "treat them as natural weapons" language suggests that they can.

Even if you take a goofed interpretation of the literal meaning of the words, the spirit of the rule is still clear.  The only way monks can't take the feat is if you both ignore the spirit of the rules *and* take the most hard-lined and narrow interpretation of the written rules.  Somehow, I have a feeling that such a stance is wrong.  My thinking, of course, is supported by WotC.


----------



## glass

Artoomis said:
			
		

> On the other hand, I think it should be intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer that if you get to have a natural attack for the purposes of the feat, that means for the prerequisites of the feat, too.  Seperating those two out as folks want to is, well... ludicrous.



It doesn't say 'for the purposes of feats', it says for the purposes of effects. If it specifically mentioned feats, then you could make the case that 'feats' includes prerequisites, but it doesn't. It says 'effects', and you can't really make the case that 'effects' include prereqs.

I know you are, but you still can't!  


glass.


----------



## glass

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Hey, you're really being unfair.  You need to include everyone else who supports your opposing viewpoint.  Hyp, Patryn, etc.



Don't forget me!


glass.


----------



## glass

_EDIT:

Sorry, I got sidetracked arguing with Anubis again in the wrong thread.

I have reposted my previous post here to the FAQ thread._


glass.


----------



## glass

Anubis said:
			
		

> Not according to the RAW.  By the _original_ RAW (the printed text of the book), it's merely "unclear".  Nowhere is it stated that monks can't take it.  In fact, the whole "treat them as natural weapons" language suggests that they can.



Oh please. It's not explicitly stated that the can't cast finger of death at second level either. Is it your position then that they can?


glass.


----------



## Artoomis

glass said:
			
		

> It doesn't say 'for the purposes of feats', it says for the purposes of effects. If it specifically mentioned feats, then you could make the case that 'feats' includes prerequisites, but it doesn't. It says 'effects', and you can't really make the case that 'effects' include prereqs.
> 
> I know you are, but you still can't!
> 
> glass.



Actually, there are two distinct, technical arguments for why monks, per RAW, may take INA.

1.  "Effects" is NOT a defined term in D&D (except for spells) and is used to mean MANY things in the RAW.  Feats are, in fact, included in that list:


			
				srd said:
			
		

> ... a feat, class feature, or other permanent effect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Feats" really includes their prerequisites when one talks about being able to qualify for the feat.
> 
> 2.  Monks (and, indeed, darn near everyone) have a natural weapon (unarmed strike) that is "special" and does NOT count as a natural weapon for iterative attacks, etc., but does for other purposes - such as weapon finesse, feats, etc., etc.  The line in the monk description is really required because their natural weapon is ALSO considered a manufactured weapon for the purposes of benefiting from spells and effects, and that is a special rule for monks.
> 
> This argument is not as straightforward, and requires some rules interpretation is not clearly stated anywhere (of course, of this whole discussion would be moot).
> 
> The counter argument seems to center on three points (presented here with brief counter-arguments):
> 
> 1.  Feats are not effects (disproved many times - see point 1 above).
> 2.  Feats are effects, but prerequisites are not.  Silly argument, really - when one is talking about being able to benefit from a feat because you have a natural weapon, it is phenomenal hair-splitting to state that one could benefit from the feat by virtue of having a natural weapon by not qualify for the feat by virtue of NOT having a natural weapon.
> 3.  Unarmed strikes are NOT natural weapons except for the statement in the monk class description or certain, specific instances where they might be considered a natural weapon.  Well, this one is harder to counter, for the counter-argument really is practically a restatement of the above with a different point of view - that they are "special" natural weapons that count as natural weapons - but not for most of the normal natural weapon attributes.
> 
> I think that's a pretty good high-level summary - with a "pro INA-per-RAW" twist, admittedly.
Click to expand...


----------



## Artoomis

glass said:
			
		

> Oh please. It's not explicitly stated that the can't cast finger of death at second level either. Is it your position then that they can?
> 
> 
> glass.




Now, now, that's entirely different - and I think you realize it.  Anubis was correct in stating that Monks taking INA is not specifically prohibited from taking INA and it's unlcear from the RAW whether they are allowed to take INA.

I think the first half of that statement (as I re-stated it) is entirely superflous - if it's unclear whether monks qualify for INA, then OBVIOUSLY they are not specifically prohibited.


----------



## Infiniti2000

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I think that's a pretty good high-level summary - with a "pro INA-per-RAW" twist, admittedly.



 It's more than a twist.  You totally misrepresent the counter argument with a disingenuous "high-level summary."


----------



## Artoomis

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> It's more than a twist.  You totally misrepresent the counter argument with a disingenuous "high-level summary."




How?  Is not the essence of the monks cannot take INA" one of three things:

No, because feats are not effects.
No, because even if feats are effects, prerequisites are not.
No, unarmed strikes are not natural weapons, so you cannot skip worrying about whether feats/prerequisites are effects or not.

Did I miss something?

I did include summaries of counters to those arguments, if that's what you mean by "totally misrepresenting."

How about YOU give a one or two sentence summary of your position (one sentence per position, like I did)?  That way I can see for myself how I "totally misrepresented" my esteemed opposition.


----------



## Legildur

Anubis said:
			
		

> Not according to the RAW.  By the _original_ RAW (the printed text of the book), it's merely "unclear".  Nowhere is it stated that monks can't take it.  In fact, the whole "treat them as natural weapons" language suggests that they can.



Yes, it is unclear, and I think the choice of words for the monk ability is telling in that regard.  They (the designers) could have written it in much simpler text and just allowed them to be natural weapons for all purposes (except for multiple attack progression).  But they didn't.     So it's not such a 'hard line' interpretation.  In my mind, it is the FAQ that 'goofed'.


----------



## Dimwhit

Artoomis said:
			
		

> No, because feats are not effects.
> No, because even if feats are effects, prerequisites are not.




Wrong and wrong. First, define 'effect.' Because I guarantee you there is no definition you can give for it that will show feats are not effects. Don't give me an example of another effect. I want you to define it and show where it is you are getting that definition.

As for prereqs, I can almost understand some arguments against all this, but the 'prerequisites are not effects' argument is the most irrelevant one I've heard. You don't qualify for prereqs, you qualify for a feat. Saying prereqs need to be an effect before you can take INA makes no sense whatsoever.


----------



## Infiniti2000

Artoomis said:
			
		

> How? ... I did include summaries of counters to those arguments, if that's what you mean by "totally misrepresenting."



 No, what I mean by totally misrepresenting is the use of phrases like "silly argument" and "phenomenal hair-splitting."  While you may feel that way, don't try to present your opponent's view by using obviously belittling statements.  If you really want to make a "high-level summary", don't do it disingenuously.  You obviously didn't mean to present both sides in a fair manner so don't try.


----------



## Artoomis

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> No, what I mean by totally misrepresenting is the use of phrases like "silly argument" and "phenomenal hair-splitting."  While you may feel that way, don't try to present your opponent's view by using obviously belittling statements.  If you really want to make a "high-level summary", don't do it disingenuously.  You obviously didn't mean to present both sides in a fair manner so don't try.




Oh, I see.  I did NOT misrepresent your position, you just don't like the way I phrased my counter-arguments - which I clearly represented as being my counter-arguments.

I can live with that.


----------



## Artoomis

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Wrong and wrong. First, define 'effect.' Because I guarantee you there is no definition you can give for it that will show feats are not effects. Don't give me an example of another effect. I want you to define it and show where it is you are getting that definition....




Just to be clear - I was stating the position of my opposition, NOT my position.

I agree that it is not possible to define "effects" in D&D terms other than using the dictionary.

I agree that if one has a natural attack for the purposes of gaining the benefits of some feat that one obviously has a natural attack for the purposes of the prerequisites of that feat as well.


----------



## Caliban

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I agree that if one has a natural attack for the purposes of gaining the benefits of some feat that one obviously has a natural attack for the purposes of the prerequisites of that feat as well.




And to many people, it's equally obvious that it is two different things.


----------



## glass

Borlon said:
			
		

> Nah.  It had only been dead a few weeks.  Well within the limits of _raise dead_.



_raise thread?_  

glass.


----------



## glass

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Wrong and wrong. First, define 'effect.' Because I guarantee you there is no definition you can give for it that will show feats are not effects. Don't give me an example of another effect. I want you to define it and show where it is you are getting that definition.



I already posted dictionary.com's  definition about 20 pages back, which showed that a feat does not fit the definition of an effect.



> As for prereqs, I can almost understand some arguments against all this, but the 'prerequisites are not effects' argument is the most irrelevant one I've heard. You don't qualify for prereqs, you qualify for a feat. Saying prereqs need to be an effect before you can take INA makes no sense whatsoever.



You are correct that you don't qualify for the prereqs, you qualify for the feat. But how do you qualify for the feat? You meet the prerequsites.

Far from irrelevant, it is the very heart of the question. If prerequisites are not effects (and by the definition above, I don't see how you can argue that they are), then a monks ability has no power to meet prereqs. This is true, even if you think feats as a whole are effects (which they aren't).


glass.


----------



## glass

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Actually, there are two distinct, technical arguments for why monks, per RAW, may take INA.
> 
> 1.  "Effects" is NOT a defined term in D&D (except for spells) and is used to mean MANY things in the RAW.  Feats are, in fact, included in that list:
> 
> 
> 
> srd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... a feat, class feature, or other permanent effect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Feats are not effects (disproved many times - see point 1 above).
Click to expand...


That counter argument has been itself countered 'many times': Synecdoche


glass.


----------



## glass

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I agree that it is not possible to define "effects" in D&D terms other than using the dictionary..



And yet, you keep trying to define it in a way that bears no resmblance to the dictionary definition!


glass.


----------



## Lord Pendragon

I'm not going to enter into this argument long-term.  I just thought I'd post a short analogy that illustrates my own position on the matter.

Furniture guy:  Here you go, Jere, a fine plastic chair.  It's made of a special plastic, though, so if you want to get it painted, you should treat it like wood or steel.

Me:  But it's not wood _or_ steel!

Furniture guy:  That's the beauty of this plastic.  Take it easy.

Me:  All right, to the paint guy!

Paint guy:  So you want some of this red paint, huh?

Me:  Yes, sir!

Paint guy:  Do you have a wooden chair?

Me:  No, I have a plastic chair, but...

Paint guy:  Sorry, no can do.

Me:  What?  But that paint will work just fine on my chair once I have it!

Paint guy:  Don't care.  I only sell this stuff to folks with wooden chairs.  Come back to me when you've got one.  Have you considered a nice coat of blue?  I'll sell that crap to anyone.

Me:  ...

=================================

RAW, the monk can't take the feat.
But in my game, I'd probably let him have the red paint.


----------



## Borlon

glass made the point earlier, but you don't qualify for prerequisites, you meet them.  

The most succinct way of expressing the "prerequisites are not effects" argument is, I think, as follows: A feat does not have effects before it is taken, but it does have prerequisites that must be met before the feat is taken; therefore prerequisites are not effects.

Feats aren't effects.  The synecdoche argument applies against some quoted rules text.  But there is also the argument that a feat is an "effect" of leveling up.  This employs a flexible definition of feat that renders the word meaningless.  If a feat is an effect of leveling up, well, leveling up is an effect of the character overcoming challenges.  The character's actions are an effect of the player's choices.  The player's choices are an effect of the player.  The player is an effect of the player's parents.  And so on.  Leveling up is also an effect of the experience point rules.  The experience point rules are an effect of the game designer.  And so is anything else that the game designer wrote; every rule, every item, every spell, everything; all are effects.  One poster (I forget who) said "that way lies madness."  

I don't have a comprehensive in game definition of effect, but I include the benefit section of a feat, and the text of spells and special abilities.  I exclude prerequisites for the reason I outline above; namely, that prerequisites have to be met before something has an effect.

Finally, I reject the "unarmed strikes are natural weapons" argument.  I contend that unarmed strikes are what people use when they are unarmed; that is when they don't have weapons.  In other words, unarmed strikes aren't weapons at all.  They aren't manufactured weapons, and they aren't natural weapons.  However the rules that apply to unarmed strikes overlap with the rules for both kinds of weapons.  The iterative attacks work like manufactured weapons, and enhancements that apply to natural weapons apply to them too.  

But really, they aren't weapons.  They are a last resort for someone who is unarmed, has no natural weapons, but still needs to fight.  If they resort to unarmed strikes they have to cope with nonproficiency penalties, low damage, the inability threaten an area or do lethal damage; unarmed strikes are a desperate last resort of someone without weapons.

In any event, the Sage's response refers to special monk rules as a basis for granting a monk access to INA.  He doesn't refer to the "fact" that unarmed strikes are natural attacks.  Even if the ruling could be justified on the grounds that unarmed strikes are natural attacks, the Sage's ruling could be criticized.  If his ruling is justified, it is justified on the basis of the monk's weapon equivalency rules.  And it is here that I criticize him.

It seems clear to me that the Sage has conflated meeting prerequisites with qualifying for benefits, and that this is an innovation.  Specifically, the principal that "unless otherwise stated, if something counts as X for the purpose of qualifying for benefits, it also counts as X for the purpose of meeting prerequisites" is a new rule, something that he is adding to the RAW.  Now maybe that is something that is well within his power to do; that's for a different thread.  All I want to say in this thread is that the Sage is in fact making a new rule, not simply applying the old ones.


----------



## Dimwhit

glass said:
			
		

> I already posted dictionary.com's  definition about 20 pages back, which showed that a feat does not fit the definition of an effect.




Yeah, I read it. Showed pretty clearly that feats are "Something brought about by a cause or agent; a result." Not sure how you're reading that, but it seems clear to me.



			
				Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> I'm not going to enter into this argument long-term.  I just thought I'd post a short analogy that illustrates my own position on the matter.
> 
> Furniture guy:  Here you go, Jere, a fine plastic chair.  It's made of a special plastic, though, so if you want to get it painted, you should treat it like wood or steel.
> 
> Me:  But it's not wood _or_ steel!
> 
> Furniture guy:  That's the beauty of this plastic.  Take it easy.
> 
> Me:  All right, to the paint guy!
> 
> Paint guy:  So you want some of this red paint, huh?
> 
> Me:  Yes, sir!
> 
> Paint guy:  Do you have a wooden chair?
> 
> Me:  No, I have a plastic chair, but...
> 
> Paint guy:  Sorry, no can do.
> 
> Me:  What?  But that paint will work just fine on my chair once I have it!
> 
> Paint guy:  Don't care.  I only sell this stuff to folks with wooden chairs.  Come back to me when you've got one.  Have you considered a nice coat of blue?  I'll sell that crap to anyone.




Umm...

Furniture guy:  Here you go, Jere, a fine plastic chair.  It's made of a special plastic, though, so if you want to get it painted, you should treat it like wood or steel.

Me:  But it's not wood _or_ steel!

Furniture guy:  That's the beauty of this plastic.  Take it easy.

Me:  All right, to the paint guy!

Paint guy:  So you want some of this red paint, huh?

Me:  Yes, sir!

Paint guy:  Do you have a wooden chair?

Me:  No, I have a plastic chair, but...

Paint guy:  Sorry, no can do.

Me:  What?  But that paint will work just fine on my chair since it can be painted as if it were wood or steel!

Paint guy:  OK then.

...that analogy can mean anything if you word it the right way.


----------



## Artoomis

Borlon said:
			
		

> ...Finally, I reject the "unarmed strikes are natural weapons" argument.  I contend that unarmed strikes are what people use when they are unarmed; that is when they don't have weapons.  In other words, unarmed strikes aren't weapons at all.  They aren't manufactured weapons, and they aren't natural weapons.  However the rules that apply to unarmed strikes overlap with the rules for both kinds of weapons.  The iterative attacks work like manufactured weapons, and enhancements that apply to natural weapons apply to them too.



That’s a reasonable position.  Although I can defend the position that unarmed strikes are natural weapons, really, in truth, they are a special category that sometimes are treated like natural weapons.  This is very ill-defined in the rules.



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> ...It seems clear to me that the Sage has conflated meeting prerequisites with qualifying for benefits, and that this is an innovation.  Specifically, the principal that "unless otherwise stated, if something counts as X for the purpose of qualifying for benefits, it also counts as X for the purpose of meeting prerequisites" is a new rule, something that he is adding to the RAW.  Now maybe that is something that is well within his power to do; that's for a different thread.  All I want to say in this thread is that the Sage is in fact making a new rule, not simply applying the old ones.



No, I don't think so.  He is applying common sense - very much like the painting the plastic chair example above.  In fact, I'm going to re-phrase that example to make it even more applicable:

1.  A monk's special plastic chair counts as wood for effects that enhance it appearance.
2.  Paint exists that allows one to change the color of a chair (enhancing its appearance).
3.  The paint requires, as a prerequisite, that the chair be wood before this paint may be used.

By the logic the anti-INA side would apply, this chair CANNOT be painted with the paint in questions because it's not wood.

By the logic the pro-INA side (and the Sage) is using, it's a no-brainer and the chair can be painted.   This side of the debate, I think, feels that a little common sense goes a long way here.  If the chair could be painted only if it was wood, but it counts as wood for effects that enhance it's appearance (like painting), then a wood-only paint can, in fact, be used on the chair.

Or, to replace a few words:

If the monk's attack could be enhanced only if it was a natural weapon, but it counts as natural weapon for effects that enhance it (like doing damage as one size category larger), then a natural-weapon only increasing-size effect, in fact, be used on the attack.

The very thought of somehow splitting out prerequisites (or even feats) as though they existed totally separate from the feat (or the feat’s effects) is silly – *if you have something that let's you qualify for the feat ONLY in the context of the benefits of the feat, then it's tortured logic to say you don’t qualify.*

In other words, "effect," *in this context*, includes feats and their prerequisites even if one would normally state that feats produce effects and are not effects themselves.

This is true partly because "effect" is not a defined D&D term, and so, to know what is meant by any particular mention of the word, one must look to context.

I realize that the other side of this argument is having a great deal of trouble of accepting the concept that prerequisites need to be taken in context in this case, and not a completely separate logical entity all their own.


----------



## Caliban

Artoomis said:
			
		

> The very thought of somehow splitting out prerequisites (or even feats) as though they existed totally separate from the feat (or the feat’s effects) is silly




And some people think it's silly to say that the things you need get something are the same as the thing you're trying to get.  

If the prerequisites where the same thing as the feat, wouldn't I have the feat as soon as I met the prerequistes?  Why would I need to spend a feat slot?



> – *if you have something that let's you qualify for the feat ONLY in the context of the benefits of the feat, then it's tortured logic to say you don’t qualify.*




Some people think it's tortured logic to say that you do.  


Artoomis, your arguement seems to have come down to calling the other side silly for not accepting your basic premise.


----------



## Lord Pendragon

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> ...that analogy can mean anything if you word it the right way.



Then it's not that analogy, it's a different analogy...your analogy.  I was providing an analogy to express how I see things working, not _prove_ anything.  As I see it, the paint guy only sells the red stuff to folks with wooden chairs, not chairs that are treated like wood. 

I'm not arguing the point, as I said.  I don't have the stamina to match up to the very zealous debate going on in here.


----------



## Borlon

Artoomis,

Do you see the difference between "being the eligible target for an enhancement" and "meeting a prerequisite for an enhancement"?

If so, would you agree with this description of the difference?



> To be the eligible target for an enhancement, you have to have the thing that is being enhanced.  An undead can't benefit from an item that gives a +4 to Constitution, since it lacks a Con score.  Someone without ranks in Spellcraft cannot benefit from a +3 bonus to Spellcraft checks, since Spellcraft checks can't be made untrained.  To be the beneficiary of a _magic fang_ spell you have to have a natural weapon.  To benefit from a +1 to all attack rolls with a dagger, you need to be able to make attacks with a dagger.
> 
> To meet the prerequisite for an enhancement, you have to satisfy any listed requirements.  You need to possess all the enumerated features.  For example, to take weapon focus you need a +1 BAB.




Now the two paragraphs are different, and are checked separately.  Imagine DnD takes place inside a giant computer program (like "the Matrix").  One subroutine checks to see if something or someone is an eligible target for an enhancement, and a seperate subroutine checks to see if all prerequisites are meant.  If someone is wielding a dagger, they are eligible to benefit from an effect that gives +1 to all attack rolls made with a dagger.  However, to see if they can take the Weapon Focus (dagger) feat, the program checks to see if they have a +1 BAB.  Alternatively the program would conclude that a barbarian meets the prerequistes for Skill Focus: Spellcraft even if he has no ranks in Spellcraft (it has no prerequisites) but it would not allow him to qualify for the benefit wince he can't make spellcraft checks (it is a trained only skill).  It is a useless feat for him.

Now since qualifying as a target is separate from meeting the prerequisites, if a rule refers to the one it does not refer to the other.  If one rule talks about BAB it is not talking about strength modifiers.  If a class ability says a character counts as having a BAB of +4, that doesn't change what the character's strength modifier counts as.  If a class ability says that a character qualifies to be a target of a certain effect, that doesn't change whether the character meets the prerequisites of the effect.

In the case of INA, to qualify as a target you need to have a natural weapon.  A monk has a special rule that allows him to qualify.  (Assume, for the sake of argument, that unarmed strike <> natural attack; that the weapon equivalency rule is needed here.)  That's fine.  The monk's special rule applies in cases when an effect enhances natural weapons, and that is certainly the case for INA.

But it is a different thing to meet a prerequisite than to qualify as a target for an effect.  You can have either without the other.  If a rule mentions one it does not apply to the other.  The weapon equivalency rule mentions qualifying as a target for an effect, but it does not mention meeting prerequisites.  So the weapon equivalency rule doesn't apply to meeting prerequisites.  

What are the prerequisites of INA?  BAB +4 and a natural weapon.  Let's say that the BAB +4 isn't a problem.  What about the natural weapon?  The monk doesn't have one (as per our assumption).  Can the monk's special weapon equivalency rule help out?  No.  We just concluded that the rule doesn't apply to meeting prerequisites.

So the monk is in the circumstances of the 1st level rogue who wants to take weapon focus.  He'd benefit from the effect, but he can't meet the prerequisites.

Now all this hinges on acknowledging the difference between "being the eligible target for an enhancement" and "meeting a prerequisite for an enhancement"?  Add to this the principle that if two things are such that you can have either without the other, then a rule that refers to one doesn't refer to the other.  

I'd be interested in hearing your take on how and where this analysis goes wrong.


----------



## Artoomis

Borlon said:
			
		

> Artoomis,
> 
> Do you see the difference between "being the eligible target for an enhancement" and "meeting a prerequisite for an enhancement"?......
> 
> So the monk is in the circumstances of the 1st level rogue who wants to take weapon focus.  He'd benefit from the effect, but he can't meet the prerequisites.
> 
> Now all this hinges on acknowledging the difference between "being the eligible target for an enhancement" and "meeting a prerequisite for an enhancement"?  Add to this the principle that if two things are such that you can have either without the other, then a rule that refers to one doesn't refer to the other.
> 
> I'd be interested in hearing your take on how and where this analysis goes wrong.




Your analysis is *mostly* correct except for one thing.  There is a special case where the prerequisite is merely a re-statement that you need to be eligible for the effect to qualify for it and is entirely superfluous.

For example:

You need to be a wood chair to be allowed to have paint designed for a wood chair.  A plastic chair designed to take paint just like would should qualify.  Why?  Because the prerequisite is merely a restatement of the eligibility for the effect and is basically meaningless and entirely superfluous.  Instead of a prerequisite of the chair being wood, it simply should state no prerequisite but the pain only works on wood.  *In a case like this, the two statements are really the same – do you see that?*

INA:  You need a natural weapon - but without one gain no benefit anyway, so it's a superfluous prerequisite and if you qualify for the effect (which is to say, you have a natural weapon on which to apply the feat) you can take it. (Disregarding the BAB requirement for the moment).

Essentially, what I am proposing is that the rules were not written with anywhere near the precision you imply above, so that any prerequisites that are superfluous and one only needs to qualify for the effect.

Now, I readily admit that you ALSO have a valid way of looking at this, and thus a rule clarification was needed, which was done in the FAQ.

What REALLY has me dumbfounded is folks who won't admit that there are two very valid ways of looking at this, and thus the FAQ entry was needed to clarify this matter.

Mind you, I think my position is more reasonable and your is more technical (I'd say over-technical), but both are correct, in their own way.  Do you agree?


----------



## Borlon

Let me paraphrase your argument: 

[bq]The prerequisites repeat the targeting requirements.  Since repetition is typically used for emphasis, many people will be disposed to read the prerequisites as emphasizing the target requirements, not as being additional requirements.  This is a somewhat loose reading of the rules, but since the rules are occasionally imprecise, such looseness is sometimes the best approach.  The FAQ clarifies areas where the rules are imprecise, or where people could read the same rules in different ways.  This is one such area, and the FAQ is appropriately used to state whether this is the correct reading.  Errata would also clarify issues, but you would only need errata if you insisted that the strict reading (the "over-technical" reading) has to match up with the common sense ("more reasonable") reading.[/bq]
Am I stating your position correctly?

If so, I have to admit that it is a very interesting argument.  It seems to hang together nicely.  I'll want to let it sit for a while before I say anything definite, but it seems to establish your position nicely; that there is a valid way of construing the RAW to support the pro-INA side.

Did you present it earlier?  The failure of the No side to admit that there is validity to the Yes side might largely be due that a valid argument for the Yes side was never presented to them.  And if this argument was presented before, I missed it.  

Of course, sheer stubborness might play a role too in explaining why the No side doesn't admit the Yes side has a valid case.  But the effect of stubborness is usually to repeat one's arguments over and over again.  That's something that both sides have been doing, and while I might have missed your argument if you presented it only once, or in an understated fashion, I would be very embarassed if you had been presenting it over and over again, and that I was just really slow to catch on.

Hopefully there are a few No people following the thread, and they can weigh in on what they think of this new(?) argument.


----------



## Artoomis

Borlon said:
			
		

> Let me paraphrase your argument:
> 
> [bq]The prerequisites repeat the targeting requirements.  Since repetition is typically used for emphasis, many people will be disposed to read the prerequisites as emphasizing the target requirements, not as being additional requirements.  This is a somewhat loose reading of the rules, but since the rules are occasionally imprecise, such looseness is sometimes the best approach.  The FAQ clarifies areas where the rules are imprecise, or where people could read the same rules in different ways.  This is one such area, and the FAQ is appropriately used to state whether this is the correct reading.  Errata would also clarify issues, but you would only need errata if you insisted that the strict reading (the "over-technical" reading) has to match up with the common sense ("more reasonable") reading.[/bq]
> Am I stating your position correctly?




Pretty much.  That's the essence of it, I think.



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> If so, I have to admit that it is a very interesting argument.  It seems to hang together nicely.  I'll want to let it sit for a while before I say anything definite, but it seems to establish your position nicely; that there is a valid way of construing the RAW to support the pro-INA side.
> 
> Did you present it earlier?



I don't think I pulled it together quite this way before - I think this is a bit of a new spin on it.



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> The failure of the No side to admit that there is validity to the Yes side might largely be due that a valid argument for the Yes side was never presented to them.  And if this argument was presented before, I missed it.
> 
> Of course, sheer stubborness might play a role too in explaining why the No side doesn't admit the Yes side has a valid case.  But the effect of stubborness is usually to repeat one's arguments over and over again.  That's something that both sides have been doing, and while I might have missed your argument if you presented it only once, or in an understated fashion, I would be very embarassed if you had been presenting it over and over again, and that I was just really slow to catch on.



I've repeated myself quite a bit while trying to rephrase my argument, certainly.



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> Hopefully there are a few No people following the thread, and they can weigh in on what they think of this new(?) argument.




I hope so.


----------



## Legildur

Artoomis said:
			
		

> <snip>What REALLY has me dumbfounded is folks who won't admit that there are two very valid ways of looking at this, and thus the FAQ entry was needed to clarify this matter.<snip>



Hear! Hear!  While a 'no' man at heart, I recognise that there is a valid argument on the 'yes' side.

PS I wonder if we can we keep this thread alive until 1000 posts is reached?


----------



## Dimwhit

Legildur said:
			
		

> PS I wonder if we can we keep this thread alive until 1000 posts is reached?




Postcount +1


----------



## Borlon

Legildur said:
			
		

> Hear! Hear!  While a 'no' man at heart, I recognise that there is a valid argument on the 'yes' side.
> 
> PS I wonder if we can we keep this thread alive until 1000 posts is reached?




Which argument was that?  Cuz I have to admit that until today I wasn't really impressed by any of the reasons stated for the Yes side.  I won't rehearse my counterarguments; they are not too far up thread.

I think there is a danger in these kind of threads that the discussion gets polarized.  To say that one's own side has all the evidence and logic, and that the other side are evil and stupid.  Good vs evil and all that.  People can get very defensive and picky and intolerant.  The danger is that the thread flames out and gets closed.  But if it stays below the flame point you can have hundreds of posts without very much getting accomplished.  I think htat is part of the secret of how this thread (and related threads) have become so long.    

But once there's a breakthrough, and people start to understand where the other person is coming from... well, then the defensiveness goes away (at least partially) and progress can be made a lot more quickly.

So I don't think we can reach 1000 unless we get some polarized people back in here.


----------



## Legildur

Borlon said:
			
		

> So I don't think we can reach 1000 unless we get some polarized people back in here.



I'm thinking about it


----------



## Artoomis

Legildur said:
			
		

> Hear! Hear!  While a 'no' man at heart, I recognise that there is a valid argument on the 'yes' side.
> 
> PS I wonder if we can we keep this thread alive until 1000 posts is reached?




862   



I think this is the only post I've ever made on any board solely for post count silliness!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Not only would we probably have to rekindle the fires of the polarized personalities, we'd probably have to bring up ancillary issues or see some kind of new data from somebody poring over the Core material with a microscope...

863?


----------



## Anubis

I think I found evidence that a monks unarmed strikes are natural weapons.  People say they aren't because they supposedly don't follow the natural attack rules.  Well, I found a monster that violates those very rules, which I think shows that some things give abilities that break the normal rules, and because of this, it's pretty clear that the monk's abilities allow their unarmed strikes to break those natural attack rules.

Living Holocaust, _Fiend Folio_

The natural attack rules haven't changed from 3.0 to 3.5, so the source is still legit.  The living holocaust's natural attack is its fiery windspike.  Guess what?  It gets iterative attacks.  This shows that exceptions to the normal rules are out there.

Given that Andy Collins and everyone at WotC that has commented confirms that monks can take the feat, well, I'd say it's silly to think otherwise.

Of course if that isn't good enough, I have this most recent thing from customer service, and from Trevor no less.  This also has a bit about the FAQ's legitimacy, and states outright what Artoomis kinda knew all along; the FAQ and the errata are different, and although it's _intended_ for errata to only be found in the errata file, well, that's not how things went.

_
Response (Trevor K.) 10/30/2005 03:44 PM 
Hey there Brandon.

1. The ruling is that monks can take feats that require natural attacks. *This comes from Research and Development and is in the FAQ.* Effect is not a fully defined term in the context of the game, so unfortunately I wouldn't be able to nail that one down for you. Just like volley attack isn't a glossary term, it just has inferred meaning and is used in the FAQ. But again, *for the purpose of the monk, any feat, spell, or magical items that looks at or requires a natural attack will see the monk's unarmed strikes as natural attacks*.

2. Yes, I have indeed stated that errata and the FAQ are different. Chris, Zephreum and I are all on the same page on this one. When an errata is made, then yes, it may then be discussed in a FAQ, but rules changes appear in errata first. *Or at least that is the intention.* I apologize for any confusion my wording my have caused before. Since there appears to be so much confusion on if the FAQ is actually correct for some odd reason, I can pass this along to the R&D teams so they are aware and perhaps they can make some amendments or notes to clear things up.

Good gaming!

We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.

To login to your account, or update your question please click here.

Trevor K.

Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 7am-6pm PST / 10am-9pm EST 
 Customer (Brandon Harwell) 10/29/2005 12:28 AM 
I have two fairly big questions here this time, the second being yet another question in the debate about the FAQ.

1. Even though the FAQ confirms that monks are allowed to take Improved Natural Attack, some people still insist that they can't and, that the ruling is in error according to the supposed "Rules As Written".

The question is about the text that says a monk's unarmed strike is consider both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purposes of "spells and effects" that enhance or improve natural weapons or manufactured weapons.

They opposition claims that feats are not effects. They maintain that the benefits of a feat may be effects, but that prerequisites of feats are not effects and therefore prevent monks from qualifying for the feat in the first place. I find that line of reasoning inane, and the FAQ appears to concur with this.

So the real question is, since the word isn't defined, what is considered an "effect" in the game? Are feats themselves considered "effects" as far as the wording goes?

2. Also, a lot of people are claiming that the FAQ may be a "source" of errata but that it isn't a "listing" of errata, and claim there is a difference between the two words for what's official. So far, two of your customer service reps (Chris and Nephreum) have verified that everything in the FAQ is official and that the FAQ absolutely includes errata, while a third customer service rep (Trevor) stated that the FAQ isn't allowed to print errata; I believe Chris and Nephreum are correct on this point. Andy Collins's work in the FAQ implies that it is indeed a verified source of errata, however, so there's that as well. They say that until the errata file is updated, nothing in the FAQ is official and all the changes therein are considered "advice" and not official rules changes. Since it's pretty clear the FAQ is being used to print errata now with several of the changes within it, is there any way for WotC to verify via the web site that this is indeed the case, perhaps with a note in the FAQ itself or in the FAQ section?

Sorry for the trouble, thank you for your time. 
_

As you can see, changes are supposed to show up in the errata first.  That was the intention, but not the result.  The fact that he states that Zephreum, who said outright word-for-word that errata is in the FAQ, still sees the FAQ and errata as different, proves this pretty conclusively.  The files are different, but because of whatever reason we may hopefully soon know, errata has popped up in the FAQ.  I put emphasis on the related parts of the above e-mailing.

One thing is also certain, Trevor was pretty clear that the FAQ is correct, as he's now passing it on to R&D to (hopefully) make things clear.  If we're lucky, something solid will emerge with the next releases.  A merging of the errata and FAQ would be the best method, as it would leave us with only one file that could not be debated, but that could possibly slow down the FAQ if WotC is lazy about it.  On the other hand, stating that the FAQ contains errata, or quickly transferring FAQ material to the errata would work.

I'm hoping this is cleared up either which way.  All I know is that I go where the designers point as far as "the rules" go (although I have craploads of house rules, showing that I don't always like the rules).  For now, it's still pretty clear that errata has slipped into the FAQ.  That could change soon, or it could be confirmed on the web site itself.  Either way I'll be glad to have an absolute answer.


----------



## Egres

Anubis said:
			
		

> I think I found evidence that a monks unarmed strikes are natural weapons.  People say they aren't because they supposedly don't follow the natural attack rules.  Well, I found a monster that violates those very rules, which I think shows that *some things give abilities that break the normal rules*, and because of this, it's pretty clear that the monk's abilities allow their unarmed strikes to break those natural attack rules.
> 
> Living Holocaust, _Fiend Folio_




Riiight.

So, what "thing" gives the Living Holocaust the ability to break normal rules?

Hint: a mistake.


----------



## Legildur

Anubis said:
			
		

> Given that Andy Collins and *everyone* at WotC that has commented confirms that monks can take the feat, well, I'd say it's silly to think otherwise.



(my emphasis above) Everyone?  That seems to be another overstatement.

And nice to see WotC admitting they got it wrong with the use of errata and FAQ.  Maybe you should post that response on the Errata v FAQ thread?

Can't wait to see the errata on Monks taking INA.   

Silly.


----------



## Legildur

And I'm still having trouble with a couple of things in order to accept the FAQ answer (regardless of whether it is an FAQ response or supposedly errata).

Namely that in Oriental Adventures (3.0), which is widely acknowledged as a monk friendly rule source, the Empty Hand Mastery martial arts style required no less than 6 feats (with minimum Str 13+, Cha 13+, and Dex 15+) and 4 ranks in a cross-class skill (Bluff) in order to achieve the same effect (there's that word again!) as Improved Natural Attack.  It would seem to me to be a significant shift in power to reduce it to a single feat.

Secondly, the text for Power Attack makes a distinction about light weapons "except with unarmed strikes *OR* natural weapons" (my emphasis).  I read that as saying unarmed strikes differ from natural weapons.  Therefore monks do not qualify for INA (accepting the premise that feats are not effects etc).  If this issue has been dealt with earlier in the thread, then I apologise.

Thirdly, it was specific wording chosen for the monk's unarmed strike to deem it a 'natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve....'.  They could have removed all doubt by being significantly clearer in their choice of words (for either the monk ability or the INA feat itself).

Personally, I believe that some elements of WotC are trying to 'power-up' monks to reduce the perception (well, reality) that monks are underpowered.

I ran a short poll last week as to whether INA would be a 'no brainer' feat for your generic 10th level monk in a core rules only campaign.  It was a 4:1 ratio that said they would select it most times, which indicates that it is seen as an important feat for monks in order to overcome one of their shortcomings.  I believe that the result shows that for the cost of a single feat, that INA is overpowered for monks, and that it supports my theory that WotC are trying to fix the monk through the back door.  Both of these lead me to the conclusion that monks do not (as the rules stand) qualify for INA.

However, I think the 'yes' side of the argument has merit and acknowledge that.  I just happen to disagree with it.

But I'll still happily use it once it is in errata.


----------



## Artoomis

Legildur said:
			
		

> ...I ran a short poll last week as to whether INA would be a 'no brainer' feat for your generic 10th level monk in a core rules only campaign.  It was a 4:1 ratio that said they would select it most times, which indicates that it is seen as an important feat for monks in order to overcome one of their shortcomings.  I believe that the result shows that for the cost of a single feat, that INA is overpowered for monks...




Well, first, the survey (like all of them, nine included) was flawed so conclusions must be drawn with care.  Second, the mere fact that most folks would take the feat does NOT make it "overpowered."  I'd wager that most fighters take Power Attack - does that make it overpowered?  You leaping to conclusions that are not really justified, I think.



			
				Legildur said:
			
		

> However, I think the 'yes' side of the argument has merit and acknowledge that.  I just happen to disagree with it.,.




Thanks, I appreciate that.   

As for unarmed strikes being natural weapons, I think it's a defendable position, but by no means is there overwhelming evidence supporting it.

My position is that it does not matter how you think of it, it comes out the same.  Either unarmed strikes are natural weapons with special rules or are special attacks that are treated like natural weapons sometimes (not for itertive attcks, etc.).   Whichever- it amounts to the same thing.  They end up getting treated identically no matter which way you think of them.

The only difference is which of the following questions you ask when it comes up:

1.  Is this a case where an unarmed strike does not follow a natural weapon rule?

or

2.  Is this a case where an unarmed strike is being treated like a natural weapon?

Six to one, half-dozen to the other, really.


----------



## Artoomis

Legildur said:
			
		

> (my emphasis above) Everyone?  That seems to be another overstatement.
> 
> And nice to see WotC admitting they got it wrong with the use of errata and FAQ.  Maybe you should post that response on the Errata v FAQ thread?
> 
> Can't wait to see the errata on Monks taking INA.
> 
> Silly.




1.  I don't think you'll find ANYONE at WotC now stating that monk's cannot take INA.  At one time that indeed was the position (unpublished - at least that's my understanding), but no longer.

2.  You'll not (ever) see any errata on this because only a clarification was required, thus only a FAQ entry would be needed.

(869 - 131 to go!)


----------



## Infiniti2000

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Second, the mere fact that most folks would take the feat does NOT make it "overpowered."  I'd wager that most fighters take Power Attack - does that make it overpowered?



 Actually, yes, I believe that to be the case.  If you provide options and one option is so overwhelmingly popular, that option is likely overpowered.  The alternative is that the flavor of that option is so good that everyone wants it.  Since power attack has little flavor (like INA), that truly can't be the case (I would certainly not buy any arguments to that effect), so INA and power attack or whatever example option would be overpowered.

Now, the question then becomes: now that we know INA (or PA or whatever) is overpowered is that a good or bad thing?  Does the monk need INA to compete or is +7 damage by 20th level too good (it's way above the best +damage anyone else could ever possibly get)?  I argue for the latter.  Is double damage on THF PA too good?  Many (including me) argue yes, it is.  The fact is, however, that that is a separate issue.

The easiest/best way to find out if an option is overpowered is to count the number of people selecting that option versus the alternatives.  The secondary question becomes whether that overpoweredness is an issue that requires a remedy.

_This has been an official response by I2K._


----------



## Borlon

The iterative attacks for Living Holocaust are a mistake, aren't they? Unless they have a listed ability that explicitly overrules the normal rules for iterative attacks, they should not be making iterative attacks.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> the FAQ and the errata are different, and although it's intended for errata to only be found in the errata file, well, that's not how things went.




Anubis seems to be saying that the INA ruling should have been in the errata.  In other words, that it *was* a change in the rules, and not merely a clarification.  If the rules had to be changed to allow the monk to take INA, then by the rules as written (pre-FAQ) the monk could not take INA, but now he can.  

Funny.  I had thought that Anubis was on the Yes side, the side that said that the Sage was merely restating the current rules in a clearer way, not changing them.


----------



## Borlon

Power attack is also taken not just because it is powerful, but because it is a prerequisite to other feats (like cleave and sunder) and prestige classes.  If it wasn't a prerequisite for other things, many fewer people would take it.

INA is being taken just for the benefit it provides, and provides twice the benefits of two hard to get fighter feats.  It's hard to argue that it is not overpowered; the only justification for allowing it might be if the monk needs a power up, but that merely underscores the fact that yes, INA is overpowered for a monk.


----------



## Artoomis

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> ...Now, the question then becomes: now that we know INA (or PA or whatever) is overpowered is that a good or bad thing?




You logic is flawed as we most certainly do NOT know that INA (or power attack) is over-powered.  What we do know (or can reasonably surmise) is that the flavor of these feats (increasing damage) is something that players of combat-oriented characters will like and tend to choose.

Well, duh!!



			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> ...Does the monk need INA to compete or is +7 damage by 20th level too good (it's way above the best +damage anyone else could ever possibly get)?




On the other hand, their hands cannot be enchanted and get the same bonuses that a weapon can get that way.



			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> ...The easiest/best way to find out if an option is overpowered is to count the number of people selecting that option versus the alternatives.  The secondary question becomes whether that overpoweredness is an issue that requires a remedy.
> 
> _This has been an official response by I2K._




No, that's not the best way.  That's a popularity contest.  The best way is through anaylsis that carefully considers ALL other balancing factors.  That's not yet be attempted here.  It would have to include factors like the opportunity cost of taking a feat for the monk (smaller number of feats that fighters), the fact that monks unarmed strikes cannot be permanently enchanted, the various ways that other character get damage multipliers that  to which a monk does not normally have access, the bonuses at each level compared to other melee-type characters, etc., etc.


----------



## Borlon

Artoomis said:
			
		

> 2.  You'll not (ever) see any errata on this because only a clarification was required, thus only a FAQ entry would be needed.
> 
> (869 - 131 to go!)




You could see an errata.  If they ever get around to updating it.  Errata are not prohibited from making things clearer. 

And if the argument is that it is a mistake that natural weapons were referred to in the prerequisites line, well, that seems to be something that can be addressed in the errata.  Errata is supposed to fix mistakes, right?

I agree with you that polling is not the best way to get to the right answer.  Whether or not the polls agree with me.  Although if you don't believe in the relevance of polls, why do all these threads you start have them?


----------



## Artoomis

Borlon said:
			
		

> ...I agree with you that polling is not the best way to get to the right answer.  Whether or not the polls agree with me.  Although if you don't believe in the relevance of polls, why do all these threads you start have them?




Because it's fun and, while not irrelevant, you do have to be very careful in drawing conclusions from them.  The answers are always influenced (intentionally or not) by the way the questions are perceived.

It is interesting to see how the folks on this board see an issue and to get a numerical summary of that information.  How much value that really has is anybody's guess, but it's still interesting to do.

In one case (not this one) I have been quite surprised at how my position turned out to be very much in the minority.  As I said, interesting.

In the case of FAQ as Errata the results were a majority both for and against, depending upon phrasing of the question and options.


----------



## Artoomis

Borlon said:
			
		

> You could see an errata.  If they ever get around to updating it.  Errata are not prohibited from making things clearer. ..




You're right - I think there is an example or two in there of that.  Still, I very much doubt it.


----------



## Infiniti2000

Artoomis said:
			
		

> You logic is flawed as we most certainly do NOT know that INA (or power attack) is over-powered.



 How is my logic flawed?  INA is 4-1 a 'no brainer' which makes it *overwhelmingly* popular.  I think, a vast majority agree, that INA is overpowered compared with all other feats that the monk could take.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> On the other hand, their hands cannot be enchanted and get the same bonuses that a weapon can get that way.



 Of course they can be enhanced (I'd not like my unarmed strikes to be enchanted quite honestly).  Why would you say they can't?



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> No, that's not the best way.  That's a popularity contest.



 It's not a mere popularity contest.  Don't try to mischaracterize the poll to fit your opinion.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> The best way is through anaylsis that carefully considers ALL other balancing factors.  That's not yet be attempted here.  It would have to include factors like the opportunity cost of taking a feat for the monk (smaller number of feats that fighters), the fact that monks unarmed strikes cannot be permanently enchanted, the various ways that other character get damage multipliers that  to which a monk does not normally have access, the bonuses at each level compared to other melee-type characters, etc., etc.



 Whoever would do such a thing would first need to get the _facts_ straight.  The rest of your 'factors' you allude to are fluff.  You are not listing out any facts at all and trying to appeal to a concern that doesn't exist.  How in the world can you defend the position that INA is not overpowered when you can't even get your facts straight?  Do your analysis and then we'll talk.  For me, the poll and comparison to any other class's feats is more than enough.


----------



## Scion

Just stopping by to drop a little comment 

Improved natural attack is very much like the monks (or other creatures with natural attacks) version of exotic weapon proficiency.

Both can increase the damage of a single weapon by 1 step (some are exotic because they are weird, but a good amount do provide some extra benefit)

Exotic weapon proficiency can sometimes get other benefits instead, and its prereqs are much easier to meet. So, even if some view exotic weapon prof to be a little weaker in the damage dealing area for whatever reason it makes up for it by having a greater selection of options and being much easier to get.

Not every fighter type gets exotic weapon prof, even though it can give the same benefit as INA. This could be primarily because of the number of feat choices out there for different builds while the monk is a bit more limited in some ways for feats that would really help.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Scion said:
			
		

> Both can increase the damage of a single weapon by 1 step (some are exotic because they are weird, but a good amount do provide some extra benefit)




Except that INA is much, much more powerful than EWP.  The increase is, generally speaking, much more than a single step.


----------



## Scion

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Except that INA is much, much more powerful than EWP.  The increase is, generally speaking, much more than a single step.




Since the increase that INA gives is pretty much the definition of a single step I would have to say that your statement is rather incorrect.



			
				srd said:
			
		

> IMPROVED NATURAL ATTACK  [GENERAL]
> Prerequisite: Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4.
> Benefit: Choose one of the creature’s natural attack forms. The damage for this *natural weapon increases by one step*, as if the creature’s size had increased by one category: 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6.
> A weapon or attack that deals 1d10 points of damage increases as follows: 1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8.




Emphasis mine.


----------



## Artoomis

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Except that INA is much, much more powerful than EWP.  The increase is, generally speaking, much more than a single step.




EWP often grants other benefits.  Such as EWP: Spiked Chain.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Scion said:
			
		

> Since the increase that INA gives is pretty much the definition of a single step I would have to say that your statement is rather incorrect.




Keep reading.

"... increases one step, *as if the creature’s size had increased by one category*."


----------



## Scion

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Keep reading.
> 
> "... increases one step, *as if the creature’s size had increased by one category*."




So you are saying that it increases by more than one step.. even though it says it increases by one step? With the part I did not bold, but I did quote, the statement I made still does not change. It is still a single step of increase.

Also, as I said before, one could make a case for the damage increase being slightly less (still one step but not always dont according to the same table), but ewp is also much easier to get and can be used for a whole host of other very good options which are harder to compare directly to damage.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Scion said:
			
		

> So you are saying that it increases by more than one step.. even though it says it increases by one step?




No, it says it increases your damage by one step, as if you had increased in size by one category.

We know what that means for a monk, because it's already given to us in the Monk table.  That being said ...



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6
> ...
> 1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8




Monk 6: 1d8 -> 2d6 = +2.5 damage
Monk 8: 1d10 -> 2d8 = +2.5 damage
Monk 12: 2d6 -> 3d6 = +3.5 damage
Monk 16: 2d8 -> 3d8 = +4.5 damage
Monk 20: 2d10 -> 4d8 = +7 damage

Are you trying to tell me that any of these steps are less powerful than EWP (Bastard Sword or Dwarven Waraxe) (+1 damage) or Weapon Specialization (+2 damage)?  Comparing it to, say, EWP (Spiked Chain) is a flawed comparison, because the only possible use of INA is to increase damage dealt.  Accordingly, you should compare it against an EWP taken to improve damage dealt (as I have done).

So, no, INA does not give the same or similar benefit to EWP.


----------



## Scion

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> No, it says it increases your damage by one step, as if you had increased in size by one category.




Which means that it increases by one step.

When it says, 'increases by one step' I think that I am perfectly justified in saying, 'increases by one step'.

If you feel that stating exactly what the rules state is incorrect then I dont know what to say other than I disagree and feel that you are incorrect.

Just because the monks damage changes later is irrelevant, both effects can do the same thing. Increase the damage die of the base weapon by one step.

So yes, they have an effect which is essentially the same.

Monks have a weapon which goes from X damage to Y damage, one step increase.
EWP, as compared with the weapon it was derived from, can be going from A damage to B damage, one step increase.

Much like enlarge increases the damage by one step as well. Unless you wish to argue that enlarge doesnt do what it says either?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Scion said:
			
		

> Which means that it increases by one step.




I'm saying that you're being disingenuous when you say "one step."

Yeah, it's "one step."  However, that "one step" for a monk means an awful lot more than "one step" does for a fighter.

For a fighter, "one step" is, generally speaking, +1 to damage.  That's it.  Finis.  For a monk, it's more - and, generally speaking, a lot more.


----------



## Scion

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> I'm saying that you're being disingenuous when you say "one step."




No, it literally 'is' one step.

The difference in base weapon damage has no bearing on my comparison. They each do effectively the same thing in that area, one step of increase.

The monk gets a higher base damage for other balance reasons (more difficult to get weapon bonuses, less BAB, etc) but those do not change what I have said.


If you wish to redifine terms feel free, but this is the rules forum, I am going with the rules.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Scion said:
			
		

> The difference in base weapon damage has no bearing on my comparison.




But it should, because you want us to compare it to Exotic Weapon Proficiency and, thereby, realize that it's no big deal.

INA, from a strictly damage-dealing standpoint, is far superior to EWP *specifically because the weapons involved have wildly varying base damage.*

The move from 1d8 to 1d10 - MWP (Longsword) to EWP (Bastard Sword) is smaller - and will always be smaller. The minimum move associated with INA is just as good as EWP *and* Weapon Specialization (+2.5 vs. +3) - and, later, it will be better than both.  Eventually, this single feat outpaces Greater Weapon Specialization, which has three other feats and a class level requirement as prerequisites.

This feat is much, much more powerful than EWP.  To compare the two and say they are "on par" is laughable.


----------



## Artoomis

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> ....
> 
> This feat is much, much more powerful than EWP.  To compare the two and say they are "on par" is laughable.




Hmmm.....

A few points of extra damage (7 at 20th level is a red herring - it's ONLY at 20th level) for INA.

Compared to EWP:

What can EWP get you?

Reach weapon that also lets you strike adjacent foes AND use trip attacks AND get +2 on disarm attempts AND use Weapon Finesse. (Spiked Chain)

This seems in line with that, certainly.

In any case, a true analysis of the "power" of INA for a monk needs to be much more in-depth.

P.S.:  Isn't there a feat that lets you use a weapon one size category larger than normal?  That would add 3.5 pts of damage for a greatsword - not beaten by INA until 16th level.


----------



## Scion

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> But it should




No, because of the reasons I have already outlined.

In addition, there are other factors involved, as I and atroomis have both mentioned before.

Just because the base damage die of the weapons happen to be different isnt what is important in the comparison, merely that the effects that they generate can effectively be the same is.


----------



## Infiniti2000

Scion said:
			
		

> No, it literally 'is' one step.
> 
> The difference in base weapon damage has no bearing on my comparison. They each do effectively the same thing in that area, one step of increase.



 The 'steps' involved do not have the same meaning and comparing them is disingenuous, like Patryn said.  Your comparison is analogous to comparing the +1 bonus on skill rolls to a +1 bonus on caster level.  They're both bonuses so they should be equivalent, right?  Obviously not.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> A few points of extra damage (7 at 20th level is a red herring - it's ONLY at 20th level) for INA.



 +7 is "a few points"?  I guess if it were +20, that'd still be only a "few points"?  It's almost twice the best feat that a fighter can take, albeit at 12th level, and doesn't have a long list of prerequisites.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Artoomis said:
			
		

> A few points of extra damage (7 at 20th level is a red herring - it's ONLY at 20th level) for INA.




And it's better than Weapon Specialization for the entirety of the feat's "useful life."



> Reach weapon that also lets you strike adjacent foes AND use trip attacks AND get +2 on disarm attempts AND use Weapon Finesse. (Spiked Chain)




And 2d4 damage vs, say, the 2d6 or more you get from a "standard" two-handed martial weapon.

Again, as I said before, you don't pick EWP (Spiked Chain) if you want to deal more damage.  Since that's the only reason to pick INA, the two are not directly comparable.



> P.S.:  Isn't there a feat that lets you use a weapon one size category larger than normal?  That would add 3.5 pts of damage for a greatsword - not beaten by INA until 16th level.




Monkey Grip.

It allows you to use a single, one-handed weapon of one size category larger than yourself without changing its use designation.  You also still take a penalty on your attack rolls.


----------



## Artoomis

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> ... +7 is "a few points"?  I guess if it were +20, that'd still be only a "few points"?  It's almost twice the best feat that a fighter can take, albeit at 12th level, and doesn't have a long list of prerequisites.




As I said, this is a "red herring" - focusing on what happens at 20th level is a distraction from the real comparison.

Let's face it, right after that it's EPIC and REALLY odd things start happening.

Again, it takes a REAL analysis to figure this out, not just focusing on one thing..


----------



## Hypersmurf

Anubis said:
			
		

> I think I found evidence that a monks unarmed strikes are natural weapons.  People say they aren't because they supposedly don't follow the natural attack rules.  Well, I found a monster that violates those very rules, which I think shows that some things give abilities that break the normal rules, and because of this, it's pretty clear that the monk's abilities allow their unarmed strikes to break those natural attack rules.
> 
> Living Holocaust, _Fiend Folio_
> 
> The natural attack rules haven't changed from 3.0 to 3.5, so the source is still legit.  The living holocaust's natural attack is its fiery windspike.  Guess what?  It gets iterative attacks.  This shows that exceptions to the normal rules are out there.




Elementals in 3E got iterative slams.  In 3.5, this has been corrected - they get two slams at full attack bonus.

If the Living Holocaust were updated for 3.5, I'd expect a similar correction to be made.

-Hyp.


----------



## Scion

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> The 'steps' involved do not have the same meaning




Completely false.

By definition they mean the same thing.

Just because after you apply them to different weapons the final total might be different is irrelevant to my point.

All the arguement of +X damage vs. +Y damage says, for this comparison, is that different weapons have different base damages.

The weapon damage itself is a factor of a bunch of other balance issues that have nothing at all to do with the base fact: Both have an equivalent effect, increasing damage by one step.


First we find the basis that is true:
 INA increases a natural weapons damage by one step.
 EWP can increase a base weapons damage by one step, which then makes it a different weapon.
 EWP could instead produce a number of other effects instead (possibly in addition do, I havent looked up every exotic weapon to check).


These are true. In the basis we have that they can do equivalent things.

Next we get to 'why' weapons do the base damage they do and how much the overall increase in damage will be. But this is a completely seperate arguement and is based on so many different balancing factors (BAB of the class, weapon type, weapon effects, etc) that we then would have to have a whole other discussion just to come to grips on what to include and what to exclude from the comparison.


But, at its base, they can both do the same effective thing: Increase damage die of a weapon by one step.


As a corallary we also know that EWP is much easier to get than INA. Typically feats which are harder to get are at least a little stronger. But, strength is measured in a lot of ways, INA only does one thing, EWP has the potential of 'many' different things, just not at the same time.

Which is 'better' depends entirely on what you are after.


----------



## Infiniti2000

Artoomis said:
			
		

> As I said, this is a "red herring" - focusing on what happens at 20th level is a distraction from the real comparison.



 I never intended to focus on 20th level (in the other thread at least).  Compare it at the beginning.  It's better than weapon specialization in all ways, except that arguably WS can be taken slightly earlier.  But, the fact is that you must do the comparison up to 20th level.  You can't stop at 12th.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> These are true. In the basis we have that they can do equivalent things.



 No, they're not true.  You are not comparing the same things at all.  Let me show you.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> INA increases a natural weapons damage by one step.
> EWP can increase a base weapons damage by one step, which then makes it a different weapon.



 INA increase a natural weapons damage by one step in size category.  EWP, at beast, increases the weapon damage by one die.  In other words, as Patryn pointed out, EWP goes from 1d8 (longsword) to 1d10 (bastard sword) -- at best -- whereas INA goes from 1d8 to 2d6.  That is a significant improvement and calling them the same is absolutely wrong.

So, your attempt at comparing INA to EWP in this regard is completely without merit.


----------



## Artoomis

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> ...




Like I said, we need to do a better, more thorough comparison for this to be of any value.


----------



## Anubis

Well, lemme try to address everyone for once.  I also have some interesting new information that could put both sides of this in a weird place.  This is a long one, so bear with me and I'll answer every single post.



			
				Egres said:
			
		

> Riiight.
> 
> So, what "thing" gives the Living Holocaust the ability to break normal rules?
> 
> Hint: a mistake.




Nope, no mistake.



			
				Legildur said:
			
		

> (my emphasis above) Everyone?  That seems to be another overstatement.
> 
> And nice to see WotC admitting they got it wrong with the use of errata and FAQ.  Maybe you should post that response on the Errata v FAQ thread?




I consider this thread merged with that one.  The whole point about monks taking that feat revolves *entirely* around the validity of the FAQ, so they can be considered the same.  I have no intention of posting in multiple threads anymore, so I'm just gonna stick it out here.



			
				Legildur said:
			
		

> Can't wait to see the errata on Monks taking INA.
> 
> Silly.




I'll be getting to this later in the post.  You won't like the answer, though.



			
				Legildur said:
			
		

> And I'm still having trouble with a couple of things in order to accept the FAQ answer (regardless of whether it is an FAQ response or supposedly errata).
> 
> Namely that in Oriental Adventures (3.0), which is widely acknowledged as a monk friendly rule source, the Empty Hand Mastery martial arts style required no less than 6 feats (with minimum Str 13+, Cha 13+, and Dex 15+) and 4 ranks in a cross-class skill (Bluff) in order to achieve the same effect (there's that word again!) as Improved Natural Attack.  It would seem to me to be a significant shift in power to reduce it to a single feat.




Invalid point.  The Diehard feat is used to be called Remain Conscious and appears in _Sword and Fist_ originally.  Back then, it had a *ton* of prerequisites, but now it has only one.  Same thing applies here.  It's basically part of the revision.  _Oriental Adventures_ was firmly 3.0, and that's quite a change between versions.  Same as Diehard now is.  Several splatbook feats now appear in the core rules and easier to access.



			
				Legildur said:
			
		

> Secondly, the text for Power Attack makes a distinction about light weapons "except with unarmed strikes *OR* natural weapons" (my emphasis).  I read that as saying unarmed strikes differ from natural weapons.  Therefore monks do not qualify for INA (accepting the premise that feats are not effects etc).  If this issue has been dealt with earlier in the thread, then I apologise.




The reason there is a distinction is because unarmed strikes do nonlethal damage.  Again, this is also part of why monks are considered special cases; their unarmed strike does lethal damage.  Still, the text stating that a monk's unarmed strikes are considered natural *and* manufactured weapons is the sticking point here and the biggest reason why your side of the argument can't be correct.



			
				Legildur said:
			
		

> Thirdly, it was specific wording chosen for the monk's unarmed strike to deem it a 'natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve....'.  They could have removed all doubt by being significantly clearer in their choice of words (for either the monk ability or the INA feat itself).




Nowhere in the rules have I ever seen specific mention of one ability worthy of special note over any others.  To actually point out that feat would make it unnecessarily wordy.



			
				Legildur said:
			
		

> Personally, I believe that some elements of WotC are trying to 'power-up' monks to reduce the perception (well, reality) that monks are underpowered.
> 
> I ran a short poll last week as to whether INA would be a 'no brainer' feat for your generic 10th level monk in a core rules only campaign.  It was a 4:1 ratio that said they would select it most times, which indicates that it is seen as an important feat for monks in order to overcome one of their shortcomings.  I believe that the result shows that for the cost of a single feat, that INA is overpowered for monks, and that it supports my theory that WotC are trying to fix the monk through the back door.  Both of these lead me to the conclusion that monks do not (as the rules stand) qualify for INA.
> 
> However, I think the 'yes' side of the argument has merit and acknowledge that.  I just happen to disagree with it.
> 
> But I'll still happily use it once it is in errata.




This is where your problem is, and like I said, you aren't gonna like the answer.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> Well, first, the survey (like all of them, nine included) was flawed so conclusions must be drawn with care.  Second, the mere fact that most folks would take the feat does NOT make it "overpowered."  I'd wager that most fighters take Power Attack - does that make it overpowered?  You leaping to conclusions that are not really justified, I think.




I got an even better example than Power Attack (which isn't as must-have as you might think).  Weapon Focus.  I got another one.  Weapon Specialization for fighters.  I don't know a single fighter who won't take both of these feats, likely for multiple weapons even.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> Thanks, I appreciate that.
> 
> As for unarmed strikes being natural weapons, I think it's a defendable position, but by no means is there overwhelming evidence supporting it.




Actually, this is a good place to show why the book words it as "treated as".  It's because there are other rules for natural attacks which do not apply to monks.  Monks can't take Multiattack (even though they technically have four limbs with which to attack), they can't attack separately with their hands and feet, and they require a class to be considered natural weapons for most purposes.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> My position is that it does not matter how you think of it, it comes out the same.  Either unarmed strikes are natural weapons with special rules or are special attacks that are treated like natural weapons sometimes (not for itertive attcks, etc.).   Whichever- it amounts to the same thing.  They end up getting treated identically no matter which way you think of them.




The latter is what I'd consider the reality, and you are right either way.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> The only difference is which of the following questions you ask when it comes up:
> 
> 1.  Is this a case where an unarmed strike does not follow a natural weapon rule?
> 
> or
> 
> 2.  Is this a case where an unarmed strike is being treated like a natural weapon?
> 
> Six to one, half-dozen to the other, really.




I'd say number two.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> 1.  I don't think you'll find ANYONE at WotC now stating that monk's cannot take INA.  At one time that indeed was the position (unpublished - at least that's my understanding), but no longer.
> 
> 2.  You'll not (ever) see any errata on this because only a clarification was required, thus only a FAQ entry would be needed.
> 
> (869 - 131 to go!)




You are right on both points, as I'll shortly prove.



			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Actually, yes, I believe that to be the case.  If you provide options and one option is so overwhelmingly popular, that option is likely overpowered.  The alternative is that the flavor of that option is so good that everyone wants it.  Since power attack has little flavor (like INA), that truly can't be the case (I would certainly not buy any arguments to that effect), so INA and power attack or whatever example option would be overpowered.
> 
> Now, the question then becomes: now that we know INA (or PA or whatever) is overpowered is that a good or bad thing?  Does the monk need INA to compete or is +7 damage by 20th level too good (it's way above the best +damage anyone else could ever possibly get)?  I argue for the latter.  Is double damage on THF PA too good?  Many (including me) argue yes, it is.  The fact is, however, that that is a separate issue.
> 
> The easiest/best way to find out if an option is overpowered is to count the number of people selecting that option versus the alternatives.  The secondary question becomes whether that overpoweredness is an issue that requires a remedy.
> 
> _This has been an official response by I2K._




Sorry, but I find that to be quite ridiculous.  Are one-handed martial weapons overpowered because every single fighter would pick one over any of the light weapons?  Heck no.  Oh, and don't even argue that some fighters would pick the light weapons, that's just silly.  No fighter would ever pick a dagger over a longsword as a primary weapon, even if most would have both available to use for various purposes.

Just because something is taken by everyone doesn't make it overpowered, it makes it standard.  In Final Fantasy XI, we call this "cookie cutter".  In that game, the cookie cutter attitude is very harmful to the gaming community as a whole, but only because people see the alternatives as too weak, not because the cookie cutters are too powerful.

To see it clearly, make a fighter who doesn't take any Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Power Attack, or Combat Expertise feats.  You'll notice that by Level 20, they'll be terribly weak for their level and unable to stand up with other classes because of it.

Basically, some things are status quo.  That doesn't equate to overpowered.



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> The iterative attacks for Living Holocaust are a mistake, aren't they? Unless they have a listed ability that explicitly overrules the normal rules for iterative attacks, they should not be making iterative attacks.




Well, they do, and you can't change that.  There is no errata taking away their iterative attacks, so they stay as part of the rules.  You can't make such a bold claim without evidence.  You have none, sorry to say.



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> Anubis seems to be saying that the INA ruling should have been in the errata.




Wrong.  I never stated or implied such things.  Remember, although the monk thing is central to this debate, people have claimed there are *many* rules changes in the FAQ.  I haven't personally seen any, but I'm taking your word for it.  I claim that changes would indeed be official.  The thing is, no errata is needed for monks to take that feat, as there is no clear rule to begin with.

The intention of the FAQ was rules clarifications.  This rule was unclear and needed clarification, and you got it.  Not my fault if you can't accept it.  It's still a rule.  If you don't want monks taking the feat, take it over to the House Rules forum.



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> In other words, that it *was* a change in the rules, and not merely a clarification.




Wrong again.



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> If the rules had to be changed to allow the monk to take INA, then by the rules as written (pre-FAQ) the monk could not take INA, but now he can.




Except that's not the case, so your point is invalid.



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> Funny.  I had thought that Anubis was on the Yes side, the side that said that the Sage was merely restating the current rules in a clearer way, not changing them.




I am on that side, and I don't believe that monks taking that feat is a change.  I was just talking that, in general, changes are still official.  Don't put words into my mouth, it'll just get you in trouble later, heh.



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> Power attack is also taken not just because it is powerful, but because it is a prerequisite to other feats (like cleave and sunder) and prestige classes.  If it wasn't a prerequisite for other things, many fewer people would take it.
> 
> INA is being taken just for the benefit it provides, and provides twice the benefits of two hard to get fighter feats.  It's hard to argue that it is not overpowered; the only justification for allowing it might be if the monk needs a power up, but that merely underscores the fact that yes, INA is overpowered for a monk.




The problem with this idea is that, by your reasoning, the feat would be overpowered *period*, regardless of who took it.  A great wyrm red dragon sees *far* more benefit from this feat than a monk, and a monk gets more than a lizardfolk does.  Some feats *scale* (i.e. get more powerful the more powerful the person taking it is), and this is one such feat.  Not all feats are equal.

Acrobatic obviously gives less benefit than, say, Iron Will.  Iron Will is less useful overall than Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization.  None of those feats scale, though, they're linear.  Other feats grow exponentially, and Improved Natural Attack is one such feat.  Power Attack is another.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> You logic is flawed as we most certainly do NOT know that INA (or power attack) is over-powered.  What we do know (or can reasonably surmise) is that the flavor of these feats (increasing damage) is something that players of combat-oriented characters will like and tend to choose.
> 
> Well, duh!!
> 
> On the other hand, their hands cannot be enchanted and get the same bonuses that a weapon can get that way.




Right on.  Testify!



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> No, that's not the best way.  That's a popularity contest.  The best way is through anaylsis that carefully considers ALL other balancing factors.  That's not yet be attempted here.  It would have to include factors like the opportunity cost of taking a feat for the monk (smaller number of feats that fighters), the fact that monks unarmed strikes cannot be permanently enchanted, the various ways that other character get damage multipliers that  to which a monk does not normally have access, the bonuses at each level compared to other melee-type characters, etc., etc.




I doubt it's necessary.  It should be a given that not all feats are created equal.  If they were, it'd be pretty boring, wouldn't it?



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> You could see an errata.  If they ever get around to updating it.  Errata are not prohibited from making things clearer.
> 
> And if the argument is that it is a mistake that natural weapons were referred to in the prerequisites line, well, that seems to be something that can be addressed in the errata.  Errata is supposed to fix mistakes, right?
> 
> I agree with you that polling is not the best way to get to the right answer.  Whether or not the polls agree with me.  Although if you don't believe in the relevance of polls, why do all these threads you start have them?




There was no mistake.  You people just misunderstood the meaning of "effects".  Andy Collins clarified it in the FAQ, yet you're still being stubborn about it.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> Because it's fun and, while not irrelevant, you do have to be very careful in drawing conclusions from them.  The answers are always influenced (intentionally or not) by the way the questions are perceived.
> 
> It is interesting to see how the folks on this board see an issue and to get a numerical summary of that information.  How much value that really has is anybody's guess, but it's still interesting to do.
> 
> In one case (not this one) I have been quite surprised at how my position turned out to be very much in the minority.  As I said, interesting.
> 
> In the case of FAQ as Errata the results were a majority both for and against, depending upon phrasing of the question and options.




I think this only happened because of misconceptions, and those should soon be fixed.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> You're right - I think there is an example or two in there of that.  Still, I very much doubt it.




The chances of errata are slim, because none is really needed.  The only errata needed *might* be to define "effects".



			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> How is my logic flawed?  INA is 4-1 a 'no brainer' which makes it *overwhelmingly* popular.  I think, a vast majority agree, that INA is overpowered compared with all other feats that the monk could take.




Your logic is flawed because, as I showed earlier, popular doesn't equal overpowered.



			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Of course they can be enhanced (I'd not like my unarmed strikes to be enchanted quite honestly).  Why would you say they can't?




You are correct here.  There is a wondrous item that enhances a monk's unarmed strikes.



			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> It's not a mere popularity contest.  Don't try to mischaracterize the poll to fit your opinion.
> 
> Whoever would do such a thing would first need to get the _facts_ straight.  The rest of your 'factors' you allude to are fluff.  You are not listing out any facts at all and trying to appeal to a concern that doesn't exist.  How in the world can you defend the position that INA is not overpowered when you can't even get your facts straight?  Do your analysis and then we'll talk.  For me, the poll and comparison to any other class's feats is more than enough.




Just like you're ignoring certain facts?



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> Just stopping by to drop a little comment
> 
> Improved natural attack is very much like the monks (or other creatures with natural attacks) version of exotic weapon proficiency.
> 
> Both can increase the damage of a single weapon by 1 step (some are exotic because they are weird, but a good amount do provide some extra benefit)
> 
> Exotic weapon proficiency can sometimes get other benefits instead, and its prereqs are much easier to meet. So, even if some view exotic weapon prof to be a little weaker in the damage dealing area for whatever reason it makes up for it by having a greater selection of options and being much easier to get.
> 
> Not every fighter type gets exotic weapon prof, even though it can give the same benefit as INA. This could be primarily because of the number of feat choices out there for different builds while the monk is a bit more limited in some ways for feats that would really help.




That might be a decent comparison, except you can take Improved Natural Attack multiple times.



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Except that INA is much, much more powerful than EWP.  The increase is, generally speaking, much more than a single step.




Incorrect.  The increase is one step, it even says so.  Like I said, it's more powerful only because you can take it multiple times and the effects stack.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> Since the increase that INA gives is pretty much the definition of a single step I would have to say that your statement is rather incorrect.
> 
> Emphasis mine.




What he said.  I concur.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> EWP often grants other benefits.  Such as EWP: Spiked Chain.




Yeah, but I would still agree that Improved Natural Attack is "more powerful".



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Keep reading.
> 
> "... increases one step, *as if the creature’s size had increased by one category*."




Same thing.  If the creature increases in size, the damage goes up only one step.  You can also find this on the Increasing Weapon Damage by Size table on DMG p.28; honestly, the steps are measured by size, so it can be no other way.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> So you are saying that it increases by more than one step.. even though it says it increases by one step? With the part I did not bold, but I did quote, the statement I made still does not change. It is still a single step of increase.
> 
> Also, as I said before, one could make a case for the damage increase being slightly less (still one step but not always dont according to the same table), but ewp is also much easier to get and can be used for a whole host of other very good options which are harder to compare directly to damage.




Scion scores again!



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> No, it says it increases your damage by one step, as if you had increased in size by one category.
> 
> We know what that means for a monk, because it's already given to us in the Monk table.  That being said ...
> 
> Monk 6: 1d8 -> 2d6 = +2.5 damage
> Monk 8: 1d10 -> 2d8 = +2.5 damage
> Monk 12: 2d6 -> 3d6 = +3.5 damage
> Monk 16: 2d8 -> 3d8 = +4.5 damage
> Monk 20: 2d10 -> 4d8 = +7 damage
> 
> Are you trying to tell me that any of these steps are less powerful than EWP (Bastard Sword or Dwarven Waraxe) (+1 damage) or Weapon Specialization (+2 damage)?  Comparing it to, say, EWP (Spiked Chain) is a flawed comparison, because the only possible use of INA is to increase damage dealt.  Accordingly, you should compare it against an EWP taken to improve damage dealt (as I have done).
> 
> So, no, INA does not give the same or similar benefit to EWP.




You are correct on this point.  That still doesn't make it overpowered, though.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> Which means that it increases by one step.
> 
> When it says, 'increases by one step' I think that I am perfectly justified in saying, 'increases by one step'.
> 
> If you feel that stating exactly what the rules state is incorrect then I dont know what to say other than I disagree and feel that you are incorrect.
> 
> Just because the monks damage changes later is irrelevant, both effects can do the same thing. Increase the damage die of the base weapon by one step.
> 
> So yes, they have an effect which is essentially the same.
> 
> Monks have a weapon which goes from X damage to Y damage, one step increase.
> EWP, as compared with the weapon it was derived from, can be going from A damage to B damage, one step increase.
> 
> Much like enlarge increases the damage by one step as well. Unless you wish to argue that enlarge doesnt do what it says either?




Another one for Scion.  On a roll today, eh?



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> I'm saying that you're being disingenuous when you say "one step."
> 
> Yeah, it's "one step."  However, that "one step" for a monk means an awful lot more than "one step" does for a fighter.
> 
> For a fighter, "one step" is, generally speaking, +1 to damage.  That's it.  Finis.  For a monk, it's more - and, generally speaking, a lot more.




Yeah, well fighters get access to a lot more feats numerically, and get several feats monks can't have without multiclassing and giving up some power.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> No, it literally 'is' one step.
> 
> The difference in base weapon damage has no bearing on my comparison. They each do effectively the same thing in that area, one step of increase.
> 
> The monk gets a higher base damage for other balance reasons (more difficult to get weapon bonuses, less BAB, etc) but those do not change what I have said.
> 
> 
> If you wish to redifine terms feel free, but this is the rules forum, I am going with the rules.




Scion with another point!



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> But it should, because you want us to compare it to Exotic Weapon Proficiency and, thereby, realize that it's no big deal.
> 
> INA, from a strictly damage-dealing standpoint, is far superior to EWP *specifically because the weapons involved have wildly varying base damage.*
> 
> The move from 1d8 to 1d10 - MWP (Longsword) to EWP (Bastard Sword) is smaller - and will always be smaller. The minimum move associated with INA is just as good as EWP *and* Weapon Specialization (+2.5 vs. +3) - and, later, it will be better than both.  Eventually, this single feat outpaces Greater Weapon Specialization, which has three other feats and a class level requirement as prerequisites.
> 
> This feat is much, much more powerful than EWP.  To compare the two and say they are "on par" is laughable.




I'll add now that if Improved Natural Attack is overpowered, then monks are overpowered all by themselves.  I don't know any way for a fighter to get 2d10 base damage with any weapon, and monks also get to bypass certain types of damage reduction for free without any enhancements or items.  Should monks be banned now for being overpowered?

Oh, and a greatsword beats out a dagger by 4.5 damage (2.5 to 7).  Are greatswords overpowered?  Not all things are equal.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> Hmmm.....
> 
> A few points of extra damage (7 at 20th level is a red herring - it's ONLY at 20th level) for INA.
> 
> Compared to EWP:
> 
> What can EWP get you?
> 
> Reach weapon that also lets you strike adjacent foes AND use trip attacks AND get +2 on disarm attempts AND use Weapon Finesse. (Spiked Chain)
> 
> This seems in line with that, certainly.
> 
> In any case, a true analysis of the "power" of INA for a monk needs to be much more in-depth.
> 
> P.S.:  Isn't there a feat that lets you use a weapon one size category larger than normal?  That would add 3.5 pts of damage for a greatsword - not beaten by INA until 16th level.




First, yes, there is a feat that allows you to use a weapon one size larger than normal.  In fact, there are two.  Monkey Grip and Wield Oversized Weapon.  The first allows you to wield a bigger weapon than normal at -2 to attack, the other is an epic feat that allows you to treat any weapon as one size smaller.

Still, like I said, not all feats are created equal.

Anyway, yes, the extra 7 is really nothing.  The averag CR 20 creature has well over 200 hp, and the average CR 40 creature gets close to 1000 hp.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> No, because of the reasons I have already outlined.
> 
> In addition, there are other factors involved, as I and atroomis have both mentioned before.
> 
> Just because the base damage die of the weapons happen to be different isnt what is important in the comparison, merely that the effects that they generate can effectively be the same is.




Scion is becoming the Energizer Bunny!  Heh!  Still going!



			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> The 'steps' involved do not have the same meaning and comparing them is disingenuous, like Patryn said.  Your comparison is analogous to comparing the +1 bonus on skill rolls to a +1 bonus on caster level.  They're both bonuses so they should be equivalent, right?  Obviously not.
> 
> +7 is "a few points"?  I guess if it were +20, that'd still be only a "few points"?  It's almost twice the best feat that a fighter can take, albeit at 12th level, and doesn't have a long list of prerequisites.




So?  It is a very small benefit, and it's an average die roll +7 not an absolute certain +7 like Weapon Specialization is an absolute certain +4.



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> And it's better than Weapon Specialization for the entirety of the feat's "useful life."




How exactly is +7 *potential* damage better than +4 *guaranteed* damage?



			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> And 2d4 damage vs, say, the 2d6 or more you get from a "standard" two-handed martial weapon.
> 
> Again, as I said before, you don't pick EWP (Spiked Chain) if you want to deal more damage.  Since that's the only reason to pick INA, the two are not directly comparable.
> 
> Monkey Grip.
> 
> It allows you to use a single, one-handed weapon of one size category larger than yourself without changing its use designation.  You also still take a penalty on your attack rolls.




I'm not certain why we're debating the value of feats.  No two feats are created equal.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> As I said, this is a "red herring" - focusing on what happens at 20th level is a distraction from the real comparison.
> 
> Let's face it, right after that it's EPIC and REALLY odd things start happening.
> 
> Again, it takes a REAL analysis to figure this out, not just focusing on one thing..




You're right on the mark.



			
				Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Elementals in 3E got iterative slams.  In 3.5, this has been corrected - they get two slams at full attack bonus.
> 
> If the Living Holocaust were updated for 3.5, I'd expect a similar correction to be made.
> 
> -Hyp.




There's no such thing in the update booklet for Fiend Folio, so I'd expect you're wrong.  If they change it later, fine, but as of now, the update does not change the attacks on the living holocaust.



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> Completely false.
> 
> By definition they mean the same thing.
> 
> Just because after you apply them to different weapons the final total might be different is irrelevant to my point.
> 
> All the arguement of +X damage vs. +Y damage says, for this comparison, is that different weapons have different base damages.
> 
> The weapon damage itself is a factor of a bunch of other balance issues that have nothing at all to do with the base fact: Both have an equivalent effect, increasing damage by one step.
> 
> First we find the basis that is true:
> INA increases a natural weapons damage by one step.
> EWP can increase a base weapons damage by one step, which then makes it a different weapon.
> EWP could instead produce a number of other effects instead (possibly in addition do, I havent looked up every exotic weapon to check).
> 
> These are true. In the basis we have that they can do equivalent things.
> 
> Next we get to 'why' weapons do the base damage they do and how much the overall increase in damage will be. But this is a completely seperate arguement and is based on so many different balancing factors (BAB of the class, weapon type, weapon effects, etc) that we then would have to have a whole other discussion just to come to grips on what to include and what to exclude from the comparison.
> 
> But, at its base, they can both do the same effective thing: Increase damage die of a weapon by one step.
> 
> As a corallary we also know that EWP is much easier to get than INA. Typically feats which are harder to get are at least a little stronger. But, strength is measured in a lot of ways, INA only does one thing, EWP has the potential of 'many' different things, just not at the same time.
> 
> Which is 'better' depends entirely on what you are after.




Rock on, Scion.



			
				Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> I never intended to focus on 20th level (in the other thread at least).  Compare it at the beginning.  It's better than weapon specialization in all ways, except that arguably WS can be taken slightly earlier.  But, the fact is that you must do the comparison up to 20th level.  You can't stop at 12th.
> 
> No, they're not true.  You are not comparing the same things at all.  Let me show you.
> 
> INA increase a natural weapons damage by one step in size category.  EWP, at beast, increases the weapon damage by one die.  In other words, as Patryn pointed out, EWP goes from 1d8 (longsword) to 1d10 (bastard sword) -- at best -- whereas INA goes from 1d8 to 2d6.  That is a significant improvement and calling them the same is absolutely wrong.
> 
> So, your attempt at comparing INA to EWP in this regard is completely without merit.




You realize there is only a 1.5 damage difference between 1d10 and 2d6, right?  I don't consider that very significant.  A 3 damage difference (Improved Natural Attack versus Greater Weapon Specialization) at Level 20 make *no difference whatsoever*.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> Like I said, we need to do a better, more thorough comparison for this to be of any value.




Honestly, I don't see why it matters in the first place.



Anyway, on the the meat of my post.  Good grief I didn't realize there had been like 50 posts since my last one.  Exhausting responding to all of them.  Anyway, I talked it over with Trevor, and it was quite enlightening.  While you people were here bickering, I was discussing the situation with people who actually had a say in the matter, and I finally got them to take this matter seriously.  They know now how confusing this issue is.

Here is what was said.  I'll be putting emphasis on the most important parts.

_
Response (Trevor K.) 11/01/2005 09:34 AM 
Hey there Brandon. Zephreum, Chris and I sat down with the teams in R&D and talked with them about this, just so we would all be on the same page and to alleviate your confusion and the confusion of the people who are having a hard time understanding the difference between the FAQ and errata. The conclusion we came to was the one that I originally gave you: Errata is for rules changes and the FAQ is for rules clarification. This comes straight from the guys who make the FAQ and errata.

*Now, much of this confusion is stemming from the fact that the Monk's unarmed strikes are considered natural attacks for qualifying for feats such as Improved Natural Attack, and some people see this as a rules change. It is not. It is a clarification on the types of things that fall into the "effects" category concerning the monk's unarmed strikes.*

*Regardless, the FAQ is an official source of rules and should be followed.* If the FAQ is every incorrect or misleading, then we update it with a fix as quickly as possible. *Everything in the FAQ is official rules information, so if you see something that you perceive as errata in the FAQ, it is still official and should still be applied to the rules.* People shouldn't just disregard the new monk/natural attack information just because they think of it as errata.

There are no plans to merge the errata with the FAQ, and again, *these types of things like the Monk issue mentioned above are indeed not rules changes, just clarifications.* Also, if you have any other issues that appear like errata popping up in the FAQ that you would like to discuss, please feel free to respond with those.

I have checked in at EN World and the debate is raging. I'm not sure why people believe they can disregard information in the FAQ and pretend it's not there, but I'm coming from a place where I have to read and assimilate all the information in order to do my job correctly and give people the right answers, so that they can give their players and fellow DMs the right answers. *If we didn't want players or DMs to read and assimilate the information provided in the FAQ,we wouldn't provide one.* But don't feel like you're annoying us! This is our job, we're here to answer questions, and I would love to help you guys clear this up. If you have any more questions, feel free to respond with them.

We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.

To login to your account, or update your question please click here.

Trevor K.

Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 7am-6pm PST / 10am-9pm EST 
 Customer (Brandon Harwell) 11/01/2005 12:50 AM 
I'm a bit confused by your answer. When I asked if the FAQ provides errata, Zephreum told me, and I quote, "Yes the D&D FAQ is also a source for Errata."

This seems to conflict with your statement, kinda.

Now, you admit it's "intended" that changes appear in the errata and not the FAQ, but given that rules changes have indeed been implemented in the FAQ (and not placed in the errata), what does this mean? Is it that, despite intentions, errata is popping up in the FAQ even though it shouldn't? Or are rules changes in the FAQ not actually official until those changes appear in the errata? (Chris said "everything" in the FAQ is official, so I would think that includes rules changes as well.)

I dunno if you ever visit the web site EN World, but that's where the debate is going on. Several people there are fighting rather heatedly about how "nothing change-wise is official until it's in the errata", and claim the rule about primary sources put the actual books above the word of Andy Collins or customer service (I think that stance is pretty stupid myself); others think that the FAQ is outright wrong about monks being qualified. I, for one, believe that everything in the FAQ is absolute until someone says otherwise, but yes, this is a very confused issue.

Basically, unless the errata is merged with the FAQ, no one will take it seriously. Aggravating for serious rules discussion.

This all must be very annoying, lol. I find it annoying myself, but I figure instead of complaining about it as others have, that's why I continue discussing this with the customer service in hopes of putting very clear language in as to whether the FAQ is whjolly official including any changes or not. Sorry to be such a bother. I'm just hoping to finally end the debate over at EN World (which has currently grossed well over 1000 posts over five different topics). 
_

So, basically, both sides had a point in all this.  The FAQ and errata are different indeed, *but*, the monk issue isn't a rule change, it's a rule clarification.  Regardless of that, everything is still official rules information.

Now I'm not sure what other changes people see other than the sheath for free during a move, but basically Trevor has said if you find something that's considered a rule change, inquire about it!  That means, don't come here talking about how the FAQ and customer service are wrong so much.  If you don't bring up the valid questions and press the issue, you'll never be satisfied.  In other words, getting everything right takes teamwork from us to point out any potential errors and from R&D and customer service giving it the proper attention.

I think this is pretty clear at this point.  Even if you *think* something in the FAQ is a change, it's still official and thus applied to the rules.  Any perceived changes you find, let Andy Collins or customer service know, multiple times if need be, that way everything is made clear.  You attack their credibility yet do *nothing* to help the situation.  They're human, and this stuff takes teamwork.

I'm a writer.  I make mistakes myself.  The thing is, I usually don't catch my mistakes.  That's what a proofreader is for.  Now they have those and those people caught the obvious mistakes, but as players, it's our job to point out anything that was overlooked.  This couldn't be more clear to me now.  As such, stop complaining about it.  If you see something you think is a change, it either isn't or it's a mistake or it's something else; *ask them*!

Anyway, I hope this clears everything up.


----------



## Scion

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> No, they're not true.  You are not comparing the same things at all.




I dont know how to be more clear than when the rules literally state something explicitly.

They literally do increase by one step. If you wish to say that one weapon does too much base damage vs another go right ahead, but that is a completely seperate arguement. Or even if a certain weapon does not increase properly according to other parts of the RAW, which is again a seperate arguement.


----------



## Infiniti2000

Anubis said:
			
		

> You realize there is only a 1.5 damage difference between 1d10 and 2d6, right? I don't consider that very significant.



 You might consider it more significant if you actually use the correct numbers.  You even reference my post and you misread the numbers, to your benefit of course.  It's 1d8-->2d6, which is +2.5, which is better than weapon specialization through the life of either feat.


			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> A 3 damage difference (Improved Natural Attack versus Greater Weapon Specialization) at Level 20 make no difference whatsoever.



 +7 is almost double +4 and keep in mind we're now comparing the same feat (INA) to a new, higher level feat (GWS instead of WS that we compared earlier) and it's STILL FAR BETTER.  Puhlease.


			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> Like I said, we need to do a better, more thorough comparison for this to be of any value.



 I don't agree.  What Patryn and I have posted already shows that beyond a shadow of a doubt, INA is overpowered.  I'd help with the comparison, but you need to tell us where to continue it beyond what we've already done.  Is the comparison on INA versus the entire GWS tree insufficient?


----------



## Scion

It might be important to make a special note that you cannot take INA multiple times and if you do somehow have it multiple times the effects do not stack. This is primarily because the feat itself does not say you can take it multiple times nor does it say that it stacks with itself (unless of course my srd is incorrect  ).


----------



## Infiniti2000

Scion said:
			
		

> I dont know how to be more clear than when the rules literally state something explicitly.
> 
> They literally do increase by one step. If you wish to say that one weapon does too much base damage vs another go right ahead, but that is a completely seperate arguement. Or even if a certain weapon does not increase properly according to other parts of the RAW, which is again a seperate arguement.



 I'm not arguing the weapon's base damage, but challenging your comparison.  The first issue you need to overcome is your attempt at referencing the rules explicitly.  Give me the explicit rules reference on "one step" or EWP (the one for INA has already been provided).  The second issue you need to overcome once you somehow manage to do the first is show that they both increase one step of the same thing.  They do not, as I have shown.  One increases damage die (arguable, for EWP) and one increases size (for INA).  Comparing them is like comparing +1 on skill checks to +1 on caster level -- it is bogus.


----------



## Infiniti2000

Scion said:
			
		

> It might be important to make a special note that you cannot take INA multiple times and if you do somehow have it multiple times the effects do not stack. This is primarily because the feat itself does not say you can take it multiple times nor does it say that it stacks with itself (unless of course my srd is incorrect  ).



 You can take it multiple times, but each time it applies to a different weapon.  Now, how that interacts with the monk's unarmed strike, which some people argue is not a single weapon, is beyond me.  I think those people need to step forward.


----------



## Scion

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> I'm not arguing the weapon's base damage




The second you say X damage vs Y damage you are argueing from the base damage.

They both can increase a weapons damage by one step. This is clear from the RAW.

If you wish to argue that weapons doing different base damage is unbalancing somehow we will need a ton of other balancing factors brought to play.

Even without that however the base still remains, they both increase the damage by a single step.


----------



## Scion

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> You can take it multiple times, but each time it applies to a different weapon.




That isnt what my version of the SRD says, but again, it may not be correct.

Note the difference between it and weapon focus.


----------



## Artoomis

Anubis said:
			
		

> ...




Whew.  Possibly the longest post ever.

Great answer from Customer Service - which I will post in the FAQ vs. Errata thread.


----------



## Anubis

I could have sworn you could take it multiple times and apply it to the same natural attack.  Ah well, that just means it's weaker than I thought.

Still, I think we should stop focusing on something so trite as comparing the feats, they're not all equal.  Let's instead focus on what customer service had to say this time around.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Great answer from Customer Service - which I will post in the FAQ vs. Errata thread.




Where it, like all CustServ responses, will be generally ignored by everyone except those who believe that from the mouths of the Holy CustServ, no lie shall issue forth.


----------



## Anubis

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is the Rules forum, and as such, customer service counts.  If you don't like it, take it to House Rules.

Or a better way to say it is this.  WotC gave customer service the power to make these rulings, and in the Rules forum, WotC has the final say.  If a player wants a say, that's what House Rules are for.


----------



## Artoomis

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> ...
> I don't agree.  What Patryn and I have posted already shows that beyond a shadow of a doubt, INA is overpowered.  I'd help with the comparison, but you need to tell us where to continue it beyond what we've already done.  Is the comparison on INA versus the entire GWS tree insufficient?




No.

If you REALLY want to know if a monk taking INA is unbalancingly powerful you have to figure in factors like:

The opportunity cost of taking a feat for a monk vs. a fighter (no bonus feats for monks, so each feat is, in effect, more expensive).

The fact that some feats scale, and some don't.

The fact that in can be used by a small monk to make him equivalent in damage to a medium monk.

In other words - check all possible, relevant factors and then see what it look slike.

This does NOT look overpowering for a small monk at all, for example.  It looks pretty scary for a large monk, though!

Also, a real definition for when something is too powerful.  This would really help.

"Too Powerful?"  Basically, as I understand it, something is too powerful if, by itself, it lets you take over the game from the other characters.  Certainly INA does NOT do that - at best, it makes a monk be able to MAYBE stand his own in melee combat and in no way equal a fighter with all his extra fighter feats.


----------



## Infiniti2000

Scion said:
			
		

> They both can increase a weapons damage by one step. This is clear from the RAW....
> Even without that however the base still remains, they both increase the damage by a single step.



 And not only have you not shown this, but you have not shown that the steps are the same.  1 damage die step != 1 size step.  It's absurd to think otherwise.


			
				Scion said:
			
		

> That isnt what my version of the SRD says, but again, it may not be correct.



 Bizarre.  
Hypertext: "This feat may be taken multiple times, but each time it applies to a different natural attack."
Sovelior: "Special: A creature can gain this feat multiple times. Each time it applies to a different natural attack."

Strangely, it's not in the WotC SRD.  But, it is listed in the MM Errata:


			
				MM Errata said:
			
		

> *Improved Natural Attack Feat*
> You can take this feat multiple times, but each time it applies to a different natural attack.


----------



## Infiniti2000

Artoomis said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> If you REALLY want to know if a monk taking INA is unbalancingly powerful you have to figure in factors like:
> ...
> In other words - check all possible, relevant factors and then see what it look slike.



 So, in your opinion to argue that something is overpowered, it has to be overpowered in all cases in comparison to all other abilities?  That's not a good way to view.  A thing (feat, spell, etc.) should be considered overpowered if it can be shown to be overpowerd even once, in comparison with one other (reasonably chosen*) thing.

* i.e. don't compare meteor swarm to magic missile as that isn't fair.  But, comparing INA to WS is fair.


----------



## FireLance

Scion said:
			
		

> I dont know how to be more clear than when the rules literally state something explicitly.
> 
> They literally do increase by one step. If you wish to say that one weapon does too much base damage vs another go right ahead, but that is a completely seperate arguement. Or even if a certain weapon does not increase properly according to other parts of the RAW, which is again a seperate arguement.



Sorry, Scion, but Infinit2000 and Patryn do have a point here. INA increases the damage by one step, but that one step is a size category increase. EWP (bastard sword) or EWP (dwarven battleaxe) also increases damage by one step, bit that step is just a die increase. A 6th-level monk who takes INA increases his unarmed strike damage from 1d8 to 2d6 (avg 4.5 to 7). A 6th-level fighter who takes EWP (bastard sword) increases his weapon damage from 1d8 to 1d10 (avg 4.4 to 5.5). The monk gets a damage boost compared to the fighter.

Of course, the balancer is that magic items that increase the enhancement bonus to natural weapons are generally more expensive than magic weapons. An _amulet of mighty fists_ costs about three times as much as a magic weapon that grants an equivalent enhancement bonus to attacks and damage.

The other point to consider is that the base damage from a monk's unarmed strike typically outstrips a fighter's base weapon damage, anyway. At 8th level, a monk's unarmed strike deals as much base damage as the best (in terms of base damage) one-handed weapons in the core rules, and a fighter has to spend a feat slot to get that base damage, while the monk does not. From 12th level, a monk's unarmed strike deals as much base damage as the best (in terms of base damage) two-handed weapon in the core rules, and from 16th level, the monk's unarmed strike deals more base damage than any weapon in the core rules.

Hence, when it comes to feats that improve damage, it seems to me that monks should have the edge over fighters, so it doesn't bother me that INA provides a higher damage bonus that EWP or Weapon Specialization.


----------



## Anubis

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> So, in your opinion to argue that something is overpowered, it has to be overpowered in all cases in comparison to all other abilities?  That's not a good way to view.  A thing (feat, spell, etc.) should be considered overpowered if it can be shown to be overpowerd even once, in comparison with one other (reasonably chosen*) thing.
> 
> * i.e. don't compare meteor swarm to magic missile as that isn't fair.  But, comparing INA to WS is fair.




What reality do you live in?  Certainly not the one most people live in.  *Anything* is abusable given a little strategic planning.  I can take almost anything from the core rules and show at least one instance where it can be considered "broken", from _magic missile_ to _resist energy_ to Power Attack to just about anything.  Why do you think "Smackdown" threads happen?  How do you think they happen?  By finding ways to abuse the system.

Everything is potentially broken.  For something to be truly overpowered, it has to be broken _more often than not_.


----------



## Scion

FireLance said:
			
		

> Sorry, Scion, but Infinit2000 and Patryn do have a point here. INA increases the damage by one step, but that one step is a size category increase. EWP (bastard sword) or EWP (dwarven battleaxe) also increases damage by one step, bit that step is just a die increase.




I do not know what formula they use to get the dice change that they are useing for the bastard sword, but it doesnt use the other guidelines given elsewhere. Which means either it is a special, unwritten rule (and so we cannot compare it) or it was done improperly (at which point you then have to talk about the weapon itself and figure out what the problem is).

Say that we have a medium bastard sword. It does d10 damage.
Lets also look at a medium longsword. It does d8 damage.
The only real difference seems to be the damage die increase and the bastard sword needing a feat to be used in one hand.

So, one feat to increase the damage die by one step. How they go from d8 to d10 no one really knows. But, it is a single increase.

Now we look at a large long sword. It should do 2d6 damage.
Looking at a large bastard sword it should do 2d8 damage.

Either way it is an increase of one step.

It happens that one step is along the column for some unknown reason while the other step is in the row for reasons that are explained.

Either way though, they are a change of one step and the damage is increased.

One could argue that one of the steps isnt as powerful as the other, which I believe I said something to that effect in my first post, but that the extra requirements of INA plus the extra versitility of EWP make up for this.

Which, as far as I can tell, is still true.

Edit: I forgot to mention that for the chart in question everything below the d8 line works the same either column wise or row wise. I believe the issue to be that it 'should' continue to work this way over the entire length but for some reason it 'doesnt'. Which means that either d8 should go to d10 or that the bastard sword should be 2d6. The shifting rules at that point where it goes from small increases to sudden jumps just doesnt make much sense. It may very well be that this was done purposefully, to make larger monsters more of a threat. If that is the case it was done in very poor form since they could have simply raised the monsters str value and kept the system working without the discontinuity that exists currently.
/edit


Now, monks have a larger base weapon damage die, eventually, this is true.

However, that is a completely new arguement that calls into play a number of other balance issues.

As such, it is irrelevant to my point, but it is a valid point in a completely seperate arguement. Trying to say that my arguement is wrong because some seperate arguement says something is, at best, silly.

I have merely put up how the rules themselves point out in some very explicit places in the rules. It isnt a question of ambiguity, it isnt a question of conflicting rules, it is right there in the text.




			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> Hence, when it comes to feats that improve damage, it seems to me that monks should have the edge over fighters, so it doesn't bother me that INA provides a higher damage bonus that EWP or Weapon Specialization.




Which of course is a completely seperate issue.

I was merely pointing out to those who said that INA was a no brainer that there was a very similar feat which had the equivalent effect and yet many/most do not take that feat. It is an issue to think about when deciding if something is too powerful because everyone takes it. It could just as easily be that there just arent very many choices anyway and so the few that are there are picked a disproportionate amount of times.


Edit2: thinking about this entire issue further I think I will make the following houserule in my game and apply it as often as possible.
Single chart of die advancement: d1 -> d2 -> d3 -> d4 -> d6 -> d8 -> d10 -> 2d6 -> 3d6 -> 4d6 -> 5d6 -> 6d6
So that would be avg: 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3.5, 4.5, 5.5, 7, 10.5, 14, 17.5, 21, etc
That is a very smooth adjustment that still gives some extra benefit to the very large creatures out there. It may take a little more adjustment in the very high end (at some point extra d6's should be added each time, likely after 6d6 it will add 2d6 each time for 3 times then 3d6 each time for 3 times and so forth.. that should be perfect.
/Edit


----------



## Scion

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> But, comparing INA to WS is fair.




So comparing something that changes constantly based on what level you are, what equipment you are useing (not including weapon changes), requires a nonclass specific ability, and what size you happen to be at the time to something that is static, gear independent, class specific, and size independent is fair?

I'd have to say you are reaching beyond the realm of useful comparisons there.

You were talking about apples and oranges before, this seems to come pretty close to that.


----------



## FireLance

Scion said:
			
		

> As such, it is irrelevant to my point, but it is a valid point in a completely seperate arguement. Trying to say that my arguement is wrong because some seperate arguement says something is, at best, silly.



Just for the record, I'm not saying that your argument is wrong. I'm just saying that a one step damage increase because of size is not the same as a one step increase in the damage dice. INA does the former, and EWP does the latter, if you compare a bastard sword to a longsword, or a dwarven waraxe to a battleaxe. Of course, the reason for the confusion is that "step" is not a defined game term .

The other point about monks doing more base damage than fighters anyway is a separate argument, and is directed more at the "INA is overpowered" crowd.


----------



## Caliban

Anubis said:
			
		

> Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is the Rules forum, and as such, customer service counts.




No, this is the Rules Forum.  As such,  unsubstantiated e-mails from Cust Serv have no weight.   We've had experience with Customer Service before, they aren't reliable in any way when it comes to the rules.   




> If you don't like it, take it to House Rules.



 You really have no authority to tell people what to do, you know that right? 



> Or a better way to say it is this.  WotC gave customer service the power to make these rulings



   Please show me an official WOTC source where it states that this power was granted to them.   Seriously, put up or shut up. 




> and in the Rules forum, WotC has the final say.  If a player wants a say, that's what House Rules are for.




This is not a WOTC forum.   Players have just as much, or more, say into how the rules are interpreted as WOTC does.   We are the one who actually use them after all.


----------



## Scion

FireLance said:
			
		

> Just for the record, I'm not saying that your argument is wrong. I'm just saying that a one step damage increase because of size is not the same as a one step increase in the damage dice.




Actually, it is the same except at the discontinuity points. I started another thread about them.

If you are above then it works fine, if you are below it works fine, but if you are right at the discontinuity then it breaks down. Very odd system. Something I see as a bug.

But just because this can happen on that point does not remove the general statement


----------



## Anubis

Caliban said:
			
		

> Please show me an official WOTC source where it states that this power was granted to them.   Seriously, put up or shut up.




They're customer service.  It's there job.  Do you regularly practice being this crazy, Caliban?


----------



## Caliban

Anubis said:
			
		

> They're customer service.  It's there job.  Do you regularly practice being this crazy, Caliban?




Do you regularly make false statements about people who disagree with you?

And where is it stated that making rules interpretations is part of their job?   Do you have anything to support your statements here?

Edit: hehe, You know, I decided to go see if I find an answer to this question, since you don't seem inclined to.  I found an answer in about 2 minutes.   Instead of attacking me, you could have tried answering the question.  That would have been an intelligent debating tactic. 


Apparently they are supposed to answer rules questions.  Too bad they have been wrong so often in the past, as their credibility has been shot, at least on these boards.   I still don't accept them as "official" as far as rules interpretations go, but trying to answer questions is indeed part of their job.


Maybe they are training their people better now, but I think that I have to see some non-contradictory answers before I'll believe that.


----------



## Anubis

The reason for my comments was because this is something that shouldn't even need to be looked up.  Most of us knew it already, we figured it out through those things called common sense and logic.  Heck, even Trevor said outright that answering rules questions was part of their job, as shown in my posting of the response, but you conveniently ignored that.

I felt no obligation to do any further work at it.  I had already proved my point, and if you wanna ignore the obvious and not use your common sense or any form of logic, hey, that's your choice.  I suppose everyone has the right to behave in such a manner.

Still, don't come here with that crap and put so much spin on things.  I really think you just get off on arguing.  We've proven our case many times over, and I've even pushed it as far as getting three reps, Andy Collins, and R&D involved.  For the most part, my assumptions proved correct in most cases, and close enough to count in all the rest.  That means that logic could have brought about these conclusions, which also means that your refusal to listen is either genuine lack of understanding or outright wanton arguing.

Yeah, I may take potshots at you, but you're taking plenty of potshots at Andy Collins and the customer service, so all's fair.  At least their jobs allow them to make statements about the rules.  You have no such power.

Given your beligerence, I may just be prone to dismiss everything you say from here on out.  Your arguments and actions aren't productive.  You dissed the Sage and customer service on so many occasions about mistakes, yet did nothing to even attempt to help fix them.  At least I can say I've actually taken active steps to make everything clear.  You've simply been thriving on the chaos.  It ends.  Now.


----------



## glass

Scion said:
			
		

> I dont know how to be more clear than when the rules literally state something explicitly.
> 
> They literally do increase by one step. If you wish to say that one weapon does too much base damage vs another go right ahead, but that is a completely seperate arguement. Or even if a certain weapon does not increase properly according to other parts of the RAW, which is again a seperate arguement.



It's one 'step', but is not the same kind as the 'step' in the EWP example.

I am 1 unit from my desk drawers, the earth is 1 unit from the sun. But it's disingenuous to state that without mentioning that in first case that unit is a metre and in the second it's and AU.


glass.


----------



## Egres

Caliban said:
			
		

> Maybe they are training their people better now, but I think that *I have to see some non-contradictory answers* before I'll believe that.



They have stated that monks cannot benefit from INA on the WotC boards.

Just another proof that Caliban is absolutely right.

No one with a functioning brain trust CustServ.


----------



## glass

Anubis said:
			
		

> They're customer service.  It's there job.  Do you regularly practice being this crazy, Caliban?



_Ad hominem_ attacks do not make your arguments seem any stronger. Actually they make them seem weaker, if that's possible.


glass.


----------



## FireLance

Egres said:
			
		

> They have stated that monks cannot benefit from INA on the WotC boards.



For the record, who are "They" and when was the statement made?


----------



## glass

Anubis said:
			
		

> I had already proved my point, and if you wanna ignore the obvious and not use your common sense or any form of *logic*, hey, that's your choice.  I suppose everyone has the right to behave in such a manner.



(*Emphasis* mine)

How does the expression go? 'You keep using that word; I do not think it mean what you think it means'.


glass.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Back in post #793 I asked Anubis and Caliban to stop argueing. Apparently that isn't on the cards, and I don't think this thread is going to reach the magic 1000 posts.

Because it is getting locked.

There is plenty of meat in the thread for people to chew over, but at this point I'm seeing pretty much entrenched positions and a lot more heat than light.

Discussions about FAQ vs errata vs customer service are continuing in this thread http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=153552, please feel free to join in there (although we don't want to see Monks and INA restarting again, please). 

Regards


----------

