# Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack? - Official answer



## reveal (Sep 10, 2005)

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?*



			
				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.




Well, there ya have it folks. The official answer. Whether or not you agree with it (I do and have argued this before using the Sage's same logic presented here), it is now official. Hopefully the question will now die its well deserved death.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 10, 2005)

It may be "official", but it's not RAW. 

This question will not die until they issue errata.


----------



## reveal (Sep 10, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> It may be "official", but it's not RAW.
> 
> This question will not die until they issue errata.




Oh good lord, can't you people ever be satisfied. You get the official answer and you're still nit-picking?


----------



## FEADIN (Sep 10, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> It may be "official", but it's not RAW.
> 
> This question will not die until they issue errata.




No need for errata, errata is about errors and there is none.

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.

.....*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*


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 10, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> It may be "official", but it's not RAW.
> 
> This question will not die until they issue errata.




No... it's interpretation needed, not errata.  The underpinning question is whether feats are the same as "...spells and effects that enhance or improve..." in this and that's now been answered, it seems.

The RAW in no way makes it clear whether a "feat" counts as an "effect" for this purpose.  I've always argued that it does, others have disagreed, both sides supported by RAW, but but not clearly.  Now there is a ruling.  I'd like to see this make the FAQ, as Dragon magazine is not subscribed to by all.


----------



## Caliban (Sep 10, 2005)

I actually don't have any real problem with this ruling in 3.5.

If I remember correctly, in 3.0 you could take the feat multiple times.


----------



## Scion (Sep 10, 2005)

I have never really understood why people say that it 'doesnt' work. Both by the wording and with balance in mind it seems fine to me.

As a not incredibly useful, but interesting, example from the srd:



			
				srd said:
			
		

> 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.




Which clearly states that a feat is an effect


----------



## Crothian (Sep 10, 2005)

Ya, nothing wrong or unbalancing about this.


----------



## Stalker0 (Sep 10, 2005)

I mean come on its the monk....when's the last time you heard about a broken monk


----------



## Crothian (Sep 10, 2005)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> I mean come on its the monk....when's the last time you heard about a broken monk




its not about the last time I've heard about it, round here people can complain about the broken commoner.  All I care about is that it works fine at my table.


----------



## TheEvil (Sep 10, 2005)

Nothing is so obvious that someone, somewhere won't find a point about it that they think is open to debate.  I suppose that is what Rules portion of this board is about, really.


----------



## Scion (Sep 10, 2005)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> I mean come on its the monk....when's the last time you heard about a broken monk




Last time I saw one try to grapple something ;/ Broke him in half.


----------



## Kobold Stew (Sep 10, 2005)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> I mean come on its the monk....when's the last time you heard about a broken monk





Actually, a ruling like this should (though of course it won't) stop the most common broken-monk build, when people start adding other natural attacks in addition to a flurry as part of a full attack (as in a lizardfolk monk build).

I haven't read the whole text, so perhaps this is addressed.


----------



## francisca (Sep 10, 2005)

TheEvil said:
			
		

> Nothing is so obvious that someone, somewhere won't find a point about it that they think is open to debate.  I suppose that is what Rules portion of this board is about, really.



Naw, it's really about who can write their name in the snow fastest, if you take my meaning.


----------



## spatha (Sep 10, 2005)

francisca said:
			
		

> Naw, it's really about who can write their name in the snow fastest, if you take my meaning.



Nope could you clarify?


----------



## francisca (Sep 10, 2005)

spatha said:
			
		

> Nope could you clarify?



no.  I cannot.


----------



## ForceUser (Sep 11, 2005)

spatha said:
			
		

> Nope could you clarify?



As in, it's a "urinating" contest.


----------



## TheEvil (Sep 11, 2005)

...and here I was thinking I should have gone with a shorter name.


----------



## Psion (Sep 11, 2005)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> I mean come on its the monk....when's the last time you heard about a broken monk




Well, the words "vow of poverty" were nearby.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 11, 2005)

The problem is that the rationale presented by the ruling doesn't follow.

Yes, you can apply the benefits of the feat to the monk's unarmed strike (this is an effect which improves a natural weapon, which specifically may be applied).

The real question, however, is whether or not a human monk qualifies for the feat in the first place.

I maintain that he doesn't.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 11, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> Oh good lord, can't you people ever be satisfied. You get the official answer and you're still nit-picking?



 How'd you get the impression that everyone actually cares about the Sage's opinion?  If WotC wants to alter the rule, issue errata.  It's the only way to do so.  If they want to add rules, issue errata or a new source on it and define that source as the precedent.  It's really that simple.



			
				FEADIN said:
			
		

> No need for errata, errata is about errors and there is none.



 I agree, there's no error in the rules.  The error is in the Sage's response, as has happened several times and I'm sure others are willing and able to provide evidence on that.  Obviously, I was talking about issuing errata to the rules if WotC wants to actually provide RAW to support the Sage's interpretation.


----------



## Tetsubo (Sep 11, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> The problem is that the rationale presented by the ruling doesn't follow.
> 
> Yes, you can apply the benefits of the feat to the monk's unarmed strike (this is an effect which improves a natural weapon, which specifically may be applied).
> 
> ...




On what grounds? Within the context of the rules a Monk's Unarmed Attack is considered a natural weapon. So that means it qualifies.

On a larger scale you have to ask the question: Can a bare human hand deliver a blow (or blows) that can kill another human being? The answer of course is yes. So it passes the "reality" test as well. Someone with exceptional training should be able to cause greater harm with an unaided hand than an lesser trained individual.

So how do you justify NOT allowing this?

The Monk isn't going to be broken by delivering slightly more damage. I think it makes the class more viable at higher levels.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 11, 2005)

It's quite simple really.  Just read the prerequisite.  A monk's unarmed strike is not a natural weapon.  You don't get the benefit (i.e. the effect of the feat) until after you take it, so the line about spells and effects in the monk's unarmed strike description are really useless.

When deciding if a monk can take the effect, look at the relevant part:


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> *Improved Natural Attack [General]*
> _Prerequisite_
> Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4.



 Is the monk's unarmed strike actually a natural weapon?  No.  At this point, there is no 'effect' to equate it to such, so you stop and say that the feat doesn't apply.

The defense rests.


----------



## Tetsubo (Sep 11, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> It's quite simple really.  Just read the prerequisite.  A monk's unarmed strike is not a natural weapon.  You don't get the benefit (i.e. the effect of the feat) until after you take it, so the line about spells and effects in the monk's unarmed strike description are really useless.
> 
> When deciding if a monk can take the effect, look at the relevant part:
> Is the monk's unarmed strike actually a natural weapon?  No.  At this point, there is no 'effect' to equate it to such, so you stop and say that the feat doesn't apply.
> ...




Except for this part:

".....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"

You're 100% correct...


----------



## d-pirate (Sep 11, 2005)

I don't usually post on here because it's been my experience that sometimes debate leads to nauseum. But that said, a lot of us who have played D&D 20 years or more look to these debates as comic relief. RAW vs SRD vs FAQ vs Errata some people will never accept any answer regardless of common sense. But I agree with those who take the route of judgement, IE when in my house I rule as such.... At least that gets the game played. Far to many people are willing to argue for hours with the DM or rules lawyer to other players.

But as a tangent I do post a question or is it more of a poll? Hmm well anyways,
In my group really only two out of 6 DM, myself and one other. The other DM is so mad at the other players munchkinizing and optimizing and "cheating" if you will that when he runs published adventures he only allows the core books. He feels that since normally when adventures are published the writers  only utilize the SRD and the monsters are at a disadvantage. Has anyone else run into this? When I DM I really don't care what the players use as long as its something I can reference but that maybe just my comfortablity with the spirit of D&D. This leads to another more serious and useful question. Do the player's by virtue of paying for lots of D&D books get a "right" to utilize the material? Obviously the DM has the final say but unbalance destroy's games and thats the key thing players want, not a DM who let's them always win but a game where it's balanced.


----------



## babomb (Sep 11, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> The problem is that the rationale presented by the ruling doesn't follow.
> 
> Yes, you can apply the benefits of the feat to the monk's unarmed strike (this is an effect which improves a natural weapon, which specifically may be applied).
> 
> ...




Ok, so what you're saying is this:

A human monk can't take this feat because he doesn't have a natural weapon. However, a lizardfolk monk, because he has claws that are *totally unrelated* to his unarmed strike, can take this feat and apply it to his unarmed strike damage. Yes?

No matter what the RAW say, that just seems illogical. I mean, I understand what you're saying, but if you concede that the unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon in the benefit portion of the feat, why shouldn't it count for the requirement part of the feat? I don't see that anywhere in the RAW.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 11, 2005)

babomb said:
			
		

> A human monk can't take this feat because he doesn't have a natural weapon. However, a lizardfolk monk, because he has claws that are *totally unrelated* to his unarmed strike, can take this feat and apply it to his unarmed strike damage. Yes?




As written - yup.



> No matter what the RAW say, that just seems illogical. I mean, I understand what you're saying, but if you concede that the unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon in the benefit portion of the feat, why shouldn't it count for the requirement part of the feat? I don't see that anywhere in the RAW.




The benefit is an effect that improves natural weapons.  The prerequisite is not.

-Hyp.


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 11, 2005)

I can't believe this is actually up for debate. Seems crystal clear that a monk can take it. Not only that, but I'm seriously considering having my Druid take it for when he's wildshaped, also the Warshaper PrC offers a similar ability.


----------



## Babylon Knight (Sep 11, 2005)

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=148122

End of discussion


----------



## Caliban (Sep 11, 2005)

Babylon Knight said:
			
		

> http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=148122
> 
> End of discussion




You must be new here.


----------



## Babylon Knight (Sep 11, 2005)

My account is.

I'm not.

What did you add to this discussion? Zilch.


----------



## IcyCool (Sep 11, 2005)

Babylon Knight said:
			
		

> http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=148122
> 
> End of discussion




Obviously, it isn't.

As others have pointed out, this answer isn't errata, and it isn't in the books.  The main problem with the feat is whether or not Improved Unarmed Strike counts as a natural weapon for purposes of pre-requisites.


----------



## Babylon Knight (Sep 11, 2005)

It does.

Now can we stop arguing and go back to seek various ways to empower our characters?


----------



## Scion (Sep 11, 2005)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> As others have pointed out, this answer isn't errata, and it isn't in the books.  The main problem with the feat is whether or not Improved Unarmed Strike counts as a natural weapon for purposes of pre-requisites.




If it isnt counting as a prereq then what exactly does the 'counting as ...' text really mean? As I understand it, some people are argueing that the text in question actually has no meaning at all, which I just cant agree with.


Must I point out the feat that I posted earlier in this thread?


----------



## Babylon Knight (Sep 11, 2005)

Hm...

I'm staring at my hand/leg, and i'm looking really hard...unless i'm a construct, or i pulled a Lt. Dan and got my limb severed and replaced, I really don't see how I could count it as manufactured weapon. I was born from a creature, something natural, something from the natural world.

I'd pretty much consider it a natural weapon for the purposes of taking INA, so I am in agreement with the source from Andy.

Now, I realize that this isn't really "mechanically sound", but also, it never hurts to use a little common sense either.


----------



## Scion (Sep 11, 2005)

but then monks unarmed strikes count as manufactured weapons as well


----------



## Babylon Knight (Sep 11, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> but then monks unarmed strikes count as manufactured weapons as well





Born beings are not "manufactured" unless you want to get theological and debate in a whole new topic that somehow ties in "The Matrix" and other such sources of different viewpoints.   

As somewhere once said " X are made, not born" Made, being constructed/manufactured.


----------



## IcyCool (Sep 11, 2005)

Babylon Knight said:
			
		

> Now, I realize that this isn't really "mechanically sound", but also, it never hurts to use a little common sense either.




Sadly, that will hurt your arguement here in the rules forum more than anything else.


----------



## Babylon Knight (Sep 11, 2005)

As long as people realize they aren't using much, or any, then I still succeeded.


----------



## Scion (Sep 11, 2005)

Babylon Knight said:
			
		

> Born beings are not "manufactured"




Completely unimportant and irrelevant.

It doesnt matter what their unarmed strikes started as, once they go monk they are treated as natural and manufactured.


Also, common sense has little to no bearing in the rules forum.

Common sense is far from common. What you may find to be nonsensical may be someone elses bread and butter.


----------



## Babylon Knight (Sep 11, 2005)

That is no excuse to have none at all, and just because someone else is going to frown upon it, no matter how few of them there are, doesn't mean you should abandon it either.


Wether or not you take one side in favor of your own rules interpretation ( INA works / INA doesn't work) doesn't mean you discount another viewpoint simply because it doesn't mesh with your agenda.

Case in point: it works both ways in terms of using feats and enchanting one's unarmed strikes.


----------



## Scion (Sep 11, 2005)

Babylon Knight said:
			
		

> That is no excuse to have none at all




The rules are abstractions in most cases, and many simply do not make sense in the real world.

Should we toss out 90% of the rules then?

This is the rules forum. I dont care if casting fireball hurts someones sensibilities and they feel that someone must carry around a handful of napalm in order to cast the spell, that isnt what the rules state needs to be done.

'Common sense' just doesnt make any sense as any sort of standard, I might as well flip a coin.


----------



## Nifft (Sep 11, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> I might as well flip a coin.




*d02 KNOW NO LIMIT!!!1!*

 -- N


----------



## IcyCool (Sep 11, 2005)

Babylon Knight said:
			
		

> That is no excuse to have none at all, and just because someone else is going to frown upon it, no matter how few of them there are, doesn't mean you should abandon it either.
> 
> 
> Wether or not you take one side in favor of your own rules interpretation ( INA works / INA doesn't work) doesn't mean you discount another viewpoint simply because it doesn't mesh with your agenda.




*shrug* If you aren't going to use the RAW to back up your assertions, you're going to be very frustrated here.  That's what this forum is for.  If you want to use "common sense" and "gut feelings" to make rulings, the House Rules forum is right around the corner.


----------



## Babylon Knight (Sep 11, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> The rules are abstractions in most cases, and many simply do not make sense in the real world.
> 
> Should we toss out 90% of the rules then?
> 
> ...




We aren't focusing on 90% of the rules, we're focusing on Monks and their Unarmed Strikes. Nothing mystical or magical about discussing wether or not legs, arms, hands, etc are natural (since birth) or manufactured (smith or factory made)


----------



## IcyCool (Sep 11, 2005)

Nifft said:
			
		

> *d02 KNOW NO LIMIT!!!1!*
> 
> -- N




Heh.


----------



## Babylon Knight (Sep 11, 2005)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> *shrug* If you aren't going to use the RAW to back up your assertions, you're going to be very frustrated here.  That's what this forum is for.  If you want to use "common sense" and "_*gut feelings*_" to make rulings, the House Rules forum is right around the corner.




Gut feelings can be wrong. Common sense isn't. Someone saying 2+2 doesn't equal 4 because it doesn't "gel with them" doesn't make the original fact incorrect.


----------



## IcyCool (Sep 11, 2005)

Babylon Knight said:
			
		

> Gut feelings can be wrong. Common sense isn't. Someone saying 2+2 doesn't equal 4 because it doesn't "gel with them" doesn't make the original fact incorrect.




I think your definition of common sense is a bit different than mine...

Facts are not common sense, they are facts.

In short, common sense is subjective, and so "common sense" != "fact".


----------



## Babylon Knight (Sep 11, 2005)

Facts are not common sense,

but

Common sense is fact.


----------



## IcyCool (Sep 11, 2005)

Babylon Knight said:
			
		

> Facts are not common sense,
> 
> but
> 
> Common sense is fact.




As I said, your definition of common sense is different than mine.  Actually, I think this is the first time I've seen someone equate common sense with fact.


----------



## Babylon Knight (Sep 11, 2005)

The fact is everything can be subjected by opinion and subjectiveness, ultimately. What we do here is rely on a few standards (English language, basic arithmetics, morals-even if these are subjective in any sense, and other things to avoid chaos and confusion)

Else, everything would be "but maybe, if this, oh what about"

You see my point.

It would go to hell, like many topics here go to (oh wait...  )


----------



## reveal (Sep 11, 2005)

_potential religious argument diversion removed_

My point is that your post about facts not being subjective is erroneous. Facts are subjective. People see what they want to see. What is factual to you is another persons theory.


----------



## Scion (Sep 11, 2005)

Babylon Knight said:
			
		

> We aren't focusing on 90% of the rules, we're focusing on Monks and their Unarmed Strikes. Nothing mystical or magical about discussing wether or not legs, arms, hands, etc are natural (since birth) or manufactured (smith or factory made)




The rules state that they are treated as both.

So, they are treated as both.

I dont have any idea what you are trying to argue for here. The ability states it as such. If you believe that the ability does 'not' say it then we have nothing further to discuss.


----------



## Babylon Knight (Sep 11, 2005)

Then why use the term fact? Why not use the term opinion?

Oh, by the way, someone might construe what you wrote as opinion, better not write it.


----------



## Babylon Knight (Sep 11, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> The rules state that they are treated as both.
> 
> So, they are treated as both.
> 
> I dont have any idea what you are trying to argue for here. The ability states it as such. If you believe that the ability does 'not' say it then we have nothing further to discuss.




The focus of this thread was to see if INA worked, as replied to by the official, it does work, so what's the confusion about?


----------



## Scion (Sep 11, 2005)

Babylon Knight said:
			
		

> The focus of this thread was to see if INA worked, as replied to by the official, it does work, so what's the confusion about?




Most of your points have nothing at all to do with that discussion. Therein lies the confusion.

In fact, even the part I just quoted in my previous post has nothing to do with the discussion. At least it isnt related to a useful discussion for this forum.

Rules forum. We like to work with the rules here


----------



## Babylon Knight (Sep 11, 2005)

And i'm stating what others said, i'm not redefining their words, their actions, their motives. Why don't you just copy and paste what the previous people wrote if all you're going to focus on is the rules? Why say something when someone else already said it?

Is this even about wether or not Monks can take INA or if you're "right or wrong", for god sakes man, an official who surely has more in touch access to the rules and others who are even more qualified than him posts this, and it's still something you have to pick-apart for who knows whatever reason.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Sep 11, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> This question will not die until they issue errata.



But they don't consider any of the material in question to have been some form of printing mistake - which is largely what the errata actually is.  What you're dealing with here are differences in interpretation, not mistakes in printing.  Still, eratta are not the ONLY thing that constitute what is "Official" D&D rules.  "RAW", or Rules-As-Written is not the same thing because RAW still includes an interpretive factor.  You and I and WotC may not have the same understanding of what the RAW _MEANS_.  There is a WotC-approved heirarchy of rules which includes the books, errata, the FAQ's and... Sage Advice responses.  You and I may think Sage Advice has the WRONG interpretation many times but it is unquestionably the OFFICIAL interpretation.

What that means is that even if we disagree with Sage Advice and can prove our assertions logically and conclusively it doesn't matter what the RAW actually does say - the official interpretation has been clearly stated to the contrary.  That's why I've said for some time now that Sage Advice responses are TOOLS to use in making up your own mind about how to run things - because they aren't always the "correct" interpretation or even the best one.  The best interpretation is the one YOU make for yourself.



			
				babomb said:
			
		

> A human monk can't take this feat because he doesn't have a natural weapon. However, a lizardfolk monk, because he has claws that are totally unrelated to his unarmed strike, can take this feat and apply it to his unarmed strike damage. Yes?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Q.E.D.  The OFFICIAL answer has been given and cannot be more clear: it doesn't matter how strictly you have been interpreting things, OFFICIALLY INW can be used by Monks on their unarmed attacks.







> 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.



From an "official" standpoint there is nothing more to argue.

Now from a personal standpoint you can still argue all you like.  I myself don't have any problem with this official ruling.  IMO, monks need the boost anyway.

What is fairly clear to me though is that from 3.0 onwards, the monk "unarmed" attacks including Flurry of Blows is a freakin' mess and there's no excuse for it all being as cumbersome and complex as it is.  When added to the fact that a lot of people don't think Monks belong in D&D anyway (or at least not CORE D&D) it doesn't exactly surprise me and I don't have a problem with people who want to be picky and particular about how they interpret and run their abilities (even if I think they're actually being OVERLY picky and particular).


----------



## Babylon Knight (Sep 11, 2005)

Why don't Monks belong in D&D? Because people say they're too "asian" in flavor? That's ridiculous, a Monk could easily be another wandering or foreigner master of fighting with his body.

And yes, I heard that before. I can understand not using it, but don't take it out simply because you dislike it / don't use it.


----------



## Aaron L (Sep 11, 2005)

Monkunarmed attacks a mess?  In 3.5?  Are we reading the same books?  Now, 3.0, yes, yes it was a mess.  3.5, no way.


----------



## TheEvil (Sep 11, 2005)

Aaron L said:
			
		

> Monkunarmed attacks a mess?  In 3.5?  Are we reading the same books?  Now, 3.0, yes, yes it was a mess.  3.5, no way.




I think he is refering to how it meshes with natural and manufactured attacks.


----------



## Aaron L (Sep 11, 2005)

TheEvil said:
			
		

> I think he is refering to how it meshes with natural and manufactured attacks.




Oh.   Hm... well, I still wouldnt consider it a mess.  Spelled out pretty clearly, I thought.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 11, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> The benefit is an effect that improves natural weapons.  The prerequisite is not.
> 
> -Hyp.




I agree.  The same thing goes for taking a prestige class.  You can't enter a PrC UNTIL you meet all the prereqs.

Also, why would a monk's unarmed strike be considered a natural weapon, but a normal human commer would not be?  Makes no sense to me.  If you have an appendage that you can attack with, it should always be considered a natural attack.


----------



## Caliban (Sep 11, 2005)

Babylon Knight said:
			
		

> My account is.
> 
> I'm not.




Then you should know better than to say stupid stuff like  "End of Discussion."  



> What did you add to this discussion? Zilch.




Ah, you feeling feisty?   

I already did this discussion, the last two times it came up.  Nothing has changed.


----------



## Babylon Knight (Sep 11, 2005)

The last time i read rules conclusion wasn't on this board


----------



## Caliban (Sep 11, 2005)

Babylon Knight said:
			
		

> The last time i read rules conclusion wasn't on this board




Could you repeat that in english?


----------



## Babylon Knight (Sep 11, 2005)

Ere ehty csrt u qere  qenr lformerfd itrl'r wr aqwd verth


----------



## Caliban (Sep 11, 2005)

Babylon Knight said:
			
		

> Ere ehty csrt u qere  qenr lformerfd itrl'r wr aqwd verth




Apparently not.


----------



## Babylon Knight (Sep 11, 2005)

Damn, my translation software appears to be glitchy. Can't believe I paid $99.95 for this hunka junk.


----------



## Stalker0 (Sep 12, 2005)

I'd say both sides are using reasonable rules arguments, and I think both sides have a good point.

So, go with the tiebreaker, the most official thing to ever come out of the subject says you can. Well, that's good enough for me.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 12, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> Oh good lord, can't you people ever be satisfied. You get the official answer and you're still nit-picking?




Obviously you've never got an answer from Customer Service before.   "Official" doesn't mean anything when it's the opinion of one guy at WotC.  The Sage is often wrong, and Custserv is usually wrong.  They're both official.  Which means that official answers are often wrong.  Wrong answers are unsatisfying.  Most of us will consider an answer "more or less right" when it's gone through the process of being errataed, but there are still some holdouts for that too.

Generally though, we don't trust official sources that have been proven wrong in the past.


----------



## reveal (Sep 12, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Obviously you've never got an answer from Customer Service before.   "Official" doesn't mean anything when it's the opinion of one guy at WotC.  The Sage is often wrong, and Custserv is usually wrong.  They're both official.  Which means that official answers are often wrong.  Wrong answers are unsatisfying.  Most of us will consider an answer "more or less right" when it's gone through the process of being errataed, but there are still some holdouts for that too.
> 
> Generally though, we don't trust official sources that have been proven wrong in the past.




I think you, and the people who agree with you, will never be satisfied. No matter who answers, or how they answers, you will always find something to nitpick about. "If it's erattad, we'll believe it" is bull. You won't. You'll find some other way "it's wrong."


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 12, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> I think you, and the people who agree with you, will never be satisfied. No matter who answers, or how they answers, you will always find something to nitpick about. "If it's erattad, we'll believe it" is bull. You won't. You'll find some other way "it's wrong."



 And I think you have inner anger and resentment over this issue for some strange reason.  Maybe you should just let go your feelings?


----------



## reveal (Sep 12, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> And I think you have inner anger and resentment over this issue for some strange reason.  Maybe you should just let go your feelings?




No anger or resentment. It's more exasperation. I've noticed a disturbing trend in this forum that people will not take anything at face value, which is fine, but when given the answer to questions, they seem more than ready to find something else wrong. No matter what they are told, they continue to justify their reasons for thinking the answer, official or not, is wrong.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 12, 2005)

You're assumption on our motives is just not true and it's quite frankly insulting.  Did you mean to be or are you actually looking for a response?


----------



## reveal (Sep 12, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> You're assumption on our motives is just not true and it's quite frankly insulting.  Did you mean to be or are you actually looking for a response?




I'm not trying to be insulting. It's something I've noticed that goes on in these forums. People bicker about RAW and "official" answers yet, when presented with answers, there are those that will continue to justify their reasons for not believing it. It just gets tiring after a while because it's becomes a "what's the point in trying to answer the question if they're just going to continue to argue regardless" situation. That's when it becomes exasperating. This was, effectively, the straw that broke the camels back. I've just never said anything before.


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 12, 2005)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> I'd say both sides are using reasonable rules arguments, and I think both sides have a good point.
> 
> So, go with the tiebreaker, the most official thing to ever come out of the subject says you can. Well, that's good enough for me.



 I dunno, I haven't seen a good response on the opposing view (not being able to use the feat) that actually draws from the RAW. But that's me. I would never even have asked this question in the first place. It's never seemed like one of those gray areas in the rules.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 12, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> I've noticed a disturbing trend in this forum that people will not take anything at face value, which is fine, but when given the answer to questions, they seem more than ready to find something else wrong.




Wow, reveal, I thought better of you than this.

It's not that we are "more than ready to find something else wrong," it's that we can read the rules in front of us.

If the primary source says "A," and the Sage says "B," then the Sage is wrong.  If WotC really wants the rules to say "B," they have the power to do that: they can issue errata, like they did, for instance, in the case of the Scout.

However, when the Sage says "B, because the rules say X and Y," and it's plainly obvious that the rules *don't* say X and Y, then what are we to do?

I think the only reasonable course of action is to ignore the Sage's ruling on A-vs.-B.

This is not to say that the Sage is always wrong - he's given some good advice and clarifications (c.f. Practiced Spellcaster) - but that he's wrong often enough, and with incorrect supporting materials often enough, that you should read what he writes with a grain of salt.

However hard you want to make this into some grudge match between us and the Sage, it isn't.  I've got nothing personal against the guy.  I'm just fairly certain that I'm better at this sort of thing - not even mentioning the Smurf - than he is some of the time.

Again, the question here is not whether or not a monk can benefit from the Improved Natural Attack feat; he can.  The question is, "When does a monk qualify to take the Improved Natural Attack feat?"  A human - even a human monk - doesn't meet the prereqs.  A lizardman - even a lizardman non-monk - does.

For the record, I don't think it's at all unbalancing to let monks, human or otherwise, to take and benefit from the feat.  I also know that my opinion on this matter is far from universal, and therefore I don't pretend that my non-RAW opinion should count for much.  If I had written the Q&A for this one, it'd probably read like:



			
				Patryn's Sage Answer said:
			
		

> *Q: Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack (Monster Manual, page 304) to improve his unarmed strike?*
> 
> A: This is really two questions in one.  They are, succinctly, "Can a monk use the INA feat to improve his unarmed strike damage?" and, "When does a monk qualify to take the INA feat?"
> 
> ...


----------



## reveal (Sep 12, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Wow, reveal, I thought better of you than this.
> 
> It's not that we are "more than ready to find something else wrong," it's that we can read the rules in front of us.




Sorry to not live up to your standards.

But that's the thing. That's the patronizing attitude I find as "justification." 

"...it's that we can read the rules in front of us."

That's what I'm talking about. Because you interpret the rules differently, you will never accept the answer unless it meets your interpretation. So you justify your reasons to fit your interpretation. To me, that infers that you will never accept any answer until it does fit.

BTW, I know tone doesn't come over through posts. So, please, no one think I am trying to purposefully insult anyone or that I think you guys are [insert deragatory term here]. This is just something that has bugged me and I decided to speak up about it.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Sep 12, 2005)

I've removed some potentially inflammatory 'religious' comments, but guys - one liner messages, sniping backwards and forwards is a great way to get a thread closed, not a great way to have a discussion.

Remember the rules - don't ascribe motivations to other people, don't generalise about other people or their views.

Cheers


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 12, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> Sorry to not live up to your standards.




Yeah, me, too.



> That's what I'm talking about. Because you interpret the rules differently, you will never accept the answer unless it meets your interpretation.




That's not true.  In fact, I have, in the past, changed my answers to various questions based on the Sage's and, more particularly, Hyp's answers (among others).

I've changed it, however, when they've had the right supporting materials to back up their answers.  The Sage, in this instance (and, unfortunately, others) doesn't have the supporting material to make a convincing case.

If he did, I'd go with it (as I have in, say, the case of Practiced Spellcaster).  He hasn't, so I won't.

Hell, I'll even change my mind to your interpretation if you can back it up.  

EDIT:

To expand, Practiced Spellcaster increases a character's Caster Level in a given class by +4, up to a maximum of his or her hit dice.  So, a Fighter 4 / Wizard 4, with the feat, would have a CL of 8.

The question was, "When do you apply the increase?"

Possible answers are "At level up," "Last," etc.  This is particularly important in the case of the Wild Mage, a character who suffers a permanent -3 penalty to their CL, but increases it by +1d6 whenever they cast a spell.

The Sage's answer was something like, "Whenever it is most beneficial to the character."  In the case of the wild mage, it means you roll their effective CL for a given spell and, if it's less than than their Hit Dice, they get a free CL bump up to their HD or +4.

I have no problems with this particular answer, and have accepted it as "How the rules are meant to work."  Why?  Because the Sage brough the right info to the table.



			
				FAQ said:
			
		

> *Does the bonus to caster level from the Practiced Spellcaster feat (from Complete Arcane and Complete Divine) apply before or after other caster level bonuses (such as those from the Good or Healing domains)?*
> 
> The bonus from Practiced Spellcaster applies whenever it would be most beneficial to the caster. A 4th-level cleric/4thlevel fighter with the Healing domain and Practiced Spellcaster would cast Conjuration (Healing) spells as a 9th-level caster (base caster level 4th, +4 from Practiced Spellcaster, +1 from the Healing domain). A 4th-level cleric/4th-level rogue with Practiced Spellcaster who activates a bead of karma (from a strand of prayer beads) would cast her spells as a 12th-level caster (base 4, +4 from Practiced Spellcaster, +4 from bead of karma).




And ...



			
				FAQ said:
			
		

> *How does Practiced Spellcaster interact with the wild magic class feature of the wild mage (from Complete Arcane)?*
> 
> The –3 penalty and +1d6 bonus to the wild mage’s caster level are applied as a single step in the process of determining the wild mage’s caster level. Since Practiced Spellcaster’s bonus is always applied when it is most beneficial to the character (see previous answer), a wild mage with Practiced Spellcaster would typically apply the wild magic class feature first (subtracting 3 and adding 1d6 to her caster level) and then add the Practiced Spellcaster benefit, up to a maximum value equal to her character level.
> 
> ...


----------



## reveal (Sep 12, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Hell, I'll even change my mind to your interpretation if you can back it up.




I've tried in the past on this topic and it obviously didn't work.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 12, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> That's what I'm talking about. Because you interpret the rules differently, you will never accept the answer unless it meets your interpretation. So you justify your reasons to fit your interpretation. To me, that infers that you will never accept any answer until it does fit.



 That is absolutely not true and you still misjudge people's motives.  If what you say were true, then those of us who seemingly fit your categorization would never develop any houserules.  It's just that we understand the importance of knowing all of the RAW before deciding on a houserule and whether or not to incorporate it.  As noted above, Patryn (is he being patrynizing? ba-dum-bum) has said that it's not unbalancing to allow it as a houserule.  Personally, I disagree.  Sure, it's on par with weapon specialization but I like to keep that for fighters, not other classes, so I'd disallow this feat to be taken for unarmed strikes, even for lizardmen (though I recognize the latter as a houserule).  In fact, I'd go so far as to (houserule) restrict the feat to be used with the natural weapon that was used to qualify for the feat.

IMO, what the Sage (and anyone at WotC answering rules questions) should do is forward any decision like this to the errata-folk.  They did this for righteous might, why not for all of the questions where it's not clear?  For crying out loud, WotC, make it clear.


----------



## reveal (Sep 12, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> That is absolutely not true and you still misjudge people's motives.  If what you say were true, then those of us who seemingly fit your categorization would never develop any houserules.  It's just that we understand the importance of knowing all of the RAW before deciding on a houserule and whether or not to incorporate it.  As noted above, Patryn (is he being patrynizing? ba-dum-bum) has said that it's not unbalancing to allow it as a houserule.  Personally, I disagree.  Sure, it's on par with weapon specialization but I like to keep that for fighters, not other classes, so I'd disallow this feat to be taken for unarmed strikes, even for lizardmen (though I recognize the latter as a houserule).  In fact, I'd go so far as to (houserule) restrict the feat to be used with the natural weapon that was used to qualify for the feat.
> 
> IMO, what the Sage (and anyone at WotC answering rules questions) should do is forward any decision like this to the errata-folk.  They did this for righteous might, why not for all of the questions where it's not clear?  For crying out loud, WotC, make it clear.




The ruling by the Sage, to me, does fit the RAW. That's my interpretation. Yours is not the same. That's fine with me. But people quote the RAW as the truth not to be questioned when, in some cases, the RAW is vague and open to interpretation. This is one of those times.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 12, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> This is one of those times.




And that's the question, isn't it?

I don't believe this is one of those times.  It's pretty clearly laid out that a monk's unarmed strike isn't actually a natural weapon - if it was, he couldn't gain multiple attacks per round with it from a high BAB.

If you have a spell or effect that says, "You may do X to a natural weapon," then you may do X to a monk's unarmed strike.

You have to get that spell or effect first, however.


----------



## reveal (Sep 12, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> And that's the question, isn't it?
> 
> I don't believe this is one of those times.  It's pretty clearly laid out that a monk's unarmed strike isn't actually a natural weapon - if it was, he couldn't gain multiple attacks per round with it from a high BAB.
> 
> ...




As I've said before, it says that's "treated like a natural weapon" which means it does qualify as a natural weapon in this instance. That's the way I read it.


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 12, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> You have to get that spell or effect first, however.




Feats are effects.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 12, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Feats are effects.




No, the benefit line of a feat is an effect.

A prerequisite is not an effect.


----------



## Scion (Sep 12, 2005)

which is of course the old arguement, but I disagree with your conclusion entirely.

The prereq only checks to see if you qualify for gaining the feat. The feat itself 'does' improve a natural weapon so, for purposes of that feat, the monk has a natural weapon. Which means that he qualifies.

I know some people are really attatched to the other arguement, but to me that position simply doesnt make any sense at all.

Plus, it comes down to the part of the monks description either meaning something or being completely wasted space. I prefer to believe that it is there for a reason. To those that believe that it is wasted space (as in, it doesnt mean anything) why do you feel that way?


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 12, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> No, the benefit line of a feat is an effect.
> 
> A prerequisite is not an effect.



 Umm, I never said the prereq was an effect. I said feats are effects. They are. Saying the benefit line of a feat is an effect is saying the exact same thing I am. If a feat increases natuaral weapon damage die, that increase is an effect. If a monk's unarmed strike "is treated as ... a natural weapon for the purpose of spells *and effects* that enhance or improve [it]" and a feat is an effect, then a feat that effects natural weapons can effect a Monk.

Can people really not see that? It's pretty basic English.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 12, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Umm, I never said the prereq was an effect. I said feats are effects. They are. Saying the benefit line of a feat is an effect is saying the exact same thing I am.



 No, it's not.  You're saying that because the monk qualifies for the benefit (the effect), then he qualifies for the feat.  But, we're saying the monk qualifies for the benefit (i.e. can benefit from the feat), but he does not qualify for the feat due to the prerequisite.

I explained this all way back in post #23.  And, to use your own quote, "Can people really not see that? It's pretty basic English."


----------



## Scion (Sep 12, 2005)

So you are saying that even though monks weapons count as natural weapons they do not count as natural weapons?

I think I see a flaw in your logic 

Feats are all inclusive packages, you are assuming that there are multiple completely autonomous parts floating around. I see no support for that position anywhere.


----------



## turbo (Sep 12, 2005)

> we're saying the monk qualifies for the benefit (i.e. can benefit from the feat), but he does not qualify for the feat due to the prerequisite.




What is a feat but the benefit it provides?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 12, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> Plus, it comes down to the part of the monks description either meaning something or being completely wasted space. I prefer to believe that it is there for a reason. To those that believe that it is wasted space (as in, it doesnt mean anything) why do you feel that way?




That's completely not what I'm arguing.

A monk's unarmed strike can benefit from spells and effects that improve natural or manufactured weapons.  Accordingly, you can hit a monk with either Magic Fang or Magic Weapon.

It is not wasted text.  Similarly, it does not apply to this situation.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 12, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> As written - yup.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




If I understand this correctly, Hyp, you're saying that the monk does not meet the prerequisite but could apply the feat to their attacks if they did - like for example had an unrelated natural attack form.

This, it seems to me, is really tortured logic.  If the feat grants an effect, then, for the purposes of the effect the feat grants, the monk's attack is a natural weapon, which therefore means he qualifies as having a natural weapon for the purpose of taking this feat. 

It seems rather tortured logic to say that a monk does not meet the prerequisite of having a natural weapon but that the feat grants an affect which would qualify as making the monk's unarmed atack to be treated as a natural weapon.  It either is treated as a natural weapon for this feat or it is not.

I think Andy Collins confirmed that this feat can be used by  monk's because it was obvious to him that it did so - which may also be why he did not issue some long, tortured reasoning.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 12, 2005)

turbo said:
			
		

> What is a feat but the benefit it provides?




A feat is a set of requirements (Prerequisites), an effect (Benefit), what happens when you don't have the feat (Normal), and any additional rules (Special).

A feat is not an effect, though many feats *have* effects.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 12, 2005)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> If the feat grants an effect, then, for the purposes of the effect the feat grants, the monk's attack is a natural weapon, which therefore means he qualifies as having a natural weapon for the purpose of taking this feat.




Yes, no.


----------



## reveal (Sep 12, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> A feat is a set of requirements (Prerequisites), an effect (Benefit), what happens when you don't have the feat (Normal), and any additional rules (Special).
> 
> A feat is not an effect, though many feats *have* effects.




Does the INA feat grant a benefit to the monk's unarmed strike?

If it does, then doesn't the monk meet the requirement for said feat because, in order for the feat to even benefit the monk, the unarmed strike, in this instance, must be considered a natural weapon?


----------



## turbo (Sep 12, 2005)

> A feat is a set of requirements (Prerequisites), an effect (Benefit), what happens when you don't have the feat (Normal), and any additional rules (Special).




You just made that up!




> Nietzsche takes as an example the sentence "lightning flashes." Grammar would lead us to conclude that there is a subject--"lightning"--and a predicate--"flashes." But what is the lightning if not the flash?


----------



## Stalker0 (Sep 12, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Wow, reveal, I thought better of you than this.
> 
> It's not that we are "more than ready to find something else wrong," it's that we can read the rules in front of us.
> 
> ...




Thing is this isn't one of those situations where the sage says something, Hyp immediately shows why he's wrong, and we all nod our heads and say the sage is blatantely wrong.

There's a ton of people who are saying that the sage ruling fits with their interpretation of the rules.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 12, 2005)

turbo said:
			
		

> You just made that up!



 No, he didn't.  It's in the SRD.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 12, 2005)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> There's a ton of people who are saying that the sage ruling fits with their interpretation of the rules.



 And that's fine.  Use that ruling in your game.  But, if you want to claim the Sage as a method of "QED" like reveal tried in the first post, you'd be wrong.


----------



## turbo (Sep 12, 2005)

> No, he didn't. It's in the SRD.




The SRD says the effect of a feat is this so-called benefit and that the word 'effect' does not ever mean "feat"?


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 12, 2005)

You all have officially made my head explode. I don't think I've ever seen people so badly want something to not work when it so clearly does.

Goes to show, though, that Wizards really needs to learn how to write more clearly.


----------



## reveal (Sep 12, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> And that's fine.  Use that ruling in your game.  But, if you want to claim the Sage as a method of "QED" like reveal tried in the first post, you'd be wrong.




Actually, I was just pointing out that, whether you agreed with it or not, the official answer is that the monk can take it.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 12, 2005)

I find this discussion to be a fascinating one. For those of you who do not believe that the monk's attack should be able to use improved natural attack I have two quick questions:

1. What kind of an attack does a monk have?

2. How would a monk's attack have to be worded to make it apply to Improved Natural Attack?

Just Curious,

--Steve


----------



## Nail (Sep 12, 2005)

Say, Turbo: Where does the N. example come from?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 12, 2005)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Thing is this isn't one of those situations where the sage says something, Hyp immediately shows why he's wrong, and we all nod our heads and say the sage is blatantely wrong.




Except Hyp has said the Sage is wrong.

I, independently, agree with him.

Some people still disagree with Hyp and I.  They're allowed to, of course, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to change my opinion.


----------



## turbo (Sep 12, 2005)

Genealogy of Morals, Section 13--but the quote I used comes from a FAQ!


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 12, 2005)

SteveC said:
			
		

> 1. What kind of an attack does a monk have?




A monk uses unarmed strikes, which follow the rules for manufactured, not natural, weapons (specifically, as regards two-weapon fighting and the availability of iterative attacks).



> 2. How would a monk's attack have to be worded to make it apply to Improved Natural Attack?




In order for a human monk to qualify for INA, humans as a race would need to have a natural weapon - they'd need either a bite, a claw, a slam, etc., or the unarmed strike would need to be designated as a natural weapon.

If unarmed strike was a natural weapon, then humans would always threaten inside their reach, would generally not provoke AoOs when making unarmed attacks, and, among other things, wouldn't need the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.  Moreover, they could freely mix their unarmed strike with manufactured weapons in a full attack action (even when using sword-n'-board, TWF, or two-handed weapons), and would not benefit from iterative attacks from high BAB with their natural weapon.

Unarmed strikes are not natural weapons, however.  You mix them with other weapons using the TWF rules, you do not natively threaten with them, they do nonlethal damage as a default, and you may gain iterative attacks with them via high BAB.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 12, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> Actually, I was just pointing out that, whether you agreed with it or not, the official answer is that the monk can take it.



 But you also worded it such that the discussion was over, in the first post no less!   



			
				SteveC said:
			
		

> 1. What kind of an attack does a monk have?



 Most likely, you are referring to the unarmed strike.



			
				SteveC said:
			
		

> 2. How would a monk's attack have to be worded to make it apply to Improved Natural Attack?



 It shouldn't be reworded.  However, should you decide that that is the best course of action, it would have to be stated along the lines of "the monk's unarmed strike is a natural weapon, but follows the iterative attack routine for high BAB unlike all other natural weapons."  But, then that would be even more confusing.  So, the better idea would be to reword the feat should you choose to allow it.


----------



## turbo (Sep 12, 2005)

Or the word 'effect' could be defined more clearly.

Or at all.


----------



## Pinotage (Sep 12, 2005)

This is a fascinating discussion. Took me a while to figure out exactly what the issues were, but I think I understand now. I'm still a big supporter of intent in game design, and not rules-lawyering or RAW addiction. My only question is - if you interpret the core rules as Hyp and Patryn do, do you really think the game designers intended this kind of literal nitpicking? While I see both sides of the argument, I don't believe it was ever the intent. If it was, why would it be that badly worded? Surely if it was the intention, the Sage would've ruled otherwise? Yes? No? Then again, I can argue intent all I like, so I'll just scurry away and go and have my dinner...   

Pinotage


----------



## Pinotage (Sep 12, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> In order for a human monk to qualify for INA, humans as a race would need to have a natural weapon - they'd need either a bite, a claw, a slam, etc., or the unarmed strike would need to be designated as a natural weapon.




Not necessarily. Monks as a class could grant the Improved Unarmed Strike feat which would allow them to consider their unarmed strikes as natural weapons. Why change human when you can change Monk?

Pinotage


----------



## Nail (Sep 12, 2005)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> I'm still a big supporter of intent in game design, ...



And, I hope, you readily admit that your interpretation of the game designers intent is far less reliable than a RAW interp.

After all: there are lots of ways to see "intent"........


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 12, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Unarmed strikes are not natural weapons, however.




No, they're not. But for the purposes of spell and effects that work on natural weapons (i.e. the feat we're talking about), the Monk's unarmed strike is considered a natural weapon. That's called satisfying a prerequisite. Wizards does this in many instances -- they give a class an ability that mimicks another for the purpose of satisfying a prereq. Such is the case here. In fact, this is probably one of the more clearly spelled out cases of such a prereq being granted to a class when it normally wouldn't have the requisite ability.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 12, 2005)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> My only question is - if you interpret the core rules as Hyp and Patryn do, do you really think the game designers intended this kind of literal nitpicking?




Probably.  I believe the location of the feat tells you all you need to know about the designers' intent - it's found in the Monster Manual, not the PHB.

The attempts to apply it to monks are likely, if we are arguing intent, unexpected side effects.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 12, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> But for the purposes of spell and effects that work on natural weapons (i.e. the feat we're talking about), the Monk's unarmed strike is considered a natural weapon. That's called satisfying a prerequisite.




That's a nonsequitor, however.

The *effect* is that a natural weapon's damage dice is increased by one step.  This is an effect that improves a natural weapon, and therefore may be applied to a monk's unarmed strike.

"Has a natural weapon" is *not* an effect.

Is "Combat Expertise" an effect?  Or is "a -1 to attack rolls and a +1 Dodge bonus to AC" an effect?


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 12, 2005)

I like to look at the RAW as a guide.  However, the rules were written by people, and just as most of our board members might have written a post and had it been misinterpreted, perhaps sometimes the intent of the rules are difficult to understand.  I'm seeing this as one of those cases.  The RAW contradicts itself, apparently.

While unarmed humans do not threaten spaces within reach, an unarmed monk does.  It looks to me, then, that a monk has learned to change her unarmed attack to a "natural attack", whatever that is truly intended to mean.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 12, 2005)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> While unarmed humans do not threaten spaces within reach, an unarmed monk does.  It looks to me, then, that a monk has learned to change her unarmed attack to a "natural attack", whatever that is truly intended to mean.




An unarmed monk threatens because the unarmed monk has the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.  Nothing more, nothing less.

And *if* you wish to believe that the unarmed attack has become a natural attack, there are quite a few ramifications of that decision:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> *Natural Weapons:* Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature. A creature making a melee attack with a natural weapon is considered armed and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Likewise, it threatens any space it can reach. Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons. The number of attacks a creature can make with its natural weapons depends on the type of the attack—generally, a creature can make one bite attack, one attack per claw or tentacle, one gore attack, one sting attack, or one slam attack (although Large creatures with arms or arm-like limbs can make a slam attack with each arm). Refer to the individual monster descriptions.
> 
> Unless otherwise noted, a natural weapon threatens a critical hit on a natural attack roll of 20.
> 
> ...


----------



## turbo (Sep 12, 2005)

> The effect is that a natural weapon's damage dice is increased by one step.




The effect is the feat you get from gaining a level (or, rarely, possessing a magic item):  feats are effects of leveling up; feats are not little engines that do things; a gain in level has effects, of which feats are one.


----------



## Babylon Knight (Sep 12, 2005)

^ Good statement.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 12, 2005)

So it looks like the only "ramifications" to take in account are 1) that the exact appendage that the human monk uses is not specified, and 2) a monk receives iterative attacks from a high BAB.  For 1) we know that one time it can be a kick, and the next it can be a hand.  The type of damage seems to always be bludgeoning damage.  For 2) perhaps the monk is an exception.

However, a monk can benefit from a magic fang spell, which specifies that it improves a natural attack.  This already sets the monk up as an exception in the natural attack hierarchy.  Did I say before that sometimes the rules are self-contradictory?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 12, 2005)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> So it looks like the only "ramifications" to take in account are 1) that the exact appendage that the human monk uses is not specified, and 2) a monk receives iterative attacks from a high BAB.




... and the fact that, if it were a natural weapon, the monk wouldn't need Improved Unarmed Strike, and the interaction of a monk attacking with monk or non-monk weapons in conjunction with unarmed strikes, and the interaction of monk attacks with the TWF rules more generally, among others.

For 1, it's actually spelled out what appendages a monk uses.  It's in the Combat section:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:




Etc.  That's the reason a monk can wield a longspear and still attack with his unarmed strike as an light off-hand weapon.

"Light off-hand weapon" is a meaningless distinction when applied to natural weapons, which are either primary or secondary.



> For 2) perhaps the monk is an exception.




Which is called out where, exactly?

There are no exceptions.  Unarmed strikes, even monk unarmed strikes, are not natural weapons.



> However, a monk can benefit from a magic fang spell, which specifies that it improves a natural attack.  This already sets the monk up as an exception in the natural attack hierarchy.  Did I say before that sometimes the rules are self-contradictory?




They aren't, because the monk class description clearly points out the exception involved: even though it isn't a natural weapon, a monk's unarmed strike may benefit from spells and effects that normally affect manufactured or natural weapons.  Magic Fang is one of those spells.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 12, 2005)

turbo said:
			
		

> The effect is the feat you get from gaining a level (or, rarely, possessing a magic item):  feats are effects of leveling up; feats are not little engines that do things; a gain in level has effects, of which feats are one.




In which case I'll just counter that the ability to gain a feat is the effect of gaining levels.  A particular feat is therefore not an effect of leveling.


----------



## turbo (Sep 12, 2005)

> In which case I'll just counter that the ability to gain a feat is the effect of gaining levels. A particular feat is therefore not an effect of leveling




A particular feat still amounts to a particular set of aspects that a character _has_, aspects taken as a result of the opening of a feat slot, and this still establishes a particular feat as the effect of something else (the act of taking that feat), all of which means that the point remains the same:  it is nowhere written that a feat has an effect defined as its benefit (or its benefit defined as an effect!).


----------



## Pinotage (Sep 12, 2005)

Nail said:
			
		

> And, I hope, you readily admit that your interpretation of the game designers intent is far less reliable than a RAW interp.
> 
> After all: there are lots of ways to see "intent"........




Well, in the majority of cases I think intent and RAW boil down to the same thing, so I don't think there's anything to admit. Where the RAW is based on literal nitpicking, then I don't think it's any different from an opinion, and as such a discusion on intent is as valid. There are lots of ways to see intent, yes, and RAW literal nitpicking is one of them.   

Hey, look, I made it to level 2. Huh, don't really feel any different.

Pinotage


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 12, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> ... and the fact that, if it were a natural weapon, the monk wouldn't need Improved Unarmed Strike, and the interaction of a monk attacking with monk or non-monk weapons in conjunction with unarmed strikes, and the interaction of monk attacks with the TWF rules more generally, among others.
> 
> For 1, it's actually spelled out what appendages a monk uses.  It's in the Combat section:
> 
> ...




Hmmm.  You think it's "a meaningless distinction", and I think its intent is to defuse rules lawyers who want to say, "You can't flurry!  You're holding a weapon!"  That gives it a meaning, so it's a meaningful distinction.





> Which is called out where, exactly?




In the attack table for the monk that gives the iterative attacks.  [/quote]



> There are no exceptions.  Unarmed strikes, even monk unarmed strikes, are not natural weapons.




Yup.  We disagree.




> They aren't, because the monk class description clearly points out the exception involved: even though it isn't a natural weapon, a monk's unarmed strike may benefit from spells and effects that normally affect manufactured or natural weapons.  Magic Fang is one of those spells.




And Improved Natural Attack is apparently one of those effects.  I'm only seeking a rationale behind.  I know some people don't like that here.  *shrug*


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 12, 2005)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> Patryn of Elvenshae said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




This right here is the crux of the disagreement. I still can't see how INA could not be considered one of those effects that can be gained. That seems the very purpose for the language used. Oh well. Probably not even worth arguing about anymore. I'll just still with the rules and allow it...


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 12, 2005)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> Hmmm.  You think it's "a meaningless distinction", and I think its intent is to defuse rules lawyers who want to say, "You can't flurry!  You're holding a weapon!"  That gives it a meaning, so it's a meaningful distinction.




[EDIT: And, besides, there's nothing that says that you can't use Flurry while you're holding a non-monk weapon.  It just says that you can't use it as part of your Flurry.]

Could you explain that a bit more?  It doesn't make sense.  I'll explain what I'm talking about, and then hopefully we can clear this up.

A light off-hand weapon has a particular set of penalties when used via the Two-Weapon Fighting rules.  Specifically, it reduces your attack penalties on both your main and off-hand attacks when you use the TWF rules to gain more attacks per round in a full attack action.

The two-weapon fighting rules do not apply to natural weapons.  Natural weapons are either primary (in which case they have no AB penalty and apply the full strength bonus to damage rolls) or secondary (in which case they have a -5 AB penalty and apply half the strength bonus to damage rolls).  You may attack once and only once with every natural weapon you have in a full attack action.  Additionally, you may mix Manufactured Weapons and natural weapons in a full attack.  If you do so, your manufactured weapons take no penalties, but all your natural weapons are treated as secondary.  Whether or not they are considered light is immaterial.  There is no such thing as an "off-hand" natural attack.



> In the attack table for the monk that gives the iterative attacks.




Ah - you're referring to the non-weapon specific BAB table?  As in, the general case which is overriden by the specific?  The general rule is that when attacking, you may gain more than one attack in a full attack action when you have a high enough BAB.  The specific case is that, with a specific subset of weapons (natural weapons, but also things like crossbows and slings) you cannot.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 12, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> This right here is the crux of the disagreement. I still can't see how INA could not be considered one of those effects that can be gained. That seems the very purpose for the language used. Oh well. Probably not even worth arguing about anymore. I'll just still with the rules and allow it...



 It's okay to allow it.  I don't think this discussion anymore is about convincing anyone whether to allow it or not. 

That said, I believe that the very purpose for the language used was for magical effects, not feats.  If they meant feats then it would not likely have been put in the MM.  But, magical effects from items or Su/Sp abilities would definitely apply and to me at least seems like the most likely intent.  In fact, and I don't really mean this in a bad way, when I first saw someone think to use INA for an unarmed strike (only for a monk, realize), I thought "I can't believe people would search so hard for a loophole that doesn't exist."  I mean, if you allow INA to work for monks, you should let it work for any unarmed strikes at all.  Just reword the INA feat and I doubt it would even be a big deal balance-wise.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 12, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> I think you, and the people who agree with you, will never be satisfied. No matter who answers, or how they answers, you will always find something to nitpick about. "If it's erattad, we'll believe it" is bull. You won't. You'll find some other way "it's wrong."




Again, I suspect you've never dealt with Customer Service.  Lots of stories floating around here, some mine, about contacting CustServ multiple times and getting multiple, mutually-contradicting answers.

If A and B are exclusive, and both are official, it means that officially, nobody knows what they're talking about.

And yeah, I do rely on errata.  Errata means that some people sat down and figured out what the rules ought to have said in the first place, rather than giving an off-the-cuff interpretation like the Sage or CustServ does.  A little thought goes a long way in making "official" mean "reliable".


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 12, 2005)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> This is a fascinating discussion. Took me a while to figure out exactly what the issues were, but I think I understand now. I'm still a big supporter of intent in game design, and not rules-lawyering or RAW addiction. My only question is - if you interpret the core rules as Hyp and Patryn do, do you really think the game designers intended this kind of literal nitpicking? While I see both sides of the argument, I don't believe it was ever the intent. If it was, why would it be that badly worded? Surely if it was the intention, the Sage would've ruled otherwise? Yes? No? Then again, I can argue intent all I like, so I'll just scurry away and go and have my dinner...
> 
> Pinotage




I think that the intent is nonexistent here.  I think that they overlooked monk unarmed attacks when they wrote the feat, and so didn't have an opinion either way on the subject.  We could hypothesize about "if they had remembered monk unarmed strikes, they would have said...", but that's getting pretty far away from the RAW.  Intent might fly for certain rules interpretations, but hypothetical intent?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 12, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> ... and the fact that, if it were a natural weapon, the monk wouldn't need Improved Unarmed Strike, and the interaction of a monk attacking with monk or non-monk weapons in conjunction with unarmed strikes, and the interaction of monk attacks with the TWF rules more generally, among others.
> 
> For 1, it's actually spelled out what appendages a monk uses.  It's in the Combat section:
> 
> ...




Interestingly, if _magic fang's_ Target line read "living creature with a natural weapon touched" instead of "living creature touched," a human monk would no longer be a valid target for the spell, because he does not have a natural weapon despite being able to benefit from effects that affect natural weapons.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 12, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Interestingly, if _magic fang's_ Target line read "living creature with a natural weapon touched" instead of "living creature touched," a human monk would no longer be a valid target for the spell, because he does not have a natural weapon despite being able to benefit from effects that affect natural weapons.




Agreed.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 13, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> which is of course the old arguement, but I disagree with your conclusion entirely.
> 
> The prereq only checks to see if you qualify for gaining the feat. The feat itself 'does' improve a natural weapon so, for purposes of that feat, the monk has a natural weapon. Which means that he qualifies.
> 
> ...




But isn't this the same as when qualifying for a Prestige Class?  If I need 10 Ranks in Hide to gain the first level of Shadowdancer, the soonest my Rogue would qualify is level 7.  Which means at level 8 I can take my first level in ShadowDancer.  I can't say, "Well, if I take 1 level in Shadowdancer at level 7, I can put my Hide rank up to 10 via Shadowdancer".  You have to qualify before you can take something with prereqs.


----------



## Scion (Sep 13, 2005)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> But isn't this the same as when qualifying for a Prestige Class?  If I need 10 Ranks in Hide to gain the first level of Shadowdancer, the soonest my Rogue would qualify is level 7.  Which means at level 8 I can take my first level in ShadowDancer.  I can't say, "Well, if I take 1 level in Shadowdancer at level 7, I can put my Hide rank up to 10 via Shadowdancer".  You have to qualify before you can take something with prereqs.




If you were level 5 and had 8 ranks in hide but you had a class feature that said, 'treat your ranks in hide as though they were 2 higher for all purposes' then would you allow the person to enter when they hit level 6?

At that point it would be exactly the same. He has a class ability which modifies something that would normally not be allowed.

In the monks case he has a natural weapon, as far as certain things are concerned. Such as spells and feats.




			
				Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> That's completely not what I'm arguing.
> 
> A monk's unarmed strike can benefit from spells and effects that improve natural or manufactured weapons. Accordingly, you can hit a monk with either Magic Fang or Magic Weapon.
> 
> It is not wasted text. Similarly, it does not apply to this situation.




Then what exactly qualifies as 'effects' in the d&d game? Give me a list of a few if feats do not count.

Improved natural weapon is an effect that improves a natural weapon. In order to take it you have to have something that qualifies as being a natural weapon. Since the feat will improve a natural weapon then the monks ability counts as being one. Simple as that.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 13, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> If you were level 5 and had 8 ranks in hide but you had a class feature that said, 'treat your ranks in hide as though they were 2 higher for all purposes' then would you allow the person to enter when they hit level 6?




It doesn't say "for all purposes."  If it did, we wouldn't be having this discussion.



> Improved natural weapon is an effect that improves a natural weapon.



Or...it's a feat that has the effect of improving a natural weapon.

The feat is where you get the effect from.  The effect comes from the feat.  The effect of a feat could be suppressed without you losing the feat.  The feat and its effect are two different things.


----------



## Scion (Sep 13, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> It doesn't say "for all purposes."  If it did, we wouldn't be having this discussion.




My made up class feature certainly says, 'for all purposes'. Hence my example.

My example was about a similar ability which would allow for things to happen that normally would not happen. Not that it had exactly the same wording.

Come on dr. awkward


----------



## Scion (Sep 13, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> The feat and its effect are two different things.




I disagree. The effect 'is' the feat. It is what it does and that is what it is.

If you have weapon focus in a weapon then you get a +1, weapon focus 'is' the +1, that is what it does, that is what it is.

I have seen no rules to support the 'seperate' condition.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 13, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> My made up class feature certainly says, 'for all purposes'. Hence my example.
> 
> My example was about a similar ability which would allow for things to happen that normally would not happen. Not that it had exactly the same wording.
> 
> Come on dr. awkward




So, you're using the example of a made-up class feature that is wholly unlike the issue we're discussing in this thread in order to illustrate...something?

In your example, the character would theoretically satisfy the prerequisites of the PrC, and be able to enter it early.  However, that's kind of irrelevent.  Of course there are rules that supercede other rules.  These are called out specifically.  The monk's unarmed strike counting as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for certain purposes is one of them.

RigaMortus2 was talking about the priority of qualifying for something.  You can't satisfy a prerequisite with something you get only once you satisfy the prerequisite.  So you can't use the Shadowdancer level to buy that extra couple of levels of hide.  You turn around and give an example of a situation in which the would-be Shadowdancer already qualifies by virtue of an ability.  So you can see how I might read you as attempting to suggest with your post how the monk already qualifies for the Improved Natural Attack feat due to his class abilities, considering that it's what the thread is about.  And no doubt it is now clear why I also read you as suggesting by analogy that the monks' unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon "for all purposes".  Because that's what the thread is about, see?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 13, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> I disagree. The effect 'is' the feat. It is what it does and that is what it is.
> 
> If you have weapon focus in a weapon then you get a +1, weapon focus 'is' the +1, that is what it does, that is what it is.
> 
> I have seen no rules to support the 'seperate' condition.




If you have a feat that grants you a supernatural ability, and you step into an antimagic field, do you still have the feat?


----------



## Scion (Sep 13, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> So, you're using the example of a made-up class feature that is wholly unlike the issue we're discussing in this thread in order to illustrate...something?




No, it is similar in end effect. But the 'effect' wording wouldnt work for that particular example.

The example I gave is of a character who has an ability that lets him qualify for getting what the other poster was talking about. It coincides directly with the monks ability allowing him to take the feat. Or in the example the class. Which normally would not be allowed.



			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> RigaMortus2 was talking about the priority of qualifying for something.




Which is of course against the rules. Hence the comment I made. It put the example in the proper context.



			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> If you have a feat that grants you a supernatural ability, and you step into an antimagic field, do you still have the feat?




If you have spells and step into an antimagic field do they go away?

If you have a feat that grants a supernatural ability then you still have the feat, its effect is merely being supressed by the field. As in, another rule is stepping in and taking charge.

But of course there is no other rule stepping in to prevent the monk, his 'own' rule is already stepping in to change something else.


----------



## jeffhartsell (Sep 13, 2005)

It's clear to me that a monk can take the feat. YMMV. IMO a feat is an effect.  I understand the arguement that feats HAVE effects but are not effects unto themselves.

Relevant text for reference...

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.

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.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 13, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> If you have a feat that grants a supernatural ability then you still have the feat, its effect is merely being supressed by the field. As in, another rule is stepping in and taking charge.




So if there were a Supernatural Attack feat that granted a Su ability that improved the damage for a natural attack form by one die type, and a creature with this feat stepped into an AMF, then he would still have the feat, but the effect of that feat would be suppressed by the field?

-Hyp.


----------



## Pinotage (Sep 13, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Probably.  I believe the location of the feat tells you all you need to know about the designers' intent - it's found in the Monster Manual, not the PHB.
> 
> The attempts to apply it to monks are likely, if we are arguing intent, unexpected side effects.




So all the feats in the Player's Handbook are for players only?  

I don't think location has anything to do with it. It's more likely that it's merely a feat that in the majority of cases is going to apply to monsters since they're going to have far more natural attacks than PCs or NPCs with Improved Unarmed Strike.

Pinotage


----------



## Pinotage (Sep 13, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I think that the intent is nonexistent here.  I think that they overlooked monk unarmed attacks when they wrote the feat, and so didn't have an opinion either way on the subject.  We could hypothesize about "if they had remembered monk unarmed strikes, they would have said...", but that's getting pretty far away from the RAW.  Intent might fly for certain rules interpretations, but hypothetical intent?




So the fact that you're speculating that they overlooked monk attacks while writing the feat does not constitute an intepretation of intent on your part? Like I said in another post, RAW interpretation _is_ an interpretation of intent, just a literal one - doesn't make it any more or less valid than any other interpretation.

Pinotage


----------



## turbo (Sep 13, 2005)

> So if there were a Supernatural Attack feat that granted a Su ability that improved the damage for a natural attack form by one die type, and a creature with this feat stepped into an AMF, then he would still have the feat, but the effect of that feat would be suppressed by the field?




You beg the question here:  'a feat that grants'--the feat is the ability, and the ability has been suppressed, but the ability remains an effect granted by leveling up.


----------



## turbo (Sep 13, 2005)

There is, of course, ambiguity from the way the text refers to feats, in that sometimes it reads 'this feat gives...' while sometimes it reads 'taking this feat grants', but it doesn't matter:  the interpretive paradigm that separates a feat from its effect could just as easily be used to deny the monk the benefits of, not spells, but the casting of them ("oh sure; if the _spell_ gave a bonus to a weapon, then fine, fine, your monk's attack would count for it...unfortunately my friend, it's the _casting_ of the spell that grants the bonus...tough luck!").


----------



## Scion (Sep 13, 2005)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> So if there were a Supernatural Attack feat that granted a Su ability that improved the damage for a natural attack form by one die type, and a creature with this feat stepped into an AMF, then he would still have the feat, but the effect of that feat would be suppressed by the field?




That does seem to be how antimagic field reads, yes. It suppresses magical effects but the actual things are still there 'somewhere'. Even summoned creatures wink out but their durations continue to run out.

Psionic feats are supernatural. Lets see what they have to say:



			
				srd said:
			
		

> Because psionic feats are supernatural abilities—a departure from the general rule that feats do not grant supernatural abilities—they cannot be disrupted in combat (as powers can be) and generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity (except as noted in their descriptions). Supernatural abilities are not subject to power resistance and cannot be dispelled; however, they do not function in areas where psionics is suppressed, such as a null psionics field. Leaving such an area immediately allows psionic feats to be used.




While in that area they are suppressed and unable to be used. That does not mean that they are gone. Just like if you have power attack but no bab it doesnt mean it is gone, you simply cannot use it currently.


The feat is the effect and is an effect, but there are times when you cannot use it for some reason.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 13, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> That does seem to be how antimagic field reads, yes. It suppresses magical effects but the actual things are still there 'somewhere'. Even summoned creatures wink out but their durations continue to run out.




Which means, therefore, that the feat and its effect are two different things.  The latter is suppressed in an antimagic field, but the former is not.  You don't lose the feat, but the effect is not there.  You regain the effect if you leave the field, but your having the feat is constant throughout, in the same way that you get to keep Power Attack but not use it if your Strength is suddenly reduced to 6.


----------



## Scion (Sep 13, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Which means, therefore, that the feat and its effect are two different things.




No, actually the quote I posted proves the opposite given its wording. Just read the quote I posted again.


You are not able to use the feat while in the field, so its effect is gone, you cannot use it. The effect is suppresed, that is true, but the ability remains, it is just unuseable. Just like the guy with power attack and a BAB of +0. He has it, he simply cannot use it.


----------



## Scion (Sep 13, 2005)

I still havent seen anyone give any examples of what 'effect' might be if feats are not allowed for whatever reason.

Does anyone know of anything where this would apply if, for a reason I do not understand, feats were not the 'effects' that it speaks of?


----------



## turbo (Sep 13, 2005)

First, the resort to supernatural feats is misleading, because it tries to derive the general character of feats from a clear exception (nothing says that the character of a psionic feat--and certainly not a hypothetical supernatural feat invented out of thin air--tells us anything about feats in general)--it has no representative or determining value; second, no definition of effect has been provided, nor any refutation of the characterization of feats as effects of leveling up, nor any basis whatsoever for the conflation of a 'feat-effect' (or whatever) with that part of the feat defined as its benefit ("I press the button on my power attack feat so that it will now allow me to power attack"?  "I gain a level; I feat Martial Weapon Proficiency on myself"?  Why not: "My Strength score attack bonuses my attack on the orc"?).


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 13, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> I still havent seen anyone give any examples of what 'effect' might be if feats are not allowed for whatever reason.
> 
> Does anyone know of anything where this would apply if, for a reason I do not understand, feats were not the 'effects' that it speaks of?



 I did, multiple times.  Any Su or Sp ability.


----------



## Scion (Sep 13, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> I did, multiple times.  Any Su or Sp ability.




Such as? Examples that wouldnt fall under 'spell' would be nice.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 13, 2005)

You want an actual example?  I don't have one off-hand and it might take a little bit to find one.  A manufactured example would simply be magic fang as a Spell-like ability.  I'm sure there are Su abilities that could qualify, somewhere, too.


----------



## turbo (Sep 13, 2005)

> I did, multiple times. Any Su or Sp ability.




Problem:  you're making that up; there's no definition to this effect (ha-ha).


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 13, 2005)

I don't know if this really helps, but let's start with those two items of general agreement.

1.  Feats grant effects (look at numerous feat descriptions that talk about "effects" of the feat stacking or not).

2.  There also seems to be general agreement that a monk's special attacks could benefit from the effects of INA, because a ... "monk's unarmed strike may benefit from ... effects that normally affect ... natural weapons."

Okay, so, given that, how can we possibly consider that they do not qualify for the feat?  Is it not an extraordinarily strained rule interpretation and extraordinarily hyper-technical to say that they do not have a natural weapon but the feat's effects could apply to them just as if they did?

Further, the word "effect" has no technical meaning in D&D (unless used as a "spell effect," which is not the case here) and therefore they should qualify.

So what is an "effect?" As a noun in this context, it is "something that inevitably follows an antecedent (as a cause or agent)" (Webster).  The "effect" is the result of some sort of cause.

In order for a monk's special attack to be affected by this feat (which should be the case by the monk's class rules), the monk must have to be considered to have a natural wepon - for this purpose only, of course.

Now, I'll grant that a prerequisite is not an "effect," but it seems realy, really odd to me to state that they qualify for the feat's effects upon natural weapons but are not considered to have a natural weapon for this purpose.  Bizarre

Here's a few example of the word "effect" from the d20 SRD:

A psionic power is a one-time psionic effect...
A spell is a one-time magical effect...
Acid Effects Corrosive acids deals 1d6 points of damage per round of ...
Effects of Being Lost...
The character can fool alignment-sensing effects by...
Cursed Item Common Curses d% Curse 01-15 Delusion 16-35 Opposite effect...
Some weapon qualities and some specific weapons have an extra effect on a critical hit...
...use Table: Improved Monster CR Increase to determine the effect on the creature’s CR...
...a bard can use his song or poetics to produce magical effects ...
Starting a bardic music effect is a standard action...
If he avoids you, he doesn’t suffer any ill effect and you may keep moving ...
All mephits fight by biting and clawing or by using a breath weapon, the nature and effects of which vary from creature to creature...
A power s effect often depends on the manifester level...
If certain effects can t combine, apply the most severe effect...

Just to show that "effect" in D&D is not a defined technical term.

What I am trying to point out its that the rules fully support the Sage's view, while they could also be made to show it in error, if desired, which makes an "offical" interpretation needed, as was provided.  

Why is this an issue????


----------



## Scion (Sep 13, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> You want an actual example?




Since that is what I asked for, multiple times, then yes. Actually, I want a list of examples.

If you cannot find one then what is the point of saying that they must 'all' fit under this list?

As for the magic fang, that would fall under my comment of, 'one that will not simply work by the "spell" part of the exemption'.


----------



## Scion (Sep 13, 2005)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I don't know if this really helps, but let's start with those two items of general agreement.
> 
> 1.  Feats grant effects (look at numerous feat descriptions that talk about "effects" of the feat stacking or not).
> 
> ...




Nice


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 13, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> Since that is what I asked for, multiple times, then yes. Actually, I want a list of examples.



 Then go search for them.  You should have enough information on what you are looking for to figure out if any are present.  I assume you are explicitly looking for examples of 'effects' that are not feats that would apply to the monk's unarmed strike?



			
				Scion said:
			
		

> As for the magic fang, that would fall under my comment of, 'one that will not simply work by the "spell" part of the exemption'.



 No.  I said magic fang as a spell-like ability, not magic fang as a spell.  There is a world of difference between the two.  Spell-like abilities and spells both have effects (as do Su, and even Ex abilities sometimes), but spell-like abilities are not spells.  So, whenever 'spells' is given, if you want non-spells to also work, you must say something like 'effects' or list out all of them.  Quite honestly, you could drop the 'spells' part because that's just extra wording that doesn't help.


----------



## Scion (Sep 13, 2005)

You say that they exist so I want you to show me them  I asked patryn earlier but he apparently doesnt have a list either.

Magic fang as a spell like ability is close enough to the 'spell' part to me to not need the 'effects' part of the description. But perhaps it is necissary for the rest of the rules base.

In any event however, I just wanted a list to look at, I guess one isnt forthcoming..lol


I will still need a massive portion of proof to convince me that ina cannot be taken by a monk given that the wording, to me, explicitly states that it works.


----------



## Prince Sharam (Sep 13, 2005)

If you REALLY wanted to find out, you would have gone out and searched. But apparently the want isn't high enough.


----------



## turbo (Sep 13, 2005)

> 1. Feats grant effects (look at numerous feat descriptions that talk about "effects" of the feat stacking or not).




As does the act of taking a feat:  'taking this feat grants...'--but the trick is not to get tricked by the grammar into a game-mechanical separation of a feat from its effect, which doesn't exist under the Rules As Written.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 13, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> You say that they exist so I want you to show me them  I asked patryn earlier but he apparently doesnt have a list either.




Sorry, I probably skipped your post.

You want a "non-Magic Fang spell" effect that affects natural weapons?



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Chaotic Subtype: A subtype usually applied only to outsiders native to the chaotic-aligned Outer Planes. Most creatures that have this subtype also have chaotic alignments; however, if their alignments change they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has a chaotic alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. *A creature with the chaotic subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields were chaotic-aligned (see Damage Reduction, below).*


----------



## Scion (Sep 13, 2005)

Prince Sharam said:
			
		

> If you REALLY wanted to find out, you would have gone out and searched. But apparently the want isn't high enough.




If people 'really' wanted their 'any and all' comment to work they would be able to defend their position.

I think that asking for proof on their comment is well within the realm of reason 

In this case magic fang is a spell and it has certain specified effects. To me that falls under the spell category, as that is where it comes from. But I am really interested in seeing some of these (Su) abilities that some creatures might have or that others might be able to gain that would somehow be classified directly as 'effect' instead of being potentially under the 'spell' portion.

I dont think that is too much to ask. I am sorry if anyone else thinks that it is.


----------



## Prince Sharam (Sep 13, 2005)

They stated it, the burden of proof is upon you who wants to know, to find it.


----------



## Scion (Sep 13, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> Sorry, I probably skipped your post.
> 
> You want a "non-Magic Fang spell" effect that affects natural weapons?




Cool, thanks 

Of course that seems to lend even more credit in my mind to ina working on monks weapons.. given the wording of each.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 13, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> You say that they exist so I want you to show me them  I asked patryn earlier but he apparently doesnt have a list either.



 No doubt it would be a lot of work to produce an exhaustive list.  I'm not sure if even one example could be found.  Nevertheless, the lack of an actual example in a book does not mean that such a thing couldn't be found or even generated by an imaginative DM (e.g. the magic fang as a spell-like ability).

Actually, this gives me a thought.  Consider a monk/druid/heirophant who chooses the Spell-like ability special ability for greater magic fang.  Perfectly core, perfectly within the rules, and a clear example of an 'effect' that is not a 'spell'.

Can I say QED now?


----------



## Scion (Sep 13, 2005)

turbo said:
			
		

> As does the act of taking a feat:  'taking this feat grants...'--but the trick is not to get tricked by the grammar into a game-mechanical separation of a feat from its effect, which doesn't exist under the Rules As Written.




Hey, like I posted earlier:



			
				srd said:
			
		

> 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.


----------



## Scion (Sep 13, 2005)

Prince Sharam said:
			
		

> They stated it, the burden of proof is upon you who wants to know, to find it.




Apparently you do not know what 'burden of proof' means.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 13, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> I dont think that is too much to ask. I am sorry if anyone else thinks that it is.



 It's not too much to ask if you believe that such examples not only do not exist, but cannot exist.  But, I'm not entirely sure that that's what you are postulating.


----------



## Scion (Sep 13, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> No doubt it would be a lot of work to produce an exhaustive list.




I dont want exhaustive, I just want a few actual examples  It is always nice to have something real to look at.

Patryn gave a nice one above actually.


----------



## Prince Sharam (Sep 13, 2005)

Oh, I do. I know that someone confident in their answer doesn't have to please someone else, and the inquisitive mind, once presented with examples of facts, if they have the zeal, will persue that to know it.

It's a casual question, admit it. Else we wouldn't have 5 pages of ping-pong like discussion going on.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 13, 2005)

Just for fun, here's a counter-argument to my own position.

Magical weapon effects (like paralyzations, etc., etc.) caused by creating a magical weapon clearly are "effects" that should apply to a monk's special attack, yet it seems just as clear that one cannot simply put enough time, material and xp into re-working a monk's special attack like one would do an actual manufactured weapon.  Allowing that is way too much of a stretch for me and I think for anyone else reading this.

In a similar way, a feat's effects being applicable does not necessarily mean the monk qualifies for the feat.  If a monk's special attack is not considered a manufactured weapon for the purpose of creating magic weapons (that is, granting effects by way of creating them in making or improving a weapon), then why should it be considered one for a feat?

Of course, I think it does - but, like I said, the rules can be made to support either position.


----------



## Scion (Sep 13, 2005)

Prince Sharam said:
			
		

> Oh, I do. I know that someone confident in their answer doesn't have to please someone else





If you did know then you wouldnt have made your comment.

If someone has a claim then they are under the burden of proof to prove their claim, it is not up to others to disprove it.

Although people do on occasion like to disprove things, that is not the same thing at all.


In america people are innocent until proven guilty. It is up to the prosecution to prove them guilty, it is not up to the person to prove that they are innocent. Burden of proof rests on the claimant that something exists.

Hence, someone said that there were examples, I asked them to show the examples. Choosing to not give examples would to me mean that their arguement has no founding and so is irrelevant.

Burden of proof is a very important tool. It is also very important to not use it incorrectly


----------



## turbo (Sep 13, 2005)

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




Oh well; if a feat is only a "permanent effect", not an "effect", then I guess that the whole argument's out the window!!!


----------



## Scion (Sep 13, 2005)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Magical weapon effects (like paralyzations, etc., etc.) caused by creating a magical weapon clearly are "effects" that should apply to a monk's special attack, yet it seems just as clear that one cannot simply put enough time, material and xp into re-working a monk's special attack like one would do an actual manufactured weapon.  Allowing that is way too much of a stretch for me and I think for anyone else reading this.




Isnt the main, and possibly only, reason that monks fists cannot be enchanted is because they are not masterwork?

There is a prc that allows for a monk to enchant his attacks.. kensai maybe?


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 13, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> Isnt the main, and possibly only, reason that monks fists cannot be enchanted is because they are not masterwork?
> 
> There is a prc that allows for a monk to enchant his attacks.. kensai maybe?




Maybe so.  If so, that further supports my orginal position.

And so it goes...


----------



## turbo (Sep 13, 2005)

The 'effect' of an item creation feat would not be the effect that the weapon receives (which is the effect of the item creation process), but the _ability_  to give an effect  to a weapon--and this shows even more clearly how bizarre the supposed feat/effect separation is:  a spell-caster doesn't learn how to brew potions; he acquires some weird  entity that provides him with the learning to brew potions?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 13, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> Cool, thanks
> 
> Of course that seems to lend even more credit in my mind to ina working on monks weapons.. given the wording of each.




Welcome, though I don't see your logic behind the second statement.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 13, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> Hey, like I posted earlier:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That does indeed seem to say that feats are an effect, albeit a permanent one.


----------



## griff_goodbeard (Sep 14, 2005)

I've been following this thread, and just have one comment.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that everyone agrees that INA is a poorly worded feat, as it relates to monks.  It seems pretty obvious that the designers didn't consiter whether a monk could take the feat when they wrote it.  It's no a question of intent, but a question of oversight.  I thought that was the point of Sage rulings, to clear up aspects of the game that are unclear due to designer oversight.  Andy Collins was on the design team that revised the MM for 3.5, so it seems that what he's saying is that if they hadn't forgoten, they'd have written the feat so that monks do qualify.  I not saying that Andy (or Skip for that matter when he was Sage)  is spot on with every ruling, but it seems pretty clear cut in this case.  Should the feat be re-written and inserted into the errata, yes.  But until then, I'll take the word of the guy who designed the book.  

*flees back to the shadows*


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 14, 2005)

griff_goodbeard said:
			
		

> I've been following this thread, and just have one comment.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that everyone agrees that INA is a poorly worded feat, as it relates to monks.




Actually, I don't think it's poorly written at all. It seems pretty clear to me. Some people just don't like the ruling and are looking for ways to discredit it.


----------



## Legildur (Sep 14, 2005)

As an avid monk fan, I truly wish that I could just read the INA feat and see the monk class referenced in there.

I have no qualms about reading the monk's unarmed strike class ability and rationalising that it only applies to things like casting of magic fang, magic weapon, bless weapon etc or the use of certain potions.  After all, it is not a bite/claw/gore etc as natural attacks are defined in the MM.

However, equally I would happily (if I were a DM) rule that INA could apply.  I don't think it does, and unfortunately I can't add any rules insight to this entertaining discussion that hasn't already been put forward.

No one has mentioned the *martial arts styles* from Oriental Adventures.  The Fists of Iron (?) style required numerous feats to qualify for and effectively (there's that word again!) gave the same benefits as INA (upped unarmed strike by one die size).

IDHMBIFOM right now, but IIRC the prerequisites were the Power Attack, Improved Sunder, Eagle Claw and one or two other feats, and a minimum strength.

It seems to me that this approach is (albeit under 3.0e) significantly more costly to attain under the styles system than through one simple feat.  That suggests to me that INA should not be available to monks as a general rule.


----------



## ARandomGod (Sep 14, 2005)

Babylon Knight said:
			
		

> It does.
> 
> Now can we stop arguing and go back to seek various ways to empower our characters?




It doesn't. 

And yes, NOW we can!


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 14, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Actually, I don't think it's poorly written at all. It seems pretty clear to me. Some people just don't like the ruling and are looking for ways to discredit it.



 Yup, that's our purpose.  Thanks for finally realizing our hidden agenda.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 14, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> No, actually the quote I posted proves the opposite given its wording. Just read the quote I posted again.
> 
> 
> You are not able to use the feat while in the field, so its effect is gone, you cannot use it. The effect is suppresed, that is true, but the ability remains, it is just unuseable. Just like the guy with power attack and a BAB of +0. He has it, he simply cannot use it.




Right.  So he keeps the feat, but loses its effect.  Again, I don't see why this is so hard.


----------



## SteveC (Sep 14, 2005)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> That does indeed seem to say that feats are an effect, albeit a permanent one.



While I don't really have a strong opinion on this one, I think the part of the sentence that says "spell resistance from a feat, class feature, or other permanent effect" pretty much indicates that a feat is an effect. I guess that's what an English Major is good for these days. Unless there is some part of the SRD that differentiates between an "effect" and a "permanent effect" I would say that pretty much settles it. Of course your mileage may vary, and likely does.


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 14, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Yup, that's our purpose.  Thanks for finally realizing our hidden agenda.



 No, I realized it a few pages back.

The rules forum is fun. I should spend more time in here...


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 14, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Actually, I don't think it's poorly written at all. It seems pretty clear to me. Some people just don't like the ruling and are looking for ways to discredit it.




I happen to like the ruling and agree that it would not be unbalanced to allow it.  I don't think that the RAW supports the ruling.  Sorry about that.


----------



## No Name (Sep 14, 2005)

Legildur said:
			
		

> As an avid monk fan, I truly wish that I could just read the INA feat and see the monk class referenced in there.
> 
> I have no qualms about reading the monk's unarmed strike class ability and rationalising that it only applies to things like casting of magic fang, magic weapon, bless weapon etc or the use of certain potions.  After all, it is not a bite/claw/gore etc as natural attacks are defined in the MM.
> 
> ...





I too am a fan of the monk class. I find your reasoning valid, however, I think you are missing some relevant information. "Characters of all classes, however, can learn at least some of the techniques of martial arts..." (Oriental Adventures, p.79). What this says to me is that any class, even a wizard, could improve his unarmed strike damage by taking the required feats for Empty Hand Mastery. None of the feats required for EHM are monk specific (in relation to class abilities). Perhaps it is reasonable for a monk to attain something with one simple feat that would take another class several feats to acquire.

Some things are clear - humans do not have natural weapons, and even a human who takes Improved Unarmed Strike still does not change that fact. The much quoted text in the monk section seems to imply that monks are a special case; their unarmed strikes are considered natural weapons. Yet monk unarmed strikes also improve with BAB, similar to manufactured weapons. To me, it looks like monk unarmed strikes qualify as both. Also in my opinion, INA is not a game-breaking feat, although I would rule that it does not stack with EHM mentioned above.

I am in favor of monks taking INA.


----------



## Pinotage (Sep 14, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I don't think that the RAW supports the ruling.  Sorry about that.




You meant to say 'your interpretation of the RAW doesn't support the ruling'?   

The RAW is open to interpretation just like anything else. It's not the ultimate authority on rules as many people make it out to be.

Pinotage


----------



## turbo (Sep 14, 2005)

> So he keeps the feat, but loses its effect. Again, I don't see why this is so hard.





It's hard, because you're confusing effects:  the effect of the feat would be 'having the ability'--before he took the feat, the character didn't have the ability, and after he took the feat, he did have it; anything that he does with the ability, whether he uses it or not, whether it gets suppressed or not, _has nothing to do with the feat_:  the anti-magic field does not suppress the feat's effect, because that would mean _removing the ability_.


----------



## Ketjak (Sep 14, 2005)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> SRD said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That does not follow, Artoomis. An effect generated by a thing is not the thing. 

The AMF generated by a beholder's central eye is not the beholder's central eye. While saying "I am in the eye of the beholder" is poetic, it is not strictly true.

A wound generated by a sword is not the sword. We say "I have a wound in my arm inflicted by a sword," not "I have a sword in my arm" (unless, of course, the sword is still lodged there).

The effect generated by a thing is different from the thing. 

The effect of the feat is not the feat. The bonus to initiative due to Improved Initiative is not Improved Initiative. Improved Initiative is a feat that grants the effect of +4 bonus on initiative checks. Similarly, Cleave grants its effect, and it has two prerequisites that must be met before the feat can be taken (STR 13+, Power Attack). 

Identically, Improved Natural Attack grants its effect (natural weapon damage increases by one step) after the feat prerequisites (natural weapon, BAB) are met.

Just saying the monk's Improved Unarmed Strike is a natural weapon doesn't make it say so, since the rules do not say that it is. They do say that it is treated as one (and as a manufactured weapon) for the purposes of spells and _effects_ that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons, not that it _is_ one.

So the Improved Natural Attack feat cannot be gained by a human (or elf/dwarf/gnome/halfling/half-orc/half-elf) monk, since a human (et al.) monk doesn't have a natural attack. If a magic item (say, gloves of improved natural weapon) that grants the feat were employed, that monk certainly could benefit from the _effect_ of the feat granted by the magic item.

Again, note that the thing (gloves of...) are not the effect (Improved Natural Attack feat or the feat's damage step increase effect).

Interestingly, a lizardfolk monk with the feat who dies and is reincarnated as a human monk cannot use his Improved Natural Attack feat, since he no longer has the prerequisites for the feat according to the SRD. So sad!

- Ket


----------



## turbo (Sep 14, 2005)

> Improved Initiative is a feat that grants the effect




The feat grants the effect when the feat is taken, as an effect of leveling up, which is the only time that the feat is ever interacted with:  the character takes the feat, he has the ability, and that's it for the feat; it doesn't continually generate an effect; it _is_ a one-time, permanent effect, which means that it is an effect, which means that the monk's unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon for it.


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 14, 2005)

Ketjak, you're the only one to provide a coherent reason for not allowing that feat. I still disagree with you, though. I think you're being way too literal-minded. Saying the feat isn't the effect is splitting hairs that shouldn't be split. They're one in the same, since the feat does not exist without the effect, just as just as a Charm spell would not exist without the charm effect.


----------



## turbo (Sep 14, 2005)

> A wound generated by a sword is not the sword. We say "I have a wound in my arm inflicted by a sword," not "I have a sword in my arm" (unless, of course, the sword is still lodged there).




This is a perfect demonstration of why so many people are fooled by the language:  who believes the sword wields itself?--or that a _feat is ever wielded_???


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 14, 2005)

turbo said:
			
		

> The feat grants the effect when the feat is taken, as an effect of leveling up, which is the only time that the feat is ever interacted with:  the character takes the feat, he has the ability, and that's it for the feat




Unless you happen to know a psion with Psychic Reformation.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 14, 2005)

turbo said:
			
		

> This is a perfect demonstration of why so many people are fooled by the language:  who believes the sword wields itself?--or that a _feat is ever wielded_???




Who said the sword wields itself?  He was demonstrating the non-identity of a sword and its effect (i.e. a sword wound).


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 14, 2005)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> You meant to say 'your interpretation of the RAW doesn't support the ruling'?
> 
> The RAW is open to interpretation just like anything else. It's not the ultimate authority on rules as many people make it out to be.
> 
> Pinotage




I suppose I should bold and italicize the words "I don't think that" when making statements about my opinions on the rules, if I want to avoid snarky commentary about relativism in the future.  Can you keep to the subject at hand, please, rather than trying to pick nits about my phrasing?

*edit*

Also, the RAW might not be the ultimate authority (that would be the DM, as usual), but it is the primary authority, since it's where we get the rules from in the first place.  If the RAW states something, it is the rule unless it is overruled by DM fiat (which would count as a house rule) or edited by a later publication (such as errata).  While there is a place for interpretation, that's simply a question of deciding what the RAW actually says, rather than deciding whether the RAW should be followed or not.

*edit II*

Still waiting for that "merge" button...


----------



## turbo (Sep 14, 2005)

> Unless you happen to know a psion with Psychic Reformation.




I don't know why it is that you think that feats described as outside of the general rules for feats determine the character of feats in general, but, since we're making stuff up, let's go all the way:  a feat that 'grants' the ability to cast fireball one million times a day--each individual fireball cast is not an effect of the feat, nor is any particular manifestation of any ability gained from taking a feat an effect of the feat.


----------



## turbo (Sep 14, 2005)

> Who said the sword wields itself? He was demonstrating the non-identity of a sword and its effect (i.e. a sword wound).




The effect of a sword is not a wound--that's the point; a sword has no effects.



> Prosopopoeia \Pros`o*po*p[oe]"ia\, n. [L., fr. Gr. ?; pro`swpon
> a face, a person + ? to make.] (Rhet.)
> A figure by which things are represented as persons, or by
> which things inanimate are spoken of as animated beings;


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 14, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> If the RAW states something, it is the rule unless it is overruled by DM fiat (which would count as a house rule) or edited by a later publication (such as errata).




So I have a question. If/when Wizards publishes this particular Sage ruling in the official FAQ, will that end the debate? Because, really, most (or much) of the FAQ is nothing more that the Sage's answers to questions.


----------



## reveal (Sep 14, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> So I have a question. If/when Wizards publishes this particular Sage ruling in the official FAQ, will that end the debate? Because, really, most (or much) of the FAQ is nothing more that the Sage's answers to questions.




No. I have tried posting answers from the FAQ in this forum before and have been told those don't count. :shrug:


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 14, 2005)

reveal said:
			
		

> No. I have tried posting answers from the FAQ in this forum before and have been told those don't count. :shrug:



 Interesting, since the FAQ that is posted on the Wizards website is OFFICIAL game rules clarifications.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 14, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Interesting, since the FAQ that is posted on the Wizards website is OFFICIAL game rules clarifications.




It's "official," but it's not a Primary Rules Source.

This is an important distinction.

Take, for instance, the text found in the Erratas:



			
				3.5 PHB Errata said:
			
		

> *Errata Rule: Primary Sources*
> 
> When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.
> 
> Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the DUNGEON MASTER's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The DUNGEON MASTER's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.




The FAQ is not the PHB, and it is not the PHB Errata, and therefore it does not trump either of them.

If the FAQ publishes something that contradicts the PHB or the PHB Errata, it's wrong.  End of Story.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 14, 2005)

turbo said:
			
		

> I don't know why it is that you think that feats described as outside of the general rules for feats determine the character of feats in general, but, since we're making stuff up, let's go all the way:  a feat that 'grants' the ability to cast fireball one million times a day--each individual fireball cast is not an effect of the feat, nor is any particular manifestation of any ability gained from taking a feat an effect of the feat.




Psychic Reformation isn't a feat.  It's a power (read: spell) that allows you to change which feats you have retroactively...which is why it's relevent to your comment earlier and why I mentioned it.

And yes, each fireball would be an effect of the feat.  Much as a fireball is the effect of the Fireball spell.  Of course, you could stick an extra step in there and say that "the ability to sling a million fireballs each day" is the effect of the feat, and that each fireball is a secondary effect...an effect of an effect...but that's kind of irrelevent to the question of whether a feat is identical to its effect.

Psychic reformation doesn't muck about with your fireballs.  It doesn't even change your ability to cast fireballs.  What it changes is which feats you possess, and in changing that, it will change the effects that those feats have on your character...one of which may be to provide you access to a million fireballs.


----------



## Pinotage (Sep 14, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I suppose I should bold and italicize the words "I don't think that" when making statements about my opinions on the rules, if I want to avoid snarky commentary about relativism in the future.  Can you keep to the subject at hand, please, rather than trying to pick nits about my phrasing?
> 
> *edit*
> 
> Also, the RAW might not be the ultimate authority (that would be the DM, as usual), but it is the primary authority, since it's where we get the rules from in the first place.  If the RAW states something, it is the rule unless it is overruled by DM fiat (which would count as a house rule) or edited by a later publication (such as errata).  While there is a place for interpretation, that's simply a question of deciding what the RAW actually says, rather than deciding whether the RAW should be followed or not.




Sigh! You're missing the point. The point is that what everybody calls RAW is nothing more than opinion - RAW doesn't exist, it's a myth, it's something in people's minds. All you get from a reading of the rules in a book is your interpretation and understanding of what's said there. So saying 'the RAW does not support the ruling' in in a sense a non-statement. I was just clarifying that the RAW doesn't support anything, since your reading of the RAW is different to mine. Maybe I misunderstood your phrasing slightly, but the point remains. 

Now, that might not be wholly relevant to this discusion, but it is relevant to a discussion on rules in general. Statements like 'According to RAW' don't really mean anything, since RAW is an opinion. My point in this debate was in attempting to point the above out, laying the table bare so to speak so that people realise that whatever is said here is another's opinion, or their interpretation of the rules.

Now, given that RAW is an opinion and that the Sage and other WotC rulings are provided to clarify those opinions, I think the above is relevant. There is no absolute ruleset, the RAW doesn't exist, it's merely the opinion of the reader. In that case, it shouldn't be shot down when others give an _official _ clarification of that opinion, as is the case in this thread.

Granted, most aspects of any ruleset the majority of people agree with, in which case they may be considered some form of RAW, but in discussions like this, I don't think the RAW has anything to do with it.

_Official_ clarifications of rules interpretations, in this case the use of INA by monks, in the core rules are good enough for me, particularly since quoting RAW is not valid in this case.   In any event, I aplogise if my statements didn't come across the way I intended. Happens is RAW all the time!   

Or maybe I just fail to understand why people read a rule, insist it's RAW while it is actually just their opinion on the text, and then use that to justify an opinion. The sage has clarified the ruling - if you don't agree, don't attempt to justify not agreeing by calling on the almighty mythical RAW. Of course, if the ruling contradicts common opinion or 'psuedo-RAW' then that's another matter entirely.

Pinotage


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 14, 2005)

Patryn of Elvenshae said:
			
		

> It's "official," but it's not a Primary Rules Source.
> 
> This is an important distinction.
> 
> ...




Whatever, man. If it floats your boat, run with it. The FAQ is not a rules source at all. It clarifies the rules sources. So when there is debate/questions on the rules, the Official FAQ clears up the rule in question, and is OFFICIAL.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 14, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Whatever, man. If it floats your boat, run with it. The FAQ is not a rules source at all. It clarifies the rules sources. So when there is debate/questions on the rules, the Official FAQ clears up the rule in question, and is OFFICIAL.




I'm sorry you feel you need to be snippy.

And, contrary to your belief, the FAQ *is* a rules source.  Read it sometime, you'll see it making up all kinds of rules.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 14, 2005)

Dimwhit said:
			
		

> Interesting, since the FAQ that is posted on the Wizards website is OFFICIAL game rules clarifications.




Official doesn't mean correct.  We've been over this before in two different threads over the last couple of days.  Often official sources contradict one another.  In general, Customer Service's answers aren't worth the bandwidth that carries them.  This is because depending on who you talk to you will get different answers, which may or may not reflect the RAW.  The Sage is generally more dependable, but he's prone to inserting unnecessary opinion.  That would be fine, except he's supposed to be clarifying the rules, not expanding upon them or editorializing.  As well, he often makes calls that are demonstrably in violation of the RAW.  I'm sure Hypersmurf could provide an itemized list 

Errata are what I consider to be correct, because they're by definition corrections, rather than suggestions or clarifications.  They supercede the primary sources deliberately, and I think we can assume that more thought and consideration goes into producing errata (and probably more dissenting opinions on what the rules ought to say) than goes into a Sage article, which is after all written by one guy.  And we know how many people are right all the time.  (again, nod to Hypersmurf   )

In general, the printed rules trump the Sage, and errata trump printed rules.  And customer service gets as much respect as a pimp in a cardigan and coke-bottle glasses.


----------



## turbo (Sep 14, 2005)

> but that's kind of irrelevent to the question of whether a feat is identical to its effect




No; it's the only relevant point:  you gain and interact with feats only as you gain levels; this is the only time that feats 'do' anything, in that you  don't cast a feat to get an effect out of it, as you would cast a spell to get an effect out of it.




> you could stick an extra step in there and say that "the ability to sling a million fireballs each day" is the effect of the feat




Here's the thing:  _your_ interpretation introduces the extra step, by separating the feat from its effect; you give feats some kind of metaphysical presence, some kind of agency, when, game-mechanically, they're just markers to codify effects gained by leveling up.

A change in feats doesn't change the effects of feats; it just changes what abilities you have.  

You're letting English mess with you.  Someone could say, "yeah; my strength score gives me a +10 bonus to my melee attacks", but if he then goes on to say that his strength score _actually makes his attacks_, then not only is he not playing by the RAW, he's also not playing with a full deck.

It may sound strange to say in this forum, but what you're doing is, basically, magical thinking.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 14, 2005)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Sigh! You're missing the point. The point is that what everybody calls RAW is nothing more than opinion - RAW doesn't exist, it's a myth, it's something in people's minds. All you get from a reading of the rules in a book is your interpretation and understanding of what's said there. So saying 'the RAW does not support the ruling' in in a sense a non-statement. I was just clarifying that the RAW doesn't support anything, since your reading of the RAW is different to mine. Maybe I misunderstood your phrasing slightly, but the point remains.
> 
> Now, that might not be wholly relevant to this discusion, but it is relevant to a discussion on rules in general. Statements like 'According to RAW' don't really mean anything, since RAW is an opinion.




See, this is why we cite sources.  It's to establish the best possible reading by reference to the rules _as written_.  As written they may not make sense, or may run counter to that "intent" everyone's always talking about, or may be arbitrarily simplified from reality in order to make play run smoothly.  But they're written in a certain way, and that can be changed if errata are issued.  There's a reason why people are called "rules lawyers".  Arguing rules is a lot like arguing law.  If you can provide citations that show, by the letter of the law, the rules say a certain thing, then the rules say that thing.



> Or maybe I just fail to understand why people read a rule, insist it's RAW while it is actually just their opinion on the text, and then use that to justify an opinion. The sage has clarified the ruling - if you don't agree, don't attempt to justify not agreeing by calling on the almighty mythical RAW. Of course, if the ruling contradicts common opinion or 'psuedo-RAW' then that's another matter entirely.




The sage has given his own opinion on the RAW.  He hasn't altered the rules by this ruling (nor is it the intent that his column alter the rules, only re-explain points that are unclear).  It seems clear to many people here that the Sage's opinion is not supported by the rules, and is therefore in error.  Citations have been provided to explain this line of argument.  This is hardly a case of "I say so, so there!"

Really, if you can't have a rules discussion without making fun of people for relying on the "almighty mythical RAW" then you should stay out of the Rules forum.  The modus operandi here is to refer to the rules in order to answer questions that come up.  If interpretation is necessary, there is a need to provide support from the rules to justify a particular interpretation.  People like Patryn have done that in this case.

The reason why we don't agree with the sage is because he has made a ruling in contradiction to what the rules say.  It's his house rule, and it's now an "official" house rule, but it doesn't change the rules.  End of story.


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 14, 2005)

Well, this is pretty pointless at this stage, so I'll conclude by saying:



			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> It seems clear to many people here that the Sage's opinion is not supported by the rules, and is therefore in error.  Citations have been provided to explain this line of argument.  This is hardly a case of "I say so, so there!"




No, interpretations of citations have been given.



			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> If interpretation is necessary, there is a need to provide support from the rules to justify a particular interpretation.  People like Patryn have done that in this case.




And some people here thing those interpretations make no sense.



			
				Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> The reason why we don't agree with the sage is because he has made a ruling in contradiction to what the rules say.




No he hasn't, so stop saying he has. He made a ruling that contradicts your interpretation of the rules. For some of us, not only does the ruling make perfect sense, but it was never needed in the first place because it was already in the rules.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 14, 2005)

turbo said:
			
		

> No; it's the only relevant point:  you gain and interact with feats only as you gain levels; this is the only time that feats 'do' anything, in that you  don't cast a feat to get an effect out of it, as you would cast a spell to get an effect out of it.




The irrelevent thing that I was talking about is whether you have one step or two between a feat and its effect.  If you're trying to say that there are no steps, that the feat and its effect are identical, then it's irrelevent.  If you're trying to say that there is at least one step, it's irrelevent.  In either case, the point has no bearing on the discussion because there are either no steps or at least one step, so two steps or eight steps mean the same thing as one step.  Please, please read my posts before you respond to them.



> Here's the thing:  _your_ interpretation introduces the extra step, by separating the feat from its effect; you give feats some kind of metaphysical presence, some kind of agency, when, game-mechanically, they're just markers to codify effects gained by leveling up.




Game mechanically, they're well-defined.



			
				Player's Handbook said:
			
		

> A feat is a special feature that gives your character a new capability or improves one that he or she already has.




Note that it does not say that a feat is a new capability.  It is a feature that provides a capability or improves a capability.  Therefore, a feat is not an effect, but instead provides an effect.



> A change in feats doesn't change the effects of feats; it just changes what abilities you have.




By changing what feats you have, yes.  And the feats you have determine which abilities you have because the feats give your character those abilities.  



> You're letting English mess with you.  Someone could say, "yeah; my strength score gives me a +10 bonus to my melee attacks", but if he then goes on to say that his strength score _actually makes his attacks_, then not only is he not playing by the RAW, he's also not playing with a full deck.




You've got it backwards.  You're the one that's (by analogy) claiming that the strength score makes his attacks (or is his attacks, or whatever.  Your analogy is murky and so I don't have much to work with here).  I'm the one claiming that the strength score provides additional capability when making attacks, by bestowing a benefit to the character (specifically, a +10 unnamed bonus).  You say feats are effects, I say feats provide effects.  The rules back me up.


----------



## Pinotage (Sep 14, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> The reason why we don't agree with the sage is because he has made a ruling in contradiction to what the rules say.  It's his house rule, and it's now an "official" house rule, but it doesn't change the rules.  End of story.




See, this is the part I don't agree with. His ruling doesn't contradict any rules, his ruling contradicts _your opinion_ of what the text is saying. When there are two opinions regarding a matter, and an official points out which is the right one, why are you still arguing that it's not?

Sorry, it's late here in the UK, and I'm off to bed. I didn't intend my post to come across as 'making fun', and I'm sorry that you took it that way.

In any event, I think all has been said and done here.

Pinotage

Edit: Looks like Dimwhit and I had the same idea.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 14, 2005)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> In any event, I think all has been said and done here.




I think we can agree at least on that.  I can't imagine us squeezing any more blood from this stone...


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 14, 2005)

One ... MORE ... *DROP!*


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 14, 2005)

Pinotage said:
			
		

> See, this is the part I don't agree with. His ruling doesn't contradict any rules, his ruling contradicts _your opinion_ of what the text is saying. When there are two opinions regarding a matter, and an official points out which is the right one, why are you still arguing that it's not?



 'Cause that's what we do, argue rules!  Don't take away our fun, man!


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 14, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> 'Cause that's what we do, argue rules!  Don't take away our fun, man!




Yeah, 'cause if we didn't do that, this'd just turn into the Off Topic forum and, really, one Hivemind thread is more than enough for any one website.


----------



## FireLance (Sep 15, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> I think we can agree at least on that.  I can't imagine us squeezing any more blood from this stone...



I think I'll just squeeze one more. The main reason given why monks cannot take Improved Natural Attack (unless they have a natural weapon) seems to be that a feat is its entirety not an effect, or that the prerequisities of a feat (at least) are not an effect.

However, the Human Heritage feat (p. 152 of Races of Destiny) states "You are treated as a humanoid with the human subtype for the purpose of adjudicating all effects. If you are not a humanoid, your type changes to humanoid and you gain the human subtype. If you are already a humanoid, you gain the human subtype" (emphasis mine).

The sidebar on p. 150 of the same book clarifies that humanoids with the human subtype "qualify as human for the purpose of meeting a prerequisite for a feat or a prestige class".

Obviously, a character with the Human Heritage feat meets the prerequisites of human-only feats or prestige classes because the feat actually makes the character a humanoid with the human subtype.

The question really is, whether the first sentence describes the intent of the feat, and the other sentences explain the implementation (i.e. this is what the feat does, and this is how the feat does it), or whether the first sentence is entirely superfluous. After all, if the feat already makes you a humanoid with the human subtype, it goes without saying that you should be treated as such for all effects.

The first interpretation implies that the whole of a feat (including its prerequisites) is an effect, or that the prerequisites of feats are also effects. The second implies that the first sentence is irrelevant and may as well be deleted as its meaning is already covered by the subsequent sentences.

I doubt this will sway anyone with a truly entrenched position, but it might persuade those on the fence.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 15, 2005)

FireLance said:
			
		

> The question really is, whether the first sentence describes the intent of the feat, and the other sentences explain the implementation (i.e. this is what the feat does, and this is how the feat does it), or whether the first sentence is entirely superfluous. After all, if the feat already makes you a humanoid with the human subtype, it goes without saying that you should be treated as such for all effects.




That's similar to Hold Person:

"The subject becomes paralyzed and freezes in place. It is aware and breathes normally but cannot take any actions, even speech."

Is "cannot take any actions" a result of the first sentence, or in addition to the first sentence?

The paralyzed condition prevents you taking any actions _except purely mental actions_.

So is someone under the Hold Person spell able to take purely mental actions (since the paralyzed condition allows them), or not (since the spell states, separately from the paralyzed condition, that the subject 'cannot take _any_ actions')?

-Hyp.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 15, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> ...You say feats are effects, I say feats provide effects.  The rules back me up.




And yet they ALSO contradict you.  Therefore, it's a matter of interpretation and that's now be done officially.  Simple, eh?


----------



## Pinotage (Sep 15, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> 'Cause that's what we do, argue rules!  Don't take away our fun, man!




Heh!    No, I really like the rules forum - I'm by no means a guru on the rules, so it's very insightful to read both sides of the fence, and it gives you a deeper understanding of the underlying issues and mechanics. I wouldn't give up arguing the rules, unless, as it seems to be the case here, things end up in a stalemate.   

Pinotage


----------



## Algolei (Sep 15, 2005)

Arg, I can't believe I read this whole thing--curse you, reveal, and your silly link too!

I would have to agree that a feat is not its effect, in much the same way as a 15 Strength is not its +2 modifier.  As written, the monk does not qualify as having a natural attack except with regard to spells and effects, and therefore does not qualify for the feat in question (whatever the heck it even was, I dunno anymore).

And I think that sucks.  :\


----------



## FireLance (Sep 15, 2005)

Algolei said:
			
		

> I would have to agree that a feat is not its effect, in much the same way as a 15 Strength is not its +2 modifier.  As written, the monk does not qualify as having a natural attack except with regard to spells and effects, and therefore does not qualify for the feat in question (whatever the heck it even was, I dunno anymore).
> 
> And I think that sucks.  :\



Yeah, a 15 Strength is not its +2 modifier, but that is not the issue. The issue is, if you have a Strength of 11, and you have an ability that says "your Strength is treated as 2 points higher for the purpose of all effects", do you qualify to take the Power Attack feat?

If the whole of a feat is an effect, or the prerequisite of a feat is also considered an effect, you qualify for Power Attack. However, if only the benefit of a feat is considered an effect, or the prerequisites of a feat are not an effect, then you do not.


----------



## Algolei (Sep 15, 2005)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Yeah, a 15 Strength is not its +2 modifier, but that is not the issue. The issue is, if you have a Strength of 11, and you have an ability that says "your Strength is treated as 2 points higher for the purpose of all effects", do you qualify to take the Power Attack feat?



But...that's exactly what I'm talking about.  If it qualifies for the purpose of all effects, it doesn't qualify for the purpose of a feat--because a feat is not its effect any more than a 15 Strength is not its +2 modifier.



> If the whole of a feat is an effect, or the prerequisite of a feat is also considered an effect, you qualify for Power Attack. However, if only the benefit of a feat is considered an effect, or the prerequisites of a feat are not an effect, then you do not.



Exactly.  "The whole of a feat" is not an effect, because the feat itself is more than just the effect it confers.


----------



## turbo (Sep 15, 2005)

> a 15 Strength is not its +2 modifier




The +2 modifier is not an effect of the strength score.  God.  

The +2 modifier is just another way of representing one aspect of what a 15 strength score _is_.

Yes; in plain English, we say that the score gives the bonus, but, mechanically, that's not what happens:  you don't cast your strength to get the score; you don't ask your strength to provide the score.  The score and its bonus are just different representations of the same thing.

To suggest otherwise is to claim, for example, that a function causes its curve.

Similarly, no one burns an offering of a feat-slot to a feat-spirit to receive a feat-effect in return.

As part of level-gain, a character has the option of changing his aspects.  The term 'feat' just refers to and codifies this change.

So, by taking Improved Initiative, it becomes an aspect of the character that he has a +4 to his initiative.  He doesn't cast Improved Initiative on himself to receive the effect of the bonus.

No; he changes his abilities as a result of gaining in level.  The changes are an effect of leveling up, and we call these changes feats.

The mistake, the huge and maddening mistake, is to regard the _feats themselves_ as the source of the change they represent.

It's like saying that the word 'aging' causes people to grow old.  Or that numbers cause things to add up.

Normally, this doesn't make any bit of difference:  the reification of the feat has no consequences.

But in this case mistaking the representation for the thing itself confuses things terribly and results in absurdity.  Pretending that feats generously divest themselves of their benefits at the petition of the characters is fine for ordinary language, but to try to apply that as a description of how the pieces of the game fit together is pure superstition.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 15, 2005)

turbo said:
			
		

> As part of level-gain, a character has the option of changing his aspects.  The term 'feat' just refers to and codifies this change.



 And how about if you gain a feat without a level-gain?


----------



## turbo (Sep 15, 2005)

> And how about if you gain a feat without a level-gain?






It still only represents a change in the aspects of the character--a change effected by something other than itself.  By something other than the representation of the change.

Your character now knows how to make potions or has a bonus to a particular skill--well; we'll call that a Brew Potion feat or a Skill Focus feat and we'll say that the new ability has this or that limitations, but to suggest that, because it has a name or a particular form, that the change is then _caused_ by its name or by its form, while fine for talking about the change in an ordinary way, is completely unacceptable for determining how the change takes place under the rules.


----------



## Algolei (Sep 15, 2005)

turbo said:
			
		

> The +2 modifier is not an effect of the strength score.  God.



My reasoning is that you only get the +2 effect when you have the appropriate Strength score, not the other way around.  The +2 modifier is one of the effects of being that strong.



> The +2 modifier is just another way of representing one aspect of what a 15 strength score _is_.



Yes, exactly:  One aspect of the Strength score.  One of its effects.



> Yes; in plain English, we say that the score gives the bonus, but, mechanically, that's not what happens:  you don't cast your strength to get the score; you don't ask your strength to provide the score.  The score and its bonus are just different representations of the same thing.



Actually, yes, you do "ask" your Strength score to provide the bonus.  Without the appropriate Strength, you do not gain the bonus; you would not say it the other way around, nor is it logical to think of it that way.



> To suggest otherwise is to claim, for example, that a function causes its curve.



No, it is to claim, for example, that an Attribute causes an Effect.



> Similarly, no one burns an offering of a feat-slot to a feat-spirit to receive a feat-effect in return.



I have no idea what that would look like.  



> As part of level-gain, a character has the option of changing his aspects.  The term 'feat' just refers to and codifies this change.



Yes!  Everything is "codified."  However, a feat is not its effect.



> So, by taking Improved Initiative, it becomes an aspect of the character that he has a +4 to his initiative.  He doesn't cast Improved Initiative on himself to receive the effect of the bonus.



If I grew a pair of wings, I could fly.  However, I do not grow the effect of flight--that is the effect granted by the wings.



> No; he changes his abilities as a result of gaining in level.  The changes are an effect of leveling up, and we call these changes feats.
> 
> The mistake, the huge and maddening mistake, is to regard the _feats themselves_ as the source of the change they represent.



But this is a game, with mathematical mechanics.  The feats _are_ the source of their effects.



> It's like saying that the word 'aging' causes people to grow old.  Or that numbers cause things to add up.



Nah.  It's more like saying aging is an effect of the passage of time, or that reaching the wrong conclusion is the effect of jumping the wrong way.



> Normally, this doesn't make any bit of difference:  the reification of the feat has no consequences.
> 
> But in this case mistaking the representation for the thing itself confuses things terribly and results in absurdity.  Pretending that feats generously divest themselves of their benefits at the petition of the characters is fine for ordinary language, but to try to apply that as a description of how the pieces of the game fit together is pure superstition.



Not being spiritual myself, I'm not sure what that means.

That's why I like easily defined things.


----------



## turbo (Sep 15, 2005)

> One aspect of the Strength score. One of its effects





They're not even close to being synonyms:


Aspect: a characteristic to be considered

effect:  a phenomenon that follows and is caused by some previous
          phenomenon;




> My reasoning is that you only get the +2 effect when you have the appropriate Strength score, not the other way around. The +2 modifier is one of the effects of being that strong.




Your reasoning is wrong:  if I tell you that a character has a +2 ability bonus, it means that he has a 14 or 15 in that ability.  There's a correlation between the two representations, but this does not constitute a causal relationship.  The +2 ability bonus and the 14-15 ability score are just two representations of the character's inherent strength.

There is no "getting" of the bonus, in other words.  There's only how we describe the same amount of strength in different contexts.



> Without the appropriate Strength, you do not gain the bonus; you would not say it the other way around, nor is it logical to think of it that way.




Incorrect.  Having that strength score is the same thing as having the bonus.  You don't 'gain' or 'get' the bonus.  You already have it when you have that score.


The moment when the strength score provides the bonus _doesn't exist_. Because that bonus is already there--always.  The one is just a translation of the other:  the bonus is just a way of saying how you apply the character's strength score to various rolls.




> If I grew a pair of wings, I could fly. However, I do not grow the effect of flight--that is the effect granted by the wings.




No!  This is the real crux!  You grow wings as a result of something else other than the act of growing wings.  'Growing wings' is a phenomenon that results from another phenomenon.  Whether you use them to fly or not is irrelevant--it doesn't matter if there's an 'effect of flight'.  



> But this is a game, with mathematical mechanics. The feats are the source of their effects.




Do feats come from nowhere?  Are they unmotivated motivators?  No; the character receives them from some other action.  They are the results of, the _effects_ of some other action.

If a character levels up and says, 'I want my guy to have the ability to brew potions,' and the DM says, 'ok', then the guy now has the ability to brew potions.

That's all that happens.  There's no intermediary, no extra step.   _Not even when you codify that process as taking the Brew Potion feat._ 


Look; the problem, I think, is that people look at feats as if they were spells.  They're completely different.  If a feat has a parallel with any part of the spell system, it's with the numbers in spell slots.

So:

Ragnar is a character who 'can cast 4 third-level spells'.

Ragnar is a character who 'can brew potions'.

Ragnar is a character who 'adds 4 to his initiative rolls'.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 15, 2005)

turbo said:
			
		

> It still only represents a change in the aspects of the character--a change effected by something other than itself.  By something other than the representation of the change.



 Huh?  I'm not sure what metaphysical angle you are taking, but it don' make no sense.


----------



## FireLance (Sep 16, 2005)

Look at it this way, then. Even if a prerequisite is not an effect, does it have an effect? If it has an effect, what is that effect? If it does not have an effect, what is the purpose of a prerequisite?


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 16, 2005)

turbo said:
			
		

> Your reasoning is wrong:  if I tell you that a character has a +2 ability bonus, it means that he has a 14 or 15 in that ability.  There's a correlation between the two representations, but this does not constitute a causal relationship.  The +2 ability bonus and the 14-15 ability score are just two representations of the character's inherent strength.
> 
> There is no "getting" of the bonus, in other words.  There's only how we describe the same amount of strength in different contexts.
> 
> ...




If I have a Strength of 13 and I hit level 4, what happens?  I add a +1 to Str, which in turn bumps up my Str to 14, which in turn puts my Str modifier from +1 to +2...  So at some point, that moment does exist.  You don't work in reverse, adding a +1 bonus to your modifier (making it +2), which in turn bumps your Str up to 14.  It only works one way, not the other.  Your Str modifier increasing is an effect of your Strength score rising, not the other way around, right?


----------



## mvincent (Sep 16, 2005)

Wow: 236 posts in this thread (237 now I guess).

Just noting that this question has just been answered by the Sage in the most recent Dragon magazine. If you want an offical answer, feel free to read it. If you are a firm believer that a monk cannot take improved natural attack no matter what is said, don't.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 16, 2005)

mvincent said:
			
		

> Just noting that this question has just been answered by the Sage in the most recent Dragon magazine.




That was, of course, noted in the very first of those 236 posts 

-Hyp.


----------



## mvincent (Sep 16, 2005)

239 posts in a matter of days?! (I just received it myself... and I have a subscription even) Wow. 
My bad. I wasn't planning to read all of them, but I guess I coulda paid more attention to the first one


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 16, 2005)

turbo said:
			
		

> It still only represents a change in the aspects of the character--a change effected by something other than itself.  By something other than the representation of the change.
> 
> Your character now knows how to make potions or has a bonus to a particular skill--well; we'll call that a Brew Potion feat or a Skill Focus feat and we'll say that the new ability has this or that limitations, but to suggest that, because it has a name or a particular form, that the change is then _caused_ by its name or by its form, while fine for talking about the change in an ordinary way, is completely unacceptable for determining how the change takes place under the rules.




Okay, I had wanted to get out of this thread, but I just had to comment on this one.  You can't just say that if you have a +3 bonus to a particular skill that you therefore have Skill Focus.  Because there's one thing that Skill Focus gets you that "a +3 unnamed bonus to a skill as a result of gaining a level in a class that grants this ability" doesn't.  And that's the ability to qualify for prestige classes that require Skill Focus as a prerequisite.  One is a feat, and one is simply an effect that happens to be the same as the effect from the feat.  And only the feat satisfies the prerequisites.  I think this demonstrates, again, that a feat is not identical to its effect.

Now that that's off my chest...you may continue.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 16, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> Okay, I had wanted to get out of this thread, but I just had to comment on this one.  You can't just say that if you have a +3 bonus to a particular skill that you therefore have Skill Focus.  Because there's one thing that Skill Focus gets you that "a +3 unnamed bonus to a skill as a result of gaining a level in a class that grants this ability" doesn't.  And that's the ability to qualify for prestige classes that require Skill Focus as a prerequisite.  One is a feat, and one is simply an effect that happens to be the same as the effect from the feat.  And only the feat satisfies the prerequisites.  I think this demonstrates, again, that a feat is not identical to its effect.
> 
> Now that that's off my chest...you may continue.




Flawed reasoning.  Feat requirements for Prestige Classes have more to do with balance than anything else.  Requiring "Skill Focus" means more than just that you have some sort of +3 unnamed bonus, it also means you the PLAYER had to use up one of his prescious character-development feats.  Even the rules themselves in at least one place refer to a feat as an effect.  Even if one says Feats = Effects, though, that's not the same as saying that having the effect means the player chose to use up a feat, effects may come from different sources.

However, that's really neither here nor there.  

I AM AT A COMPLETE LOSS AS TO HOW BOTH SIDES TO THIS DISCUSSION CANNOT SEE THAT EACH SIDE HAS MERIT AND THEREFORE THE RAW ITSELF CANNOT SETTLE WHETHER A MONK CAN TAKE INA.

This is why an "official" interpretation is important.  Now we know what one should allow when if not using any house rules.  Before this, either way would have qualified as following RAW.  Now only one way does, because an official interpretation has been issued on a question that arguably had two legitimate answers from the RAW.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 16, 2005)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Before this, either way would have qualified as following RAW.  Now only one way does, because an official interpretation has been issued on a question that arguably had two legitimate answers from the RAW.



 That's a nice blanket statement, but it's an opinion, not fact, and it's the reason for this debate in the first place.  How in the world do you presume to just wash away the whole debate by saying that both sides are supported by RAW?  It's simply not true.  Moreover, as has been stated in post #2, the 'official interpretation' has little or no relevance.  So, keep saying 'official' but you're just pissing in the wind.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 16, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> That's a nice blanket statement, but it's an opinion, not fact, and it's the reason for this debate in the first place.  How in the world do you presume to just wash away the whole debate by saying that both sides are supported by RAW?  It's simply not true.  Moreover, as has been stated in post #2, the 'official interpretation' has little or no relevance.  So, keep saying 'official' but you're just pissing in the wind.




I , and others, have presented valid RAW-based arguments showing how INA can be taken by monks.  You, and others, hawe presented valid argiuments showing how they do not qualify.

When both sides can present valid, RAW-based arguments supporting their contentions, an official interpretation is required to settle the dispute.  This has happened.


----------



## Deset Gled (Sep 16, 2005)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> When both sides can present valid, RAW-based arguments supporting their contentions, and official interpretation is required to settle the dispute.




Replace "official" with "DM" in that statement and I'm behind you 100%.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 16, 2005)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I , and others, have presented valid RAW-based arguments showing how INA can be taken by monks.



 If you did, this long debate wouldn't exist in the first place.  That's the whole point.  I'd concede a 'not definitive in the rules' scenario if it were true.  But, in this case, it's not.

Please understand that while it may seem like I'm merely being argumentative, that is not my intent.  I'm only trying to rebut the assertion that either the rules are unclear or that both sides are supported and to just hand-wave the whole debate away.  The opposing view (to mine, Patryn's, Hyp's, et al) do not have support in the RAW.  You can disagree and rule however you like, but don't try to issue a blanket statement to close the debate.  Let's just agree to disagree and we'll all houserule it like we wish.


----------



## spatha (Sep 16, 2005)

People are saying a non human monk with a natural weapon would get to the INA  feat only. I was under the impression that a creatures natural attacks couldn't be used in conguncture with a monks unarmed attacks. Hence while a lizardman monk using its inherent natural attack gets to aply the bonus to his natural attacks he can't apply the bonus to his unarmed attacks.


----------



## Gez (Sep 16, 2005)

turbo said:
			
		

> Similarly, no one burns an offering of a feat-slot to a feat-spirit to receive a feat-effect in return.




I find this declaration that I'm no one offensive to my religious beliefs.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 16, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> ... The opposing view (to mine, Patryn's, Hyp's, et al) do not have support in the RAW...




That's a load of bull.  You may not agree with the argument, but it's putting blinders on to simply wash the opposition's argument aside as saying it has no support in the RAW.  Citations from the RAW support BOTH sides of the argument.  Each side believes their argument is the better one.  Under those circumstacnes one is naive to think the other side's argument has no support in the RAW.  It's simpy not true.  BOTH sides have used the RAW to support their arguments.

Under these circumstances, if someone new to this wanted to follow the RAW, it would become immediately clear that they could buy into either argument and quite legitimately claim to be following the RAW.  With the new clarification from the Sage, there is now guidance that says that, if you with to follow the "offcial" D&D rules, you will allow a monk to qualify for INA.

It seems to me that not admitting that fact is simply being stubborn.

As for my part, I long ago conceeded the point that Hyp's argument has some basis in the RAW and is a SECOND valid interpretation of the RAW.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 16, 2005)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Replace "official" with "DM" in that statement and I'm behind you 100%.




I think that EVERYONE agrees that the final word is the DMs.  

This debate not about that .  

It's about whether there is any support in the RAW for Andy Collin's "official" statment about monks qualifying for INA.  It seem extremely clear to me that there is support within the RAW for that ruling, and, therfore, it is foolish to argue that Andy has "change" the rules rather than simply "clarifying" or "interpreting" them, which is what is being claimed.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 16, 2005)

spatha said:
			
		

> People are saying a non human monk with a natural weapon would get to the INA  feat only. I was under the impression that a creatures natural attacks couldn't be used in conguncture with a monks unarmed attacks. Hence while a lizardman monk using its inherent natural attack gets to aply the bonus to his natural attacks he can't apply the bonus to his unarmed attacks.




To clarify this point, the argument is that *having a natural weapon* qualifies you to take the feat.  But there's nothing in the feat that says that you have to apply it to the natural weapon that qualified you for the feat if you have something else to apply it to...for example, an unarmed attack that counts as a natural weapon for spells and effects.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 16, 2005)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Under these circumstances, if someone new to this wanted to follow the RAW, it would become immediately clear that they could buy into either argument and quite legitimately claim to be following the RAW.  With the new clarification from the Sage, there is now guidance that says that, if you with to follow the "offcial" D&D rules, you will allow a monk to qualify for INA.




If you want to follow the official D&D rules, you will allow a wizard to carry seventeen wands of fireball which he can activate in one action because they all have the same command word.  So says the Sage.  Which is one example of many as to why many of us don't listen to him.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 16, 2005)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> You may not agree with the argument, but it's putting blinders on to simply wash the opposition's argument aside as saying it has no support in the RAW.



 If it makes you feel better to call me naive, etc. go for it. 

If I thought you had support in the RAW, I'd say so.  I'm sure Patryn and Hyp would say so, too.  However, none of us do.  Are you quoting rules and making a reasonable argument?  Sure.  That's not what I am saying though.  There's no RAW argument vs. the prerequisite.  turbo tried a metaphysical argument, but I wasn't buying it. 

You can call me stubborn, but I am quite willing to change my stance on something given sufficient, even reasonable, support.  Ask mistwell for one.  In this particular case, I don't see it.  Like I said, the best we can do is disagree.  Until WotC issues errata, a human monk cannot take INA.  Moreover, before you ask, if WotC did issue errata, I would houserule that a monk cannot take INA and I currently houserule that e.g. a lizardman monk cannot (for his unarmed strikes).


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 16, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> If it makes you feel better to call me naive, etc. go for it.
> 
> If I thought you had support in the RAW, I'd say so.  I'm sure Patryn and Hyp would say so, too.  However, none of us do.  Are you quoting rules and making a reasonable argument?  Sure.  That's not what I am saying though.  There's no RAW argument vs. the prerequisite.  turbo tried a metaphysical argument, but I wasn't buying it.
> 
> You can call me stubborn, but I am quite willing to change my stance on something given sufficient, even reasonable, support.  Ask mistwell for one.  In this particular case, I don't see it.  Like I said, the best we can do is disagree.  Until WotC issues errata, a human monk cannot take INA.  Moreover, before you ask, if WotC did issue errata, I would houserule that a monk cannot take INA and I currently houserule that e.g. a lizardman monk cannot (for his unarmed strikes).




Ditto, but I already houserule that monks can in fact take INA.  If an erratum were issued that reified my house rule, it would probably tickle me pink.  But until then, it remains a house rule.


----------



## Gez (Sep 16, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> If you want to follow the official D&D rules, you will allow a wizard to carry seventeen wands of fireball which he can activate in one action because they all have the same command word.  So says the Sage.  Which is one example of many as to why many of us don't listen to him.




If I were a wizard, I'd be extra careful if I carried seventeen _wands of fireball_ that all had the same command word.

_Ars Kaboomis!_, says the wizard.
_Kaboom!_, says the fireball he targetted on the ogres.
_Auuuugggh! It burns! It burns like hygiene!_, says the ogres.
_KABADABOOM!_ says the sixteen _wands of fireball_ in the wizard's backpack.
_Dude, here are your 4d6, roll a new character..._, says the DM to the wizard's player.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 16, 2005)

Gez said:
			
		

> If I were a wizard, I'd be extra careful if I carried seventeen _wands of fireball_ that all had the same command word.
> 
> _Ars Kaboomis!_, says the wizard.
> _Kaboom!_, says the fireball he targetted on the ogres.
> ...




What, he wouldn't duct tape them together?  The whole point of the exercise is 85d6 damage in one standard action.  Save for half.


----------



## Gez (Sep 17, 2005)

Duct tape isn't in the equipment list in the Player's Handbook.

But seriously, at most I'd allow someone to use two wands at once, one in each hand. More than that, and the extra wands do not work -- if they're activated anyway, the DM "chooses randomly" how they're targetted, not the player. (Could you fire with two guns or more in the same hand?)

So, if the Sage indeed said that one may activate 17 wands at the same time if they've the same command word, I can agree with that. Why not?


----------



## Scion (Sep 17, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> If I thought you had support in the RAW




Oddly, I still havent seen any real raw that supports the position of not being able to take ina with a monk on his unarmed strike attacks.

I think that between how the wording works and other feats which suggest that feats 'are' effects that it is crystal clear.

I really do not see the arguement about it not working as holding any water. It seems highly contrived and based on an incredibly narrow reading that ignores other rules in the ruleset. 

But then, I have no problem with allowing it to work balance wise either, so even if it could be proven that it didnt work I'd still let it work in my own games 


And of course that seems to be what it comes down to, each side feels that the other side doesnt have any/enough rules basis to make its claim.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 17, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> Oddly, I still havent seen any real raw that supports the position of not being able to take ina with a monk on his unarmed strike attacks.
> 
> I think that between how the wording works and other feats which suggest that feats 'are' effects that it is crystal clear...




This really makes my point. When both sides of an argument see strong support for their position from the RAW, it seems clear that an offical interpretation is called for.  That's now happened.

Why is this difficult to accept?


----------



## ackron (Sep 17, 2005)

It seems clear that feats are effects according to the RAW. I also see no reason that said effects could not, in turn, cause or provide additional, secondary effects. It also seems clear that some feats to cause effects (Augment Summoning is the first example that comes to mind), while others (such as Combat Expertise) provide the character with a new ability. But in either case, the ability or effect is itself the result of another effect, the feat itself. The feat is an effect of leveling up (or perhaps, divine intervention or something else).

Basically, I agree with Turbo and Scion, that according to the RAW, a Monk should be able to take INA, and you don't need the sage's ruling to make that official.


----------



## apesamongus (Sep 17, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> If it isnt counting as a prereq then what exactly does the 'counting as ...' text really mean? As I understand it, some people are argueing that the text in question actually has no meaning at all, which I just cant agree with.



Yea, people keep trying to say it's about how you define "spell or effect", when really it's about how you define "for the purpose of".  It seems perfectly obvious to me than "to qualify for" should be included in "for the purpose of".


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 17, 2005)

Gez said:
			
		

> Duct tape isn't in the equipment list in the Player's Handbook.
> 
> But seriously, at most I'd allow someone to use two wands at once, one in each hand. More than that, and the extra wands do not work -- if they're activated anyway, the DM "chooses randomly" how they're targetted, not the player. (Could you fire with two guns or more in the same hand?)
> 
> So, if the Sage indeed said that one may activate 17 wands at the same time if they've the same command word, I can agree with that. Why not?




It doesn't really matter how many guns you could use, because wands aren't guns.  Targetting a wand (or a spell) is not an action, and so can be done freely no matter how many times a round you need to do it.  You could house rule otherwise, but this is now the "official" word on using wands, or any command word-activated item.  Just tie together a bundle of wands with the same command word, and wham!

It's dumb.  And it's official.  And it ignores the RAW, which clearly states that activating an item that activates by command word is a standard action.  But who are we to question the Sage?  After all, our opinions aren't official...

edit: just to be clear, the only reason you need to tie the wands together is so they don't fall from your hand, as a loose bundle of short rods might.  You don't need to point them or wave them, or anything.  You just need to be holding them.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 17, 2005)

double post


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 17, 2005)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> This really makes my point. When both sides of an argument see strong support for their position from the RAW, it seems clear that an offical interpretation is called for.  That's now happened.
> 
> Why is this difficult to accept?




Because the arbiter has a history of making patently wrong calls.  We think this is one of those calls.

Why is it hard to accept that the Sage is often wrong, and so cannot be trusted to clarify issues of this type?


----------



## Anubis (Sep 17, 2005)

How did this debate go seven pages even after the issue was officially addressed in a way to provide official explanation to something that was so obviously already there that a child could understand?

By the letter of the rules, Monks clearly are allowed to take Improved Natural Attack.  The Monk's unarmed strike is a natural weapon as per the word of the description, and a natural weapon is the only prerequisite (except for the BAB).  So how can anyone with half a brain think otherwise?  Are people here really that dense?

Seriously now, get a grip on reality.  Errata isn't needed, just a brain and the ability to read plain and simple English.  The word of the book, taken as-is, shows that Monks can take the dang feat.  As such, I'd say that anyone who disagrees is either a troll or a complete moron.  Take your pick.

Just for my information, though, what the flying flip is the RAW?  I know the FAQ, the SRD, and Errata, but I'm not familiar with that abbreviation.


----------



## Petronius_Ironfist (Sep 17, 2005)

*Hmm, 3d8 or 4d8*



			
				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?*
> 
> ...




If in fact the feat treats the monk as one size larger, than by the book wouldn't a 20th level monk have 4d8 worth of damage and the 16th level monk deal 3d8?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 17, 2005)

Anubis said:
			
		

> How did this debate go seven pages even after the issue was officially addressed in a way to provide official explanation to something that was so obviously already there that a child could understand? ... So how can anyone with half a brain think otherwise? Are people here really that dense?
> 
> Seriously now, get a grip on reality.
> ...
> I'd say that anyone who disagrees is either a troll or a complete moron.




If the debate has gone on for this long, don't you think there might be some kind of _reason_ that people are disagreeing with the Sage's ruling?  Perhaps, just maybe, you shouldn't be coming on here and comparing people's intellect unfavourably to that of a child simply because they don't agree with you.  People might get the idea that you are a rude person.

*ignored*


----------



## Legildur (Sep 17, 2005)

Anubis said:
			
		

> <snip>So how can anyone with half a brain think otherwise?  Are people here really that dense?
> 
> <snip>As such, I'd say that anyone who disagrees is either a troll or a complete moron.  Take your pick.
> 
> Just for my information, though, what the flying flip is the RAW?  I know the FAQ, the SRD, and Errata, but I'm not familiar with that abbreviation.




Gee, which one do I choose???  Let me think.....  I know, I choose option 3: that someone who doesn't understand the acronym RAW, whilst insulting people on the Rules forum, doesn't belong in this thread (or indeed forum) and needs to take a chill pill or three, and let the people making an intelligent contribution to the debate get on with it.

Otherwise I'm finding the thread interesting and entertaining and, generally, well mannered.


----------



## Anubis (Sep 17, 2005)

How about because the Sage shouldn't have even had to address the issue.  It's clear as day.  The text under the Monk says its unarmed strike is a natural weapon and the feat requires a natural weapon.  It's as plain as 2+2=4.  THAT is why I look down upon those who disagree; the facts are crystal clear as to the rules.

As for being rude, yes, I'm rude toward complete morons.



			
				Legildur said:
			
		

> Gee, which one do I choose???  Let me think.....  I know, I choose option 3: that someone who doesn't understand the acronym RAW, whilst insulting people on the Rules forum, doesn't belong in this thread (or indeed forum) and needs to take a chill pill or three, and let the people making an intelligent contribution to the debate get on with it.
> 
> Otherwise I'm finding the thread interesting and entertaining and, generally, well mannered.




Well, let's see, this is the first time I've ever heard that acronym, so it's natural that I don't know what it stands for.  Not that the RAW, whatever it is, could have any possible bearing on the issue at hand unless it's either errata changing the Monk's unarmed strike to not be a natural attack or errata changing the Improved Natural Attack feat so Monks can't take it.  I doubt it's either, so I stand on my point.

As for your saying I don't belong here, kiss my rear.  I've been playing this game longer than you have in all likelihood and was probably playing RPGs in general when you were still in diapers, so you can leave your ignorance at home.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 17, 2005)

Break out the alchemist's fire.  The thread's got a troll.  


And it was doing so well for a 7-page thread, too...


----------



## Anubis (Sep 17, 2005)

Yeah, it has a lot of trolls, you and anyone else trying to argue against pure fact.

If you were here saying you thought it was unbalanced to allow the monk to take the feat, I could understand that.  I'd disagree, but I'd leave it at that.

Unfortunately, you're here arguing that the rules don't allow the monk to take the feat, when the rules, plain as day, do.  The monk's description is crystal clear.  The unarmed strike is a natural weapon, and as such counts for the purposes of this feat.  Just as Magic Fang is allowed, so too is this feat.  The requirements are exactly the same to have both effects (Magic Fang and Improved Natural Attack), therefore it's quite obvious that they both work for that very reason.

I honestly can't understand how anyone could misunderstand it.  The words speak for themselves.  The Sage got this one right.  This is so easy he never should have needed to say so.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 17, 2005)

Anubis said:
			
		

> As for being rude, yes, I'm rude toward complete morons.




But in your own time, please, and not around here.

A standard of courtesy is expected.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)


----------



## Anubis (Sep 17, 2005)

Hey, stupid people make me very mad.  I can't help it that's a pet peeve of mine.  I simply can't push myself to be nice to people who are blatantly ignorant of things and pushing tripe.

The word of the rules is perfectly clear, there's no dispute or loophole to be seen.

1. Improved Natural Attack is a General feat, so normal PCs are allowed to take it.

2. The description of the Monk's Unarmed Strike is clear as day in saying "A monk's unarmed strike is treated as *both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon* for the purpose of spells and effects."  Feats are effects and thus feats apply in this way.

3. The prerequisites for Improved Unarmed Strike are "Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4", so through the combination of 1 and 2, Monks qualify.

This couldn't be clearer even if there was a sentence stating outright "Monks may take Improved Natural Attack."  I just can't figure out how anyone could have disputed this in the first place before the Sage weighed in.  On top of that, the Sage's answer is official, so unless someone puts something, anything in the FAQ or errata specifically prohibiting the Monk from taking Improved Natural Attack, they are allowed to do so.

It's befuddling how anyone can possibly misinterpret the letter of the rule when it's stated so damn clearly.  As such, I can only imagine that those arguing against it are either trolls or complete morons, and I have a strong distaste for both; am I to just sit back and twiddle my thumbs while this crap is being spread around?


----------



## Gez (Sep 17, 2005)

Anubis said:
			
		

> Hey, stupid people make me very mad.




Then you're clearly unfit to live in modern society. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> I can't help it that's a pet peeve of mine.  I simply can't push myself to be nice to people who are blatantly ignorant of things and pushing tripe.




You really _can't_ help it? Is that some sort of medical condition, like Asperger's syndrome? How did you/can you hope to get a job if you can't be nice with the stupid interviewer during the job interview?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> Feats are effects and thus feats apply in this way.




This was, in effect, the crux of the debate. Are feats effects?

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got a feat-slot to burn in offering to the great Feat Spirit of Improved Initiative.


----------



## Shadowdweller (Sep 17, 2005)

Oy!  How this thread exposes our various pathologies.

You guys think maybe the word 'effect' might have been used to AVOID having to list off EVERY single condition where the monk's attacks qualify as natural weapons?

After all, you CANNOT simply say something along the lines of "A monk's unarmed attacks count as natural weapons for all purposes" because that might confuse the routines and attack boni with those of natural weapons, which ARE treated differently.


----------



## Anubis (Sep 17, 2005)

Gez said:
			
		

> This was, in effect, the crux of the debate. Are feats effects?




Thus proving the point about people being ignorant about this.  How can feats NOT be effects?  They can be nothing else.  Also, if feats aren't effects, what exactly are effects?  The sentence says "spells and effects", so spells and effects are spoken of in different terms based on that.  As such, the only real things left are the ability groups (Su, Ex, and Sp), and feats are, in effect, Extraordinary Abilities (some are Supernarual Abilities, of course), and as such, feats MUST be effects as they can be nothing else.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Sep 17, 2005)

Anubis said:
			
		

> Hey, stupid people make me very mad.  I can't help it that's a pet peeve of mine.




That's a shame.  Try again in three days, perhaps.

There is reasoned debate, and there is calling people morons.  One of those is acceptable.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)


----------



## Caliban (Sep 17, 2005)

Anubis said:
			
		

> Hey, stupid people make me very mad.  I can't help it that's a pet peeve of mine.  I simply can't push myself to be nice to people who are blatantly ignorant of things and pushing tripe.




You know, I feel the same way.  But there is a line between "not being nice" and "frothing at the mouth and spewing childish attacks".   So even though you make me very mad, I'm not going to attack you.  



> The word of the rules is perfectly clear, there's no dispute or loophole to be seen.




I've got 7 pages of posts that says your wrong.   



> 1. Improved Natural Attack is a General feat, so normal PCs are allowed to take it.




It's not in the PHB, so it's up to the DM as to whether normal PC's have access to it or not.   



> 2. The description of the Monk's Unarmed Strike is clear as day in saying "A monk's unarmed strike is *treated as* both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon *for the purpose of* spells and effects."




Fixed that for you.   "treated as...for the purpose of" does not mean "in all cases".   It means "for these specific cases"




> Feats are effects and thus feats apply in this way.




I can play this game to!   

"The prerequisite for a feat is not an effect, and thus a monk doesn't meet any prerequisite that calls for an actual natural weapon. "

Notice how I just stated my opinion as if it were a fact, without any supporting arguements?  Pretty cool, huh?   

So you can see why you are completely wrong now, and I'm completely right.  I stated my opinion so strongly and everything.   There's no way you can disagree with me now, because I said so.  



> 3. The prerequisites for Improved Unarmed Strike are "Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4", so through the combination of 1 and 2, Monks qualify.




Sorry, I already said they didn't, and my opinion on this was stated months and months ago.  So I'm right because I said it first!  And used strong statements and exclamation marks!!



> This couldn't be clearer even if there was a sentence stating outright "Monks may take Improved Natural Attack."




7 pages of posts still says your wrong. 



> I just can't figure out how anyone could have disputed this in the first place before the Sage weighed in.  On top of that, the Sage's answer is official, so unless someone puts something, anything in the FAQ or errata specifically prohibiting the Monk from taking Improved Natural Attack, they are allowed to do so.




Because the rules dont' actually support the Sages ruling, when viewed a certain way.   I happen to be willing to accept the Sages ruling anyway in this particular case, but I'm smart enough to see both sides of the arguement.  (I think the "No Improved Natural Attack for monks" people are technically right, but would probably allow it in my campaign anyway.)

And guess what, it's not an allowed feat (for standard races) in ANY of the "official" campaigns run or sanctioned by WOTC in the RPGA. 



> It's befuddling how anyone can possibly misinterpret the letter of the rule when it's stated so damn clearly.




That's cause it's not!    



> As such, I can only imagine that those arguing against it are either trolls or complete morons, and I have a strong distaste for both; am I to just sit back and twiddle my thumbs while this crap is being spread around?




Pot?  Meet kettle.  Enjoy your thumb twiddling time.   

And I told myself I was just going to leave this thread alone.


----------



## spatha (Sep 17, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> To clarify this point, the argument is that *having a natural weapon* qualifies you to take the feat.  But there's nothing in the feat that says that you have to apply it to the natural weapon that qualified you for the feat if you have something else to apply it to...for example, an unarmed attack that counts as a natural weapon for spells and effects.




Oh I understand the argument. My point is the INA feat should only apply to that races natural attacks. I don't think it should apply to a monk of said races unarmed attacks. My understanding is that a natural attack is a different attack type from an unarmed attack. INA gives a bonus to a natural attack hence this bonus can't be used on a monk of any race's unarmed attack. Much like a str bonus applied to melee and a dex bonus applies to ranged combat the INA bonus applies to a natural attack not an unamred monk attack. Hopefully I am making my point clear. I don't understand why there is any debate when as far as I understand the rules the bonus can't be used at all on monks unarmed attacks regardless of race.


----------



## Scion (Sep 17, 2005)

spatha said:
			
		

> I don't understand why there is any debate when as far as I understand the rules the bonus can't be used at all on monks unarmed attacks regardless of race.




Except that the rules state that monks weapons are treated as natural weapons for effects that enhance them and that feats are effects.

So, putting the two together means that they can take it.


----------



## FEADIN (Sep 17, 2005)

Mmmmmm....
A monster attacking with a natural weapon is considered armed and threaten the spaces near him.
A human attacking with a natural weapon is not considered armed, doen't threaten spaces.
A human with the feat improved unarmed stike is considered armed an threaten the spaces.
*IMPROVED UNARMED STRIKE [GENERAL]
Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed —that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed. 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.

There is no doubt that the natural weapon of a human is his fist/hand when there is nothing more dangerous to strike the enemies.
I understand that there will always be problems with forthcoming books because they cannot point every littlle rule or interpretation made years before and also because they bring *new options to the game.*

*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*. 
Unless otherwise noted, a natural weapon threatens a critical hit on a natural attack roll of 20......
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.


----------



## spatha (Sep 17, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> Except that the rules state that monks weapons are treated as natural weapons for effects that enhance them and that feats are effects.
> 
> So, putting the two together means that they can take it.



Ok let me clarify.
I have seen people say a lizardman monk can use INA for his unarmed attacks but a human can't because he the human doesn't have a natural attack. I am saying  INA can't be used on unarmed attacks regardless of race as the bonus should only aply to said characters natural attacks not his unarmed attacks. It should be all or none for monks  using it, not some monks can because their race has an inherint natural attack. Either monks unarmed attacks are treated as natural weapons for spells and  effects that enhance them or they aren't. There should be no gray area where certain races can use it and certain races can't. IMO INA should only apply to a races natural attack regardless of class. Thus it is a pointless feat for a human. A lizardman can take it but it should only apply to it's natural attacks not its monk attacks.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 17, 2005)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> This really makes my point. When both sides of an argument see strong support for their position from the RAW, it seems clear that an offical interpretation is called for.  That's now happened.
> 
> Why is this difficult to accept?



 Here's the thing.  You see strong support for your side.  I see strong support for my side.  I don't care whether you see strong support for my side (though you say you do).  I, however, don't see strong support for your side.  In fact, I see a very simple, absolutely iron clad rule for my side.  Is your rule balanced and okay as a houserule?  Sure, I'll agree to that.  But, I can't honestly agree that your interpretation has strong support in the face of (what I feel) is the undeniable rule for the prerequisite.   It's as simple as that.  If I were to say I thought that your interpretation had some basis, I'd be intellectually dishonest.  I see no basis in the face of the prerequisite.  None whatsover.  The FAQ, therefore, IMO, is wrong and also IMO blatantly obviously so.

So, I admire the fact that you take your stance and even that you feel it's 100% supported by RAW.  I don't even consider you naive, stubborn, or anything like that.  Have your opinion and I'll have mine and we'll have to agree to disagree or you can just keep insulting me (like Anubis did -- and, please, Anubis, I was out of grammar school before you were born).

I don't think any new arguments can be made, but if you want a summary for the sake of this long thread, I'd be happy to oblige.


----------



## Pielorinho (Sep 17, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> Have your opinion and I'll have mine and we'll have to agree to disagree or you can just keep insulting me (like Anubis did -- and, please, Anubis, I was out of grammar school before you were born).



Just a quick reminder that *Anubis* is on a three-day mandatory vacation, so it'd probably be best to let that argument go.

I'm in a class now on teaching literacy to kids, and one of the theories that we're looking at is called transactional reading, which suggests that meaning occurs as a transaction between the text, the reader, and the context of the reading.  As such, while some meanings are obviously more valid than others (if I read "The Neverending Story" to be a literal history of the collapse of East Germany's economy, I've got problems), there's room for more than one valid interpretation of a text.

As far as I can tell, both interpretations in this thread are valid. Nobody is suggesting that Improved Natural Attack will give a monk the ability to attack with any non-artificial weapon (e.g., a thrown rock), or something equally silly; both sides have got legitimate points.  Referring to either side as a "house rule" seems to me to marginalize the opposition.  The important thing, as always, is to decide which interpretation a particular group will use, and then that interpretation will be the only valid one within that group.

Daniel


----------



## Shadowdweller (Sep 17, 2005)

Pielorinho said:
			
		

> Referring to either side as a "house rule" seems to me to marginalize the opposition. The important thing, as always, is to decide which interpretation a particular group will use, and then that interpretation will be the only valid one within that group.



 Well put.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 18, 2005)

> Except that the rules state that monks weapons are treated as natural weapons for effects that enhance them and that feats *generate* effects.
> 
> So, putting the two together means that they can take it.




Fixed, so that the "monks can't take INA" side will agree with the point.

...the point being, regardless of whether you qualify by virtue of your unarmed strike (which you can't) or your natural weapon (to which there is no challenge from either side), you can apply INA to an unarmed strike because the effect of INA is to improve a natural weapon.  An effect that improves a natural weapon may be applied to a monk's unarmed strike, so this improvement is legit, once you qualify for the feat somehow.

It might not make sense to be able to use an unrelated natural attack to qualify for the feat and then apply it to your unarmed strike.  However, the rules don't always make sense.  Take hit points, for example.  They don't make sense.  But they're real convenient.  So we use them.

Now then, how about the question of whether a druid with Wild Shape can take INA?  Any takers?


----------



## Scion (Sep 18, 2005)

Feats generate effects and they 'are' effects, all at the same time.

As my ealier rules quote proves explicitly.

Also, please take my name off of the quote as you changed what I had said. It is pretty insulting as written to have words changed and attributed incorrectly.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 18, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> Feats generate effects and they 'are' effects, all at the same time.
> 
> As my ealier rules quote proves explicitly.
> 
> Also, please take my name off of the quote as you changed what I had said. It is pretty insulting as written to have words changed and attributed incorrectly.




No they're not, and sure thing.


----------



## Scion (Sep 18, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> No they're not, and sure thing.




So I have a rule that says explicitly that they are effects.

But that isnt good enough?

When did we leave the rules forum?


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 18, 2005)

You have a citation, IIRC, that includes feats in a list that terminates in "or other effects".  That doesn't seem to me to be a clear statement that a feat is an effect, only that other effects are included in the category of "things that a particular situation applies to," which also, in this case, happens to include feats.  But I can see how you might want to read it in an other way.  Considering that it's the only place that feats and effects ever brush elbows in this way, I'd like some more evidence.


----------



## Scion (Sep 18, 2005)

I dont see any other way to read it if we are still useing the english language to parse it.

If there is another way to read it feel free to explain.


----------



## Rystil Arden (Sep 18, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> I dont see any other way to read it if we are still useing the english language to parse it.
> 
> If there is another way to read it feel free to explain.



 "The victim seems to have been attacked by an unknown animal, though the inspector thinks that it is probably a wolf, bear, lion, tiger, panther, or other feline."


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 18, 2005)

edit: Never mind, Rystil did it for me.


----------



## Scion (Sep 18, 2005)

Rystil Arden said:
			
		

> "The victim seems to have been attacked by an unknown animal, though the inspector thinks that it is probably a wolf, bear, lion, tiger, panther, or other feline."




Now, I am not an english major, but to me this just 'feels' wrong. Can anyone explain why it is correct or incorrect by english standards?

In my mind it is the 'or other' that is really killing your arguement.

If I was to take out the lion, tiger, and panter from your sentence it should still work grammatically if it was correct to begin with. At that point we are left with this:

'The victim seems to have been attacked by an unknown animal, though the inspector thinks that it is probably a wolf, bear, or other feline.'

And that just doesnt make any sense at all.

Now it could be 'or other predatory animals' or something similar, but the 'or other' really means that they should all be related.

At least that is how it seems to me. Can anyone provide support for this either way as an expert in english?


----------



## Dimwhit (Sep 18, 2005)

Dr. Awkward said:
			
		

> You have a citation, IIRC, that includes feats in a list that terminates in "or other effects".  That doesn't seem to me to be a clear statement that a feat is an effect, only that other effects are included in the category of "things that a particular situation applies to," which also, in this case, happens to include feats.  But I can see how you might want to read it in an other way.  Considering that it's the only place that feats and effects ever brush elbows in this way, I'd like some more evidence.




(I knew I'd get sucked back into this.)

First, I can't find Scion's quote you're referring to, so I'm shooting a little blind. However, considering that you (Awkward) haven't given one citation to show that feats are expressly NOT effects, I'd say Scion is one up on you.

However, I will say this: adding 'or other effects' to a list is completely ambiguous. Though it more likely implies that the preceding list also includes effects, it doesn't have to. Regardless, that doesn't help one way or the other with the wording of the Monk's unarmed attack.

It's not worth getting into a symantic argument over the wording here. Neither side can win. The only issue that can really be debated is: can feats be considered 'effects'?

I have not seen any citations from any of the rules, RAW or otherwise, that attempts to define 'effects' to any limiting scope. It is being used generically, i.e. as defined in common usage. Here is the definition of 'effect' (from my dictionary widget):



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




I would argue that a feat is an ability that results from another cause, namely, gaining a level. You can a level, now you can (for example) more effectively dodge a chosen opponent, or craft a wand, etc.

So by that application of the definition of 'effect,' a Monk should be able to use the feat.

I would be interested in hearing the counter argument, using specific citations and definitions as the basis of the argument, not by saying the sage is always wrong anyway. I don't think it can be done, but I'm willing to be corrected.


----------



## Dinkeldog (Sep 18, 2005)

Note that I'm not going to get sucked back into this.  For any group that I DM for, the interpretation is pretty clear.

I do want to say that the answer earlier for what RAW means is "Rules As Written."


----------



## Legildur (Sep 18, 2005)

Edit:  Legildur, please read the moderator comments upthread.  Folks, please don't respond to flames with more flames; report a bad post instead of responding to it, and check the rest of the thread to see if a moderator has already responded to the bad post.  Thanks!
-Pielorinho


----------



## Legildur (Sep 18, 2005)

Dinkeldog said:
			
		

> <snip>I do want to say that the answer earlier for what RAW means is "Rules As Written."



Awww, you spoiled my fun


----------



## Pielorinho (Sep 18, 2005)

You really wanna see fun-spoiling, look above.  Sorry, man!
Daniel


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 18, 2005)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> ... In fact, I see a very simple, absolutely iron clad rule for my side. ...I don't think any new arguments can be made, but if you want a summary for the sake of this long thread, I'd be happy to oblige.




Okay, one last time (perhaps).

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?"

I KNOW you disagree, but I am absolutely dumfounded that you cannot see that the opposing argument (that is, that monks CAN take INA within the RAW) has some merit.  It seems to me that you are trying a bit too hard to find a definitive rule here.  What I am saying is that after analyzing both sides of this argument, both sides have merit.  There is NO clear rule within the RAW for this specific instance, as demonstrated by the fact that BOTH sides see a very clear support with the RAW for their side.

It’s one thing to say I am wrong (as I say you are), and quite another to say that my argument has no merit, which is what you seem to be saying.

Neither side appears to be intellectually bankrupt, and both side present clear, coherent arguments based upon common interpretations of the English language and the rules as written. 

When both sides to an argument present clear, coherent rules-based arguments to support their respective positions it seems clear that the rule in question is, shall we say, less than clear - as presented in the rules.  In such a case, an official interpretation is clearly needed if we are to know how the rule is supposed to be followed - not counting house rules.

At this point, given the Sage ruling, any rule that disallows the taking if INA by a monk is a House Rule.  It may (or may not) be a reasonable and logical and even somewhat rules-based House Rule, but it is a House Rule nonetheless.

Note that WotC customer service has instructions to unequivocally state that the rule is that monks qualify for INA.  I have that from a reliable source within WotC customer service.  Take that for whatever it is worth to you.


----------



## Borlon (Sep 18, 2005)

Reading this thread and the other one (theEvil's Poll on the same subject) has led me to change my mind.  

Monks' unarmed attacks are treated as natural weapons for the purpose of spells and other effects.  A feat is an effect.  Therefore, a feat treats a monk's unarmed attack as a natural weapon.  Therefore a feat's prerequisites treat a monk's unarmed attack as a natural weapon.  Therefore a human monk with sufficiently high BAB qualifies for INA.

The key point of the argument is determining that a feat is an effect.  What convinced me of this is the observation that a feat is a result of leveling up.  The term "effect" is loosely enough defined that it is permissible to consider a "result" to be a kind of effect.  I also hold that if a feat is an effect of leveling up, so are all the parts of a feat; in particular, any pre-requisites of the feat.  The prerequisites are not the effect of a feat in the way that the benefits of a feat are, but they have to originate from something (the event that resulted in the feat is the most plausible origin), and so are the result/effect of something.

This interpretation of "effect" might lead to other problems, and so I might have to revise my opinion yet again, but this is where I stand at the moment.  Specifically, if it makes the monk's unarmed attacks count as a natural weapon for *all purposes*, then there would be a problem; the rules on iterative attacks would kick in, etc..  But I don't see the rules governing iterative attacks as being an effect of anything, so they shouldn't kick in.  And if they were an effect, then there remains the point that a monk's unarmed attacks are also considered manufactured weapons, and so the manufactured weapons rule could be followed if it was in the monk's best interests.


----------



## Legildur (Sep 19, 2005)

Legildur said:
			
		

> Edit:  Legildur, please read the moderator comments upthread.  Folks, please don't respond to flames with more flames; report a bad post instead of responding to it, and check the rest of the thread to see if a moderator has already responded to the bad post.  Thanks!
> -Pielorinho



Gotcha.  Sorry, I read over Hypersmurf's use of the term 'vacation'.  At least I wasn't too insulting.  But you still spoiled my fun.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 19, 2005)

Scion said:
			
		

> Rystil Arden said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




This is an incorrect listing.   A correct way would be:

"...probably a wolf or bear, or a lion, tiger, panther, or other feline."  The method of listing done originally makes wolves and bears appear to be felines.

In the same way:

"Must have spell resistance from a feat, class feature, or other permanent effect, " as written, means that feats are permanent effects.  Re-writing it to separate "feats" from "class features and other permanent effect" would require something like:

"Must have spell resistance from a class feature or other permanent effect, or a feat. "

Mind you, I think the key point is whether the bonus to the natural weapon is an effect - whether or not the feats itself is an effect does not really matter - at least not to my way of thinking.


----------



## glass (Sep 19, 2005)

Anubis said:
			
		

> How about because the Sage shouldn't have even had to address the issue.  It's clear as day.  The text under the Monk says its unarmed strike is a natural weapon and the feat requires a natural weapon.  It's as plain as 2+2=4.



Except that it quite blatently doesn't say that, and indeed the monks unarmed strike quite simply can't _be_ a natural weapon without intorducing serious inconsistancies elsewhere.

For all the arguments in this thread, noone else has argued that a monk unarmed strike _is_ a natural weapon -not even the people on 'your' side of the debate.

_EDIT: I put 'your' in inverted commas. I doubt the INA allowed side of the debate really want to be associated with you.

2ND EDIT: Posted this before I saw Hyp's post about Anubis's absence. I'm leaving it in because I responded to his point not his insults, bit the mods think it's a problem I'd be happy to edit it._


glass.


----------



## Lonely Tylenol (Sep 19, 2005)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Note that WotC customer service has instructions to unequivocally state that the rule is that monks qualify for INA.  I have that from a reliable source within WotC customer service.  Take that for whatever it is worth to you.




It's nice to see that someone is finally trying to get customer service to give consistent answers on at least one subject.  I hope they expand this to cover the rest of the rules as well.


----------



## Pielorinho (Sep 19, 2005)

glass said:
			
		

> _EDIT: I put 'your' in inverted commas. I doubt the INA allowed side of the debate really want to be associated with you._



_
*Moderator's Notes*:
Sometimes I despair of persuading people that the "no insults" rule means what it says.  If you have any advice on how we can communicate this concept more effectively without having to lock threads, please let us know.

Meanwhile, locked.
Daniel_


----------

