Advice on 9th level Monk doing 6d6 damage per strike...

[KarinsDad]

Someone mentioned the PHBII a bit ago, so I checked. Improved Natural Attack is one of the 'suggested' feats for an offensively themed monk.

As far as I am concerned, that, along with the text about monk's unarmed strike counting as natural weapons for enhancements and the specific allowance of INA in the FAQ....combines to conclude that monks are absolutely allowed to take Improved Natural Attack in accordance with the RAW.

I agree that some designers at WotC are taking this stance. And, it is perfectly reasonable for people to agree with this stance.

However, I disagree that the core rules support this as written.

But, that often happens in the game system. The writing of the rules is not perfect and one set of later designers often ignore or override what was written by earlier designers. Alternatively, the earlier designers did not consider all possibilities and sometimes have errors of omission.


I also think that the PHB II is purposely designed for powergaming. So, a feat that typically adds an extra 3.5 points of damage (and sometimes more) on average when Weapon Specialization adds only 2 points and has another feat as a prerequisite is not exactly surprising.


Btw, Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization explicitly state that they are allowed for Unarmed Strikes. INA does not.

 

[Cedric]

I agree that some designers at WotC are taking this stance. And, it is perfectly reasonable for people to agree with this stance.

However, I disagree that the core rules support this as written.

But, that often happens in the game system. The writing of the rules is not perfect and one set of later designers often ignore or override what was written by earlier designers. Alternatively, the earlier designers did not consider all possibilities and sometimes have errors of omission.


I also think that the PHB II is purposely designed for powergaming. So, a feat that typically adds an extra 3.5 points of damage (and sometimes more) on average when Weapon Specialization adds only 2 points and has another feat as a prerequisite is not exactly surprising.


Btw, Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization explicitly state that they are allowed for Unarmed Strikes. INA does not.

Ok...so can a monk use Weapon Finesse with his unarmed strike?

 

[Moon-Lancer]

yup. its a light weapon, but i see what you mean.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Is not the "effect" of the feat to increase natural damage by one size increment?

Correct, the effect of the feat. First you get the feat, THEN you get it's effect. How can you get the feat in the first place if you don't qualify for it though?

 

[RigaMortus2]

Thanks for pointing that out to RigaMortus2...I thought for a minute, until I noticed you had responsed to the original message, that I was going to have to bust out my skills as a 15th level Semanticist. However, no need, you handled it beautifully.

Not really, since a feat is not an effect. It is a feat. The benefit of the feat may be an effect though, but you'll never get that benefit if you don't first qualify for the feat.

 

[Cedric]

Not really, since a feat is not an effect. It is a feat. The benefit of the feat may be an effect though, but you'll never get that benefit if you don't first qualify for the feat.

Regardless how many times feat or effect of feat is defined or reinterrpreted, it's clear from the fact that INA is a recommended Monk Feat in PHB2 that the RAW allows INA for Monks.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Regardless how many times feat or effect of feat is defined or reinterrpreted, it's clear from the fact that INA is a recommended Monk Feat in PHB2 that the RAW allows INA for Monks.

PHB2 came out after the INA "ruling" was in the FAQ. Since the ruling was in there, the designers probably decided to "promote" the ruling by including it as a suggested feat. That doesn't mean it is correct per RAW.

The other tangent this discussion could go off on is the FAQ being used to "clarify" rules vs. "overrule/create/change" rules. The FAQ should be used to clarify questions player's have, not create new rules (that is what errata is for). So the FAQ entry for INA clearly does not match up with the actual RAW for INA (located in the MM I beleive). If the designers wanted it to work this way, they should have issued errata on it. Instead, they tried to "clarify" their position in the FAQ, and when you take a deep look at the rules logic, it clearly doesn't match.

An example of a good FAQ ruling (IMHO) would be clarifying that you can Cleave off of an AoO. It isn't specifically mentioned in the feat or AoO description, it can be implied, but it is a common question player's have. They can go to the FAQ to get a clarification.

 

[Cedric]

PHB2 came out after the INA "ruling" was in the FAQ. Since the ruling was in there, the designers probably decided to "promote" the ruling by including it as a suggested feat. That doesn't mean it is correct per RAW.

The other tangent this discussion could go off on is the FAQ being used to "clarify" rules vs. "overrule/create/change" rules. The FAQ should be used to clarify questions player's have, not create new rules (that is what errata is for). So the FAQ entry for INA clearly does not match up with the actual RAW for INA (located in the MM I beleive). If the designers wanted it to work this way, they should have issued errata on it. Instead, they tried to "clarify" their position in the FAQ, and when you take a deep look at the rules logic, it clearly doesn't match.

An example of a good FAQ ruling (IMHO) would be clarifying that you can Cleave off of an AoO. It isn't specifically mentioned in the feat or AoO description, it can be implied, but it is a common question player's have. They can go to the FAQ to get a clarification.

Well, it's clear that if you and others refuse to accept the "official" faq and subsequent published material by Wizards as being a valid indicator of how to understand a particular rule, then there is absolutely nothing I can do to convince you.

Good luck all with your games.

Cedric

 

[RigaMortus2]

Well, it's clear that if you and others refuse to accept the "official" faq and subsequent published material by Wizards as being a valid indicator of how to understand a particular rule, then there is absolutely nothing I can do to convince you.

Good luck all with your games.

Cedric

If I didn't understand the rule (how INA interacts with Monk's unarmed strike, or the lack there of), then I would probably go to the FAQ as most folks. And I would probably post the question on here to get other perspectives. But since I don't need to understand this particular rule, because I can follow the RAW logic behind it on my own, I have no need for the FAQ in this instance (and I can in fact see how it is wrong in this particular instance).

So no... I don't usually make it a habit of accepting rulings that are faulty and go against the RAW, even if they are from something/someone "official". If you do, who am I to judge, right?

Good luck to you to!

 

[Artoomis]

If I didn't understand the rule (how INA interacts with Monk's unarmed strike, or the lack there of), then I would probably go to the FAQ as most folks. And I would probably post the question on here to get other perspectives. But since I don't need to understand this particular rule, because I can follow the RAW logic behind it on my own, I have no need for the FAQ in this instance (and I can in fact see how it is wrong in this particular instance).

So no... I don't usually make it a habit of accepting rulings that are faulty and go against the RAW, even if they are from something/someone "official". If you do, who am I to judge, right?

Good luck to you to!

ROFL

Thanks, I needed a good laugh.

If the FAQ is not there to clear up situations when there is clear disagreement in the D&D community at largt over a rule interpratation, then it is of truly small value indeed.

The previous VERY large debate on this subject, with many folks checking in and, as I recall, a more-or-less evenly split poll, indicates a need for a FAQ entry with WotC choosing one position or the other.

So, those who REALLY want to follow WotC RAW MUST use the FAQ entry in this case.

Those who don't care and only want to follow the way THEY THEMSELVES view the RAW, of course, may ignore the FAQ.

Pesonally, I think everyone should understand the issues and make their own decisions.