Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[geosapient]

He's still Pro-INA.

He is probably one of the people who believe that the monk is underpowered as a melee combatant, and that INA puts them more in line with other melee classes.

Up to that point yes. But there he is denying the stacking of improved unarmed strike and improved natural attack. (?)

 

[geosapient]

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

Actually, Some prestige classes have prerequisites of spell casting ability even if the spell casting ability is just a spell like effect.

The effect then becomes a prerequisite.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Actually, Some prestige classes have prerequisites of spell casting ability even if the spell casting ability is just a spell like effect.

The effect then becomes a prerequisite.

No, the effect satisfies the prerequisite.

A prerequisite doesn't do anything; it's a requirement. What it is that is required might be a thing that does something.

-Hyp.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Up to that point yes. But there he is denying the stacking of improved unarmed strike and improved natural attack. (?)

Nah. He's using sarcasm.

 

[geosapient]

No, the effect satisfies the prerequisite.

A prerequisite doesn't do anything; it's a requirement. What it is that is required might be a thing that does something.

-Hyp.

I often times think of meeting the prerequisite as having the preprequisite. I guess it is flawed logic.

 

[Cedric]

Despite where it says "A Bluff check made to feint in combat is a standard action", or where the Improved Feint feat says "Normal: Feinting in combat is a standard action", or where Table 8-2 lists "Feint (see page 155)" under "Standard Action"?



If the person you feinted provokes an AoO, you'd get an attack before your next turn. A Choker (with Quickness [Su]) could feint as a standard action and attack before his next turn. Various ways exist in splatbooks - Snake's Swiftness from Spell Compendium, for example.

Feint is definitely a standard action.

-Hyp.

Oh...I fully realize that the rules originally had it listed in multiple places as a Standard action. However, it's clear to me from the logic of what it is and how its used, as well as from the revision in the FAQ, that Feint is a move action.

But, then again, I'm of the opinion that the "Official" FAQ is actually Official and rests at the top of the rules hierarchy, since it is a central repository for clarifications and revisions to all other 3.5 Documents.

 

[Legildur]

Oh...I fully realize that the rules originally had it listed in multiple places as a Standard action. However, it's clear to me from the logic of what it is and how its used, as well as from the revision in the FAQ, that Feint is a move action.

Really? Here is a quote from the FAQ, word for word, where it says that feinting is a move action (from the 9/20/06 version, but it's been there for a few versions now) [relevant text highlighted in yellow]:

Can a monk make disarm, sunder, and trip attacks during her flurry of blows? What about grapple checks? What about bull rushes, overruns, or other special combat maneuvers?
As long as every attack is made with one of the monk’s special weapons (that is, weapons allowed as part of a flurry), the monk can perform any special attack that takes the place of a normal attack. She’s free to disarm, sunder, trip, and grapple to her heart’s content.
She couldn’t bull rush or overrun (since those don’t use special monk weapons), nor could she aid another (which requires a standard action) or feint (which requires a move action).

It is quite clearly wrong and contradictory to all other sources on using the Bluff skill to feint in combat.

Your take would require ignoring the PHB in several places (as pointed out by Hypersmurf in an earlier post) and making wholly redundant the Improved Feint feat (PHB p95) and some Prestige Classes (the Invisible Blade from Complete Warrior being one of those with its uncanny feint special ability). It is also contradictory to the Rules of the Game: Actions (part four) article where it has the following to say about feinting in combat:

Feint: Feinting is a standard action you use in melee combat. It does not provoke attacks of opportunity.

The rules don't say so, but you may want to assume that your foe does not notice a successful feint attempt. If a player character is subjected to feint attempt, the DM should make the required opposed check (see page 155 in the Player's Handbook) secretly. To take advantage of a successful feint, you must make a melee attack against your foe on or before your next turn. If you cannot make the attack in time, the feint is wasted.

The Improved Feint feat allows you to feint as a move action.

I only use the feint example as a way of undermining the credibility of the FAQ as a rules source. I think the FAQ is a useful document, but hardly the last word on the rules. And yes, there are other examples of clear errors in the FAQ.

 

[Krelios]

Hmmm. Interesting. I can see the correlation (prosecution cases are probably often dependent on eye witness testimony), and of course, that does match my personal POV.


Interesting story that has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. My wife, a friend, his wife and myself were walking near my old university campus. A drunk driver uses his car to crash through the locked gates at an entrance, spins around and leaves. My wife got a good description of the driver and his shirt. My friend got the make and model of the car. His wife got the color of the car. I got the license plate number. Between us, we had enough substantial information that the police were able to pick the guy up at his apartment in a matter of 10 minutes while he was still intoxicated. And, each of us had totally different eye witness testimony.

Eyewitnesses were great for identifying the man and giving the police a place to start, but if he hadn't been drunk and his car hadn't been damaged, you would likely not have gotten a conviction. Just because four people said something happened, doesn't mean it did.

 

[KarinsDad]

To add to what Legildur stated:

Can a monk make disarm, sunder, and trip attacks during her flurry of blows? What about grapple checks? What about bull rushes, overruns, or other special combat maneuvers?
As long as every attack is made with one of the monk’s special weapons (that is, weapons allowed as part of a flurry), the monk can perform any special attack that takes the place of a normal attack. She’s free to disarm, sunder, trip, and grapple to her heart’s content.
She couldn’t bull rush or overrun (since those don’t use special monk weapons), nor could she aid another (which requires a standard action) or feint (which requires a move action).

This same entry is also misleading (or incorrect) in that it indicates that a Monk can just trip or grapple with a special weapon (unless it is a Kama and that does not allow one to grapple). The Monk can trip with a normal unarmed strike Flurry or a normal unarmed strike attack or even with Improved Trip, and I think this is what this was attempting to say. But, the core Monk special weapons do not add the ability to trip (except with a Kama) or grapple with them.

The person who wrote this either did not know what he was talking about, or he was just plain careless. Either way, this paragraph is worthless as an official source because the very reason to come to the FAQ is because a person is confused. Coming to the FAQ and getting a confusing or misleading answer is not what you want to do.

 

[KarinsDad]

Eyewitnesses were great for identifying the man and giving the police a place to start, but if he hadn't been drunk and his car hadn't been damaged, you would likely not have gotten a conviction. Just because four people said something happened, doesn't mean it did.

Precisely.

Eyewitness testimony should be allowed to gain additional information, but one should not build a case on it. And that is the fine line I think many jurors do not quite understand when listening to evidence.