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

[SteveC]

1) The Goliath thing is very clear, so I would disallow that one.

2) The INA is still under serious debate, but I would allow it as a compromise for taking out one.

3) The monk's belt is a core item, the fanged ring is not. Disallow the fang ring, and allow the monk's belt.

If that gives you 4d6 damage, that's not unreasonable for 9th level. As others have said, a fighter will often do more damage and have a better to hit.

I'd say this is a pretty good compromise. The character is, in the end, a monk, and will need all of the help he can get.

Points one and two are GM judgement calls, really, but it seems to this GM that no on the goliath thing and yes on the INA thing makes sense. As far as the monk's belt, it's a core item, and it's using up a pretty valuable slot that would otherwise likely add to STR, so I don't have a problem with it.

On the Dragon magazine items: I don't allow any of them in play. I don't really care that the content is "official," much of the time it's simply over powered and not properly playtested.

Of course those are just my opinions, you're free to go back to the "INA is/is not RAW" argument, which I will continue to enjoy reading...

--Steve

 

[KarinsDad]

A feat is an effect, there's no real arguing that. The argument comes in that some people (probably you) consider the prerequisite to be seperate from the feat, and state that a prerequisite is not an effect. Others (as myself) consider the prerequisite to be part of the feat, and is thus part of the effect, and as such, the monk has natural weapons.

Actually, this is the first thread where I've ever discussed this issue.

How can the prerequisite be part of the feat? It is a requirement, it is not the benefit. Whether it is part of the feat or not, however, is really non-sequitor to the discussion (i.e. it's a red herring and a distraction from the real issues).

The real question that need to be asked is quite clear:

1) Can the phrase "treated as a natural weapon" be used to meet the prerequisite? Not really. This phrase is conditional on an effect or a spell. First off, feats are not effects. Just like BAB is not an effect. Just like skills are not effects. These are abilities or capabilities of a PC, but they are not effects. Nor are feats spells.

Even casting a spell is not an effect. Casting a spell is an ability of some PCs. The spell itself will have an effect, but the casting of it is an ability of the PC.

And, all of these abilities (BAB, skills, feats, etc.) can affect the outcome of events in the game, but they are not effects.

An argument that states that a feat is an effect is extremely tenuous. There is no "effect" language in the general feat section of the PHB.

Effects are not abilities (or in the case of a feat, a capability).

So, the best quote you have does not really support your conclusion. It supports the exact opposite conclusion.

If you want to find out what an effect is, read the spell section of the PHB or the environmental section of the DMG. Fire is an effect. A feat is not an effect.

Effects affect PCs, they are not abilities of the PCs.

So quite frankly, your first assumption:

A feat is an effect, there's no real arguing that.

is false and it is easy to illustrate this as false. And, this false assumption of yours (and presumbly other people) is what leads to you misinterpreting RAW in this case.


Note: A feat could have an effect if the feat itself states so. INA does not state that it adds an effect.

 

[Cedric]

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

To be percise Magic Fang and Magic Weapon do not do anything...but their effects are marvelous...

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.

 

[Cedric]

1) Can the phrase "treated as a natural weapon" be used to meet the prerequisite? Not really. This phrase is conditional on an effect or a spell. First off, feats are not effects. Just like BAB is not an effect. Just like skills are not effects. These are abilities or capabilities of a PC, but they are not effects. Nor are feats spells.

Even casting a spell is not an effect. Casting a spell is an ability of some PCs. The spell itself will have an effect, but the casting of it is an ability of the PC.

And, all of these abilities (BAB, skills, feats, etc.) can affect the outcome of events in the game, but they are not effects.

An argument that states that a feat is an effect is extremely tenuous. There is no "effect" language in the general feat section of the PHB.

Effects are not abilities (or in the case of a feat, a capability).

So, the best quote you have does not really support your conclusion. It supports the exact opposite conclusion.

If you want to find out what an effect is, read the spell section of the PHB or the environmental section of the DMG. Fire is an effect. A feat is not an effect.

Effects affect PCs, they are not abilities of the PCs.

Note: A feat could have an effect if the feat itself states so. INA does not state that it adds an effect.

My thoughts on this...

Is a feat an effect?

No

Does the action, change or result generated from use of a feat, whether it be specific and situational, or general match the defined criteria of an 'effect'.

Going with the primary definition of the noun 'effect' as stated by the Oxford Dictionary, it is "a change which is a result or consequence of an action or other cause."

From this wording it would seem clear to me that the act of using a feat inherently or situationally produces an effect.

I further referenced the lexicon available in the 3.5 Player's Handbook, and it does not limit the scope of what constitutes an effect.

Therefore, I fail to see how possession of an inherent feat or use of a situational feat somehow fails to qualify that use as being an effect.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Is a feat an effect?

No

Exactly. However, feats may have effects.

Thus, a human monk (or, actually, a human anything) does not qualify to take Improved Natural Attack, because he does not meet the prerequisites (a natural attack).

However, a minotaur monk (or, actually, a minotaur anything) does meet the prerequisites (he's got a Gore attack). Thus, when he takes the feat, he may apply the feat's effect to his unarmed strike.

Generally speaking, I don't see anything really unbalanced with letting a human monk take INA and apply it to his Unarmed Strike; I think it makes a fine house rule.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

However, a minotaur monk (or, actually, a minotaur anything) does meet the prerequisites (he's got a Gore attack). Thus, when he takes the feat, he may apply the feat's effect to his unarmed strike.

Not trying to pick on you, Patryn ... but your post did provoke a question from me. Just because a minotaur has natural attacks - specifically them pointy things on 'is head - why should he be able to apply the feat to his unarmed strike? I know what you're saying, and by the RAW you're right, mind you. I just personally find it a bit hokie that a minotaur can use the feet to improve his unarmed strike but a human without the horns can't.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Just because a minotaur has natural attacks - specifically them pointy things on 'is head - why should he be able to apply the feat to his unarmed strike? I know what you're saying, and by the RAW you're right, mind you. I just personally find it a bit hokie that a minotaur can use the feet to improve his unarmed strike but a human without the horns can't.

Yeah, that's one of the odd intersections of the rules - which only occurs if you accept the position that feats can have effects, but are not effects themselves (e.g., is Power Attack an effect?).

If you assume that feats are neither effects nor sources of effects, than neither humans nor minotaurs can apply the feat's benefits to their unarmed strikes.

The above was meant to show exactly how close you can get to a human monk benefiting from INA - which isn't very close at all.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Generally speaking, I don't see anything really unbalanced with letting a human monk take INA and apply it to his Unarmed Strike; ...

I do. I don't think it should be allowed at all. If you allow it, you should allow everyone a similar feat at no penalty (e.g. monkey grip isn't equivalent).

 

[Legildur]

Even though Moon-Lancer's attack on people relying on RAW "really gets on my nerves", RAW certainly helps clarify some things - unlike some entries in the FAQ which are in direct conflict with the RAW.

I don't believe INA is allowed for monks, but both the FAQ and the example monk in PHBII include it (not saying they are right, but it is published). And I will say that I don't have a real problem with allowing it, either (as a house rule, of course). It's not like monks outshine front line combatants.....

The ring? Well, wouldn't stack with INA or Powerful Build trait.

Monk's Belt? Meh, let him have it (and his TWF). Flurry of Misses is the catchcry for monks at our table. Besides, a Belt of Giant Strength provides better average damage in most circumstances (and other benefits to boot).

PS the longest INA 'debate' had a thread with some 900+ posts in it before it was locked (and one member banned). And there have been multiple threads. I hardly think that anyone can claim a victory in that epic battle.

 

[Herobizkit]

Try this:
#1) Can a Goliath chose to use a size Medium Weapon? a size Large weapon?

#2) Can a Goliath chose to use size Medium Unarmed Strike? a size Large Unarmed Strike?

Yup. As a DM, that's exactly how'd I'd read it as well.

As for the INA, depends on what the folks at WotC say....

It's actually explicitly disallowed, because monks (of 'normal' races) cannot fulfill the prerequisite.

Being treated as a natural weapon implies that it is not a natural weapon, which also matches other rules, like the iterative attacks from high BAB, which you do gain with unarmed strikes, but not with natural weapons.

Improved Natural Attack requires a natural weapon to be taken (Prerequisite: natural weapon).

A goliath monk has no natural weapons and thus cannot take this feat (per the RAW).

Never mind, I always turn to Thanee when it comes to rules crunch. She's always right... as per RAW.

Personally, I have no problem with a character dealing 6d6 per punch. 1d6 is usually enough to kill most weaker enemies, and SURE he can beat down monsters as big as him... but monsters as big as him also hurt as much as he does. If the players enjoy being accosted by such creatures, then game on.