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

[Piratecat]

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.

This seems like an excellent time to remind people to re-read the specific rules for this forum, available in the sticky thread at the top of the list. We really, really dislike people using "house rules" as a pejorative, even when they're using a smiley. Please avoid doing so! And if you see other folks doing this, feel free to report the post; it's something we'd like to discourage.

 

[HeavyG]

Goliaths are not allowed as a PC race IMC. Compare them to other LA+1 races and tell me they are balanced (preferrably core LA+1 races, like the orc).

Orcs are LA +0 in the SRD.

Goliaths are balanced fine.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

I guess I should clarify some of my statements. What I don’t like about "raw" is people will say that they are arguing a position of raw, as if this gives them absolute truth and makes them infallible, when in fact the issue may be debated back and forth. Its ok to argue semantics but If it was raw and so absolute, their wouldn’t be an argument would their? I faq thinks INA works for monks because monks benefit from both manufactured and natural weapon effects. I know the faq does get things wrong, but I see the effect of feats acting on characters as an effect. And because of this I think the monk can take the feat because he is granted the ability to benefit from effects as if it were a natural weapon. This qualifies him for the feat because for the purpose of the effect of the feat he is treated to having a natural weapon. Theirs always a chance more went into the faq answer then just the semantics. Perhaps he consulted the original writer or because he is close to the dzn team, may know more of the intent of the monk fist and what the semi ambiguous text is implying? I am just guessing on that last part though.

 

[gtJormungand]

An additional note, is that the Player's Handbook II specifically gives INA to many of the monk sample characters.

 

[KarinsDad]

but I see the effect of feats acting on characters as an effect.

The "effects of feats" does not exist as a game mechanic.

You are using the word "effect" as anything that affects anything else in the game. The game system uses the word "effect" to mean certain specific game effects such as spells, spell-like abilities, environmental conditions, etc. as they affect creatures or objects.

For example, is Alignment an effect? It affects how creatures behave.

But no, Alignment is not an effect.

Is an Attack of Opportunity an effect? It can kill a creature.

But no, an AoO is not an effect.


If the feat section even minimally discussed feats as effects, your POV would have some (RAW) validity.

But, not every thing in the game that directly or indirectly affects something else is an "effect".

There are basically four game elements that have effects: Spells / Magic (i.e. spells or magical items), Special Abilities (i.e. Extraordinary, Spell Like, and Supernatural abilities), Environmental effects (e.g. Acid or Fire), and Mundane effects (e.g. a Thunderstone).


Yes, a Feat can affect the outcome of an encounter. But then again, so can BAB, Charisma, and Jumping. But none of these are effects, even though they can affect a given situation.


Now, one could make a good argument that Feats should be considered to have effects in the game since Special Abilities have effects. However, as the game is currently written, there is no indication (tmk) that feats are effects or even create effects (this latter one, of course, being debatable). There is no explicit rules support for this, even though an argument can be made that Feats are similar to other game mechanics which have effects.

I think a counter argument that effects are external to the PC is also fairly valid, hence, skills and feats are not typically effects unless they explicitly state so.


And the Monk ability is really taking about a game mechanic effect in that sentence.


And just like here on the boards, some people at WotC agree with your POV (or did not carefully analyze the rules on this) and allowed INA for Monks in the FAQ and in PHB II.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

Where does it speak of effects? in the dm and player handbook does it list what an effect is and is not? I am not fully clear on this. Do you have a page number that stats what a effect is or isn’t? If not, then effect has no game relevance was used as part of the English language, rather then a coined term in d&d that means something different.

If effects are not feats, then what is an effect. Spells? it already lists spells, so that’s not what they are talking about. perhaps magic items? perhaps. they grant an effect, as does a feat. One can assume that effect in the case of the monk is something that is a catch all. They didn’t want to list everything and leave something out so I think they said effect. This is the problem when something so simple as the word effect is used. A feat does grant an effect. If i take power attack it has an effect on the character but is this what they ment? I don’t know. Does d&d have a glossary for effect? if it doesn’t, one could still argue of precedence. But with the same merit, phb 2 monk builds have INA so this is also a form of precedence and should be treated with the same validity.

 

[SteveC]

Where does it speak of effects? in the dm and player handbook does it list what an effect is and is not? I am not fully clear on this. Do you have a page number that stats what a effect is or isent? If not, then effect has no game relevance was used as part of the English language, rather then a coined term in d&d that means something different.

If effects are not feats, then what is an effect. Spells? it already lists spells, so thats not what they are talking about. perhaps magic iteams? perhaps. Is a magic iteam an effect? no but they grant an effect, as does a feat. One can only assuem that effect in the case of the monk is something that is a cetch all. They dident want to list everything and leave something out so they said effect.

I think that's rather the problem. There isn't a definition of "effect" in D&D. It's not a term that is defined in either the PHB or DMG. In checking some online SRD resources, I have not seen it defined there either. So that's where the problem comes from...it's not something that the designers thought was an important enough term to precisely define.

In cases like that, I just use the simplest method and assume it's being used in its english language equivilant. To me, when combined with the FAQ and the fact that WotC has included INA in sample characters, I just take it as an intended part of the game. Obviously, opinions differ.

What you wrote makes a lot of sense, because if you take effect in the sentence to mean Effect -- an important term that has an in-game definition, you can have a long and fairly complicated conversation about what it exactly mean, and what, in general, meeting the prerequisites for a feat means. We've had that discussion multiple times. For me, that stops being interesting about page two, since it implies a complexity to the D&D rules that I just don't think is there. Obviously, opinions differ.

So yes, while this is an interesting debate that will rage on for some time (I'm sure) I just don't see the point: the intent of the designers is clear at this point (FAQ, sage's comments, actually appearing in a book) but that in no way means an individual GM needs to actually use that ruling: there's rule 0 for situations like this. Of course, I'm also amused that the monk is getting this much attention. Game breaking charcters? Monks?

--Steve

 

[KarinsDad]

If effects are not feats, then what is an effect.

I already gave you a short list. Effectively, it is an external influence on a creature or object or other effect. Typically, it is magical in nature. However, it can be mundane in nature such as acid or the result of thunderstones.


The point is, you do not see the terminology "feat effect" in the game.

You see magical effect, acid effect, spell effect, etc.


And, the statement that Effects are not really game terms is inaccurate. There are a plethora of specific uses of "spell effect" and "magical effect" in the game system. In fact, the spell section has an entire set of paragraphs devoted to the Effects of spells.


Acid is an effect. It is not a physical object per se like in the real world. Objects and effects are specific game elements. It's unfortunate that WotC did not carefully define Effects, but they sure as heck introduced them into the game system.


The game system really has 3 core elements: Creatures, Objects, and Effects.

Virtually all things and forces in the game tend to fall into one of these 3 categories.

A feat is part of a creature's capabilities, but it is not an effect on the creature. Just like Strength.


From a grammatical point of view, you'll also note that WotC does not (tmk) use the verb tense of this: "effected" or "effecting". It is almost always used as the noun tense: effect or effects.


Let's take another example: Scent. Is this an effect? No. It is an ability of the creature.

Abilities of creatures can create effects, but they are not effects in and of themselves.

 

[sukael]

A feat isn't an effect.

That would be like saying a spell or a skill is an effect. They aren't.

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.

The Ordered Chaos feat in Fiendish Codex I specifically mentions feats--and their prerequisites--under the header of 'effects'.

Spells and effects that are keyed to alignment affect you as if you were chaotic, as well as your actual alignment. For example, ... you could take the Primordial Scion feat despite its chaotic alignment prerequisite.

 

[Cedric]

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.