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

[KarinsDad]

Nope. Not necessarily. For whatever the heck it's worth, intent is part of RAW. For handy reference:

Intent is part of RAW. One uses intent when the rules are unclear.

If the rules state: You get a), b), and c), the rules are clear.

You do not get d).

There are a few cases where one might want to use intent to determine if you get d) after all. For example, the rule in one area does not list d) and the rule in another does.

Or, the game does not make sense if d) is not included with a), b), and c).

But typically, if d) is not listed, then RAW indicates (both by intent and by what is written) that you do not get it.

It is only the rare exception where intent should be taken into consideration.


You seem to be a person who is more lenient, even within a RAW discussion. Other people tend to be more literal with what is actually written.

An unarmed strike is not "a weapon designed for a creature one size larger". Or put another way, the word "designed" gives designer intent of a manufactured weapon.

 

[KarinsDad]

But I can see why it would be Ok to allow large sized damage. Specially its balancing factor if you can make fighter with large axe, monk with 'large' fists is just same. If you disallow that monk will be subpar compared to weapons.

Yes, it is perfectly reasonable for a given DM to allow it.

 

[KarinsDad]

This point appears to have been missed in the debate.

So, apart from the "it's not in the core rules" argument, does anyone arguing that feats are not effects have a counter to this?

We have two known instances within over one hundred pages of feats and rules on feats in many books where feats are referred to as effects: the one he listed in some obscure book and a one line table blurb on page 141 of the PHB that I found yesterday. There could be a few more hidden somewhere.

We have over a hundred pages of feats where they are referred to as benefits in the WotC books.


Since the actual rules section of feats does not call them effects and it took a few days for anyone to find any references at all of them as effects, it appears that they are not generally considered effects.

Just like everyone else, WotC game designers are human. And when they are writing, they are not always precise. Considering how obscure the two references we have are, it seems more likely that if the designers wanted to refer to feats as effects, they would have put it in at least once and probably several times in the feat section of the PHB, or within feat sections in most every other book in the game system.

They did not.

Hence, it appears that these two references are mostly white noise. Imprecise writing if you will.

 

[Infiniti2000]

But I can see why it would be Ok to allow large sized damage. Specially its balancing factor if you can make fighter with large axe, monk with 'large' fists is just same. If you disallow that monk will be subpar compared to weapons.

Not a valid comparison at all. Tell me how a human fighter can wield a Large axe without penalty, like the monk would do if you allow INA. Also, you're not considering the fact that the damage increases naturally as the monk progresses in level, giving a variable improvement at different levels when you apply INA.

 

[Artoomis]

...Just like everyone else, WotC game designers are human. And when they are writing, they are not always precise...

Exactly. Too true.

So why, I ask, should one assume that "spells and effects" in the monk class description intends to refer to some narrowly defined game term "effects," when, in fact, such a narrow definition simply does not exist. Further, if feats have effects (which seems clear to everyone), why are we to assume that the designers meant for "effects" to not apply to feats for monks.

In other words, what evidence to we have that the designers meant for "effects" to be considered some sort of precise game term? "Effects" is not in the glossary, where it most certainly belongs if it were to be a precise game term.

I submit that the true answer her lies not in trying to parse the rules like they were some sort of precisely-written instrument, but instead in trying to figure out what the designers likely intended by the word "effects" in the monk description.

Regrettably, there is precious little to go by in the rules themselves for this.

You could, of course, assume that later material makes this claar (INA included for monks in PHBII and the FAQ), but that really only tells you what WotC means by "effects" in the monk description NOW, after-the-fact.

The person who really want to follow "the rules" should allow INA for monks based upon the FAQ and PHBII sicne that describes TODAY's inent of "effects" in teh monk class description.

However, rhere is absolutely no way to know what the correct way to read "effects" is in the monk class description based upon the core rules books themselves.

From the core rules themselves there are at least two equally valid viewpoints.

1. Read broadly, "effects" from the monk class description includes feats such as INA since effects is a undefined game term, in the general sense, and therefore inludes things that produce effects, such as feats, not just the effect itself and thus excluding feat prerequisites.

2. Read narrowly, "effects" is a very limited term. Feats have effects, but are not in and of themselves effects or, even if they are, the prerequisites for them are not.

I have a lot of trouble with number two, as it seems like an overly-technical reading that assumes an unreasonably high level of precision in the original writing of these rules.

 

[Tyler Durden]

Sure... he'd deal 1d4 damage, like anyone else using Large gauntlets...

-Hyp.

Are you saying that

This metal glove lets you deal lethal damage rather than nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes. A strike with a gauntlet is otherwise considered an unarmed attack.

and

A monk also deals more damage with her unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown on Table: The Monk.

doesn't lead to the conclusion that a monk wearing gauntlets still does normal monk damage when using his fists?

 

[FireLance]

We have two known instances within over one hundred pages of feats and rules on feats in many books where feats are referred to as effects: the one he listed in some obscure book and a one line table blurb on page 141 of the PHB that I found yesterday. There could be a few more hidden somewhere.

There was also the Stoneborn ability of the Stoneblessed PrC in Races of Stone (which I brought up in the previous thread on Improved Natural Attack) that made the character considered a member of the race she has bonded to "for all effects related to race". The text followed with the sentences, "For example, dwarf-bonded stoneblessed are just as vulnerable to effects and abilities that affect dwarves as actual dwarves are (such as a ranger's favored enemy ability), and they can use magic items that are usable only by dwarves. The stoneblessed meets any racial prerequisite for prestige classes and feats as if she were a member of her bonded race." The argument then was that the second sentence was not an elaboration of "all effects related to race", but a separate benefit of the Stoneborn ability.

The previous argument cannot apply to the Ordered Chaos feat referenced by sukael, as it goes straight from "Spells and effects that are keyed to alignment affect you as if you were chaotic, as well as your actual alignment." to "For example, you become immune to spells such as chaos hammer and word of chaos, you could wield an anarchic weapon without fear of gaining a negative level, and you could take the Primordial Scion feat despite its chaotic alignment prerequisite."

This makes clear that feats are effects, or equally, prerequisites (such as that for using a magic item or qualifying for a prestige class or feat) are effects.

Incidentally, it amuses me that Armies of the Abyss is considered an "obscure" book. It appears that WotC really needs to up its marketing efforts for it.

We have over a hundred pages of feats where they are referred to as benefits in the WotC books.

Since the actual rules section of feats does not call them effects and it took a few days for anyone to find any references at all of them as effects, it appears that they are not generally considered effects.

This does not rule out the possibility that feats are effects. The fact that feats are benefits, and are often referred to as benefits, does not mean that they cannot also be effects, in much the same way that the fact that beagles and poodles are dogs does not mean that they cannot also be animals. Benefits may be a subset of effects, just as dogs are a subset of animals. Plus, the time taken to discover evidence has no bearing on its validity.

Just like everyone else, WotC game designers are human. And when they are writing, they are not always precise. Considering how obscure the two references we have are, it seems more likely that if the designers wanted to refer to feats as effects, they would have put it in at least once and probably several times in the feat section of the PHB, or within feat sections in most every other book in the game system.

They did not.

Hence, it appears that these two references are mostly white noise. Imprecise writing if you will.

Are we discussing what the RAW says, or are we discussing designer intent and fallibility? I have my own issues with the RAW (see: "does the lance get 1-1/2 Strength bonus to damage and 2-for-1 Power Attack when used one-handed while mounted?" and "can you Cleave off an AOO?") but I acknowledge what it says. "Obscure" though these examples may be, are there any counter-examples from the RAW that state explicitly, or strongly imply, that a feat is not an effect? If not, these examples are what we have to go by when interpreting the RAW.

 

[KarinsDad]

There was also the Stoneborn ability of the Stoneblessed PrC in Races of Stone (which I brought up in the previous thread on Improved Natural Attack) that made the character considered a member of the race she has bonded to "for all effects related to race". The text followed with the sentences, "For example, dwarf-bonded stoneblessed are just as vulnerable to effects and abilities that affect dwarves as actual dwarves are (such as a ranger's favored enemy ability), and they can use magic items that are usable only by dwarves. The stoneblessed meets any racial prerequisite for prestige classes and feats as if she were a member of her bonded race." The argument then was that the second sentence was not an elaboration of "all effects related to race", but a separate benefit of the Stoneborn ability.

The previous argument cannot apply to the Ordered Chaos feat referenced by sukael, as it goes straight from "Spells and effects that are keyed to alignment affect you as if you were chaotic, as well as your actual alignment." to "For example, you become immune to spells such as chaos hammer and word of chaos, you could wield an anarchic weapon without fear of gaining a negative level, and you could take the Primordial Scion feat despite its chaotic alignment prerequisite."

This makes clear that feats are effects, or equally, prerequisites (such as that for using a magic item or qualifying for a prestige class or feat) are effects.

Exceptions do not prove rules.

An explicit rule in a textual section of the rules (preferably the feats section) is what is needed to prove a rule.

Incidentally, it amuses me that Armies of the Abyss is considered an "obscure" book. It appears that WotC really needs to up its marketing efforts for it.

Considering that Armies of the Abyss came out from Green Ronin Publishing, I am not surpised that WotC did not market it better.

Or, did you mean Hordes of the Abyss?

This does not rule out the possibility that feats are effects. The fact that feats are benefits, and are often referred to as benefits, does not mean that they cannot also be effects, in much the same way that the fact that beagles and poodles are dogs does not mean that they cannot also be animals. Benefits may be a subset of effects, just as dogs are a subset of animals. Plus, the time taken to discover evidence has no bearing on its validity.

Are we discussing what the RAW says, or are we discussing designer intent and fallibility? I have my own issues with the RAW (see: "does the lance get 1-1/2 Strength bonus to damage and 2-for-1 Power Attack when used one-handed while mounted?" and "can you Cleave off an AOO?") but I acknowledge what it says. "Obscure" though these examples may be, are there any counter-examples from the RAW that state explicitly, or strongly imply, that a feat is not an effect? If not, these examples are what we have to go by when interpreting the RAW.

This is true. It is just not convincing.

Throughout the entire core rule set, effects are repeatedly used as external game elements that affect other creatures, objects, or effects. Feats are capabilities of creatures.

Given the fact that the two are mutually exclusive throughout the rules, a single core reference in a table is suspect.

True, it is RAW. But, it is still suspect.

 

[FireLance]

Considering that Armies of the Abyss came out from Green Ronin Publishing, I am not surpised that WotC did not market it better.

Or, did you mean Hordes of the Abyss?

Yes, I did. Like the previously mentioned WotC game designers, I'm human too.

 

[Wolfwood2]

I'd like to come at this from a "fair and unfair" perspective, if I could, rather than RAW.

I think allowing Improved Natural Attack for monks is Unfair. It treads upon the territory of Fighters, who are the only ones getting feats that directly boost their damage. It has a disproportionate effect for monks and becomes a must-have feat at a certain level.

Regardless of what the rules or FAQ says, allowing monks to utilize INA is clearly "Unfair" to me. Monks already get to boost their unarmed damage throguh class abilities. They shouldn't double-dip.