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

[FireLance]

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.

While I acknowledge your views, I think "fair" and "unfair" will vary with different groups, different DMs, and even different games run by the same DM for the same group. In certain games (say, the party composition is such that the monk has to take on the primary fighter role, or the DM allows access to certain non-core material), INA may not be "unbalanced", "unfair" or a "must-have" for a monk.

 

[KuKu]

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.

There arent any damage boosting feats for all classes? What about power attack or monkey grip or some exotic weapons or karmic strike or whatever else splat books have put out? Dont monks already have a problem with base attack bonus not being as high as fighters plus having extreme difficulty in getting enhancement bonuses and special enhancements for their attacks? I just dont see how it is unfair. Even with it the monks damage is likely to be lower than the fighters plus the fighter could just use power attack to make up for the difference in base attack bonus and get a bigger bonus out of is assuming that the fighter is using two handed weapon fighting.

 

[Wolfwood2]

There arent any damage boosting feats for all classes?

No there aren't.

What about power attack or monkey grip or some exotic weapons or karmic strike or whatever else splat books have put out?

In each case, there is some level of trade-off. Use power attack, and your to-hit bonus goes down. Same for monkey grip.

Splat-book stuff is circumstances-based and will not always apply. INA is a big damage bonus, day in and day out, and it wasn't designed with monks in mind in the first place. It was designed for monsters who don't have anything else to do with their feats and might as well get some extra damage to scare the PCs with.

Dont monks already have a problem with base attack bonus not being as high as fighters plus having extreme difficulty in getting enhancement bonuses and special enhancements for their attacks?

They sure do. They also get a bunch of mystical abilities, great movement (with the corresponding ability to get up there quicker and get more full-attacks), great saves, and more attacks per round without having to spend feats for more attacks per round.

Either the monk as-is is too weak and they need a higher base damage to balance out their abilities (in which case let's just give it to them), or the monk as-is is okay and INA unbalances it.

I just dont see how it is unfair. Even with it the monks damage is likely to be lower than the fighters plus the fighter could just use power attack to make up for the difference in base attack bonus and get a bigger bonus out of is assuming that the fighter is using two handed weapon fighting.

Because now a fighter is using power attack to make up the difference rather than to pull ahead.

 

[KuKu]

No there aren't.



In each case, there is some level of trade-off. Use power attack, and your to-hit bonus goes down. Same for monkey grip.

Splat-book stuff is circumstances-based and will not always apply. INA is a big damage bonus, day in and day out, and it wasn't designed with monks in mind in the first place. It was designed for monsters who don't have anything else to do with their feats and might as well get some extra damage to scare the PCs with.




They sure do. They also get a bunch of mystical abilities, great movement (with the corresponding ability to get up there quicker and get more full-attacks), great saves, and more attacks per round without having to spend feats for more attacks per round.

Either the monk as-is is too weak and they need a higher base damage to balance out their abilities (in which case let's just give it to them), or the monk as-is is okay and INA unbalances it.



Because now a fighter is using power attack to make up the difference rather than to pull ahead.

So you are saying that the feats that I listed which boost damage do not actually boost damage because you dont get damage in the same way as the one feat that you listed which gives damage in a different way? That doesnt make any sense. The trade-off for power attack is that you have to get a penalty to attack to get the damage, the trade-off for weapon specialization is that you have to have at least four levels of fighter and it only works for a specific weapon. Both have trade-offs and just because the trade-offs are not the same does not mean that that one is a damage boosting feat while the other is not. I think that improved natural attack use is supported by the rules and that at least some of the designers knew it would work that way. As for the rest all classes have special abilities and so those are not really the point when talking about getting enhancement bonuses. After all the fighter gets a bunch of bonus feats plus more attack bonus plus a higher hit die as well, they each get different things from their class. Oh and the fighter with power attack is not only able to catch up and pull ahead he is able to get a lot of versitility out of his choice. He can have a higher attack bonus or higher damage or both plus the ability to pick and choose whether to go very high on damage or not. As in power attack is actually a better feat overall for the fighter than improved natural weapon is for a monk in this comparison. But the point remains that the fighter basically has one feat which boosts his damage that no one else can take while there are lots of feats that boost damage that anyone can take. Plus power attack is arguably better than weapon specialization anyway because it has lesser cost prereq wise and more versitility in use. Or we could go to barbarians which are better at melee damage than fighters as well although not really for feat reasons. I just dont see how you are getting your unfair conclusion based on the arguements you have used so far.

 

[Wolfwood2]

So you are saying that the feats that I listed which boost damage do not actually boost damage because you dont get damage in the same way as the one feat that you listed which gives damage in a different way?

I'm saying they do not give a continuous, penalty-free damage bonus that applies to all attacks.

That doesnt make any sense.

It's actually irrelevent anyway, since the big question is if INA is too good (unfair) for monks.

The trade-off for power attack is that you have to get a penalty to attack to get the damage, the trade-off for weapon specialization is that you have to have at least four levels of fighter and it only works for a specific weapon. Both have trade-offs and just because the trade-offs are not the same does not mean that that one is a damage boosting feat while the other is not.

What is the trade-off of Improved Natural Attack for a monk, other than spending a feat slot?

What I'm saying is that it's too good of a feat for monks. Surely that's worth at least considering.

I think that improved natural attack use is supported by the rules and that at least some of the designers knew it would work that way.

I think the rules result in an unfair situation as compared to other fighting classes. I'm not contesting you on what the rules support or what the designers think.

As for the rest all classes have special abilities and so those are not really the point when talking about getting enhancement bonuses. After all the fighter gets a bunch of bonus feats plus more attack bonus plus a higher hit die as well, they each get different things from their class. Oh and the fighter with power attack is not only able to catch up and pull ahead he is able to get a lot of versitility out of his choice. He can have a higher attack bonus or higher damage or both plus the ability to pick and choose whether to go very high on damage or not. As in power attack is actually a better feat overall for the fighter than improved natural weapon is for a monk in this comparison.

I do not believe that Power Attack is a better feat for a Fighter than INA is for a monk.*

*Presuming a monk of high enough level that INA is adding +2 or more to base damage.

I just dont see how you are getting your unfair conclusion based on the arguements you have used so far.

Is the benefit of INA for a monk too much to get from a feat or not?

I say it's too much. Your opinion, which i disagree with, obviously differs.

 

[KuKu]

I'm saying they do not give a continuous, penalty-free damage bonus that applies to all attacks.



It's actually irrelevent anyway, since the big question is if INA is too good (unfair) for monks.



What is the trade-off of Improved Natural Attack for a monk, other than spending a feat slot?

What I'm saying is that it's too good of a feat for monks. Surely that's worth at least considering.




I think the rules result in an unfair situation as compared to other fighting classes. I'm not contesting you on what the rules support or what the designers think.



I do not believe that Power Attack is a better feat for a Fighter than INA is for a monk.*

*Presuming a monk of high enough level that INA is adding +2 or more to base damage.



Is the benefit of INA for a monk too much to get from a feat or not?

I say it's too much. Your opinion, which i disagree with, obviously differs.

Weapon specialization isnt without penalty either. You must spend a feat and you must have at least four levels of fighter and you can only use it with a specific weapon. Each of the feats has a different set of penalties. For the monk he can only use the one weapon which is his unarmed strike and so other weapons he might wish to use do not gain the benefit. If you do not believe that power attack is bette for a fighter than improved natural attack is for a monk can you explain why that is? At level size which is the first level that the monk can get it his damage increases by an average of 2.5. At this point the fighter has six points of base attack bonus as compared with the monks four. If the fighter is using a two handed weapon and the other feats and stats are the same as far as damage and to hit go then their damages are now the same plus the extra half of strength bonus for the fighter. The fighter can power attack for one point of damage and be ahead in one point of attack and two points of damage plus the extra half from strength. The fighter can power attack for two points and be equal in attack bonus but be four points ahead in damage pluse the extra half from strength. The fighter can all out power attack to take out low armor class or high damage reduction or hardness targets while the monk is stuck doing the same damage. At level twenty for each the fighter is ahead by five points of base attack bonus and eleven points of average damage behind at base minus the extra half from strength which could come close to canceling this out plus the monk spends three times as much for his enhancement bonuses and cannot have special enhancements plus the fighter can have his weapon specialization and greater weapon specialization and he can turn a large amount of to hit bonus into damage at whim. From this it looks like any monk who wishes to do damage even remotely comparable to the fighter, but still much less, really has only this single option while the fighter has many. To me that still puts the fighter way ahead with the monk behind and the fighter isnt the king of damage anyway.

 

[Cedric]

I guess I'm still baffled how people can still consider INA to not be allowed by the 'rules' ...since it's a recommended feat for monks in the PHB2 and clearly allowed in the FAQ.

I will say this though. If I were a guessing man, I would guess that the developers who wrote the Monster Manual never had monks in mind when they came up with Improved Natural Attack.

However, it seems clear to me that once the question was raised, they've agreed that monks can take the feat.

*shrugs* ymmv

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

Well, I do not like the second viewpoint either. Nor do I like the first.

To me, feats do not have effects per se. They can modify other effects (maybe an effect on an effect in some peoples lingo), but are not effects in themselves.

Just like the Strength bonus modifier of a PC is not an effect. Just like BAB is not an effect.

These are abilities of the PC, not effects.

To me, effects are external influences that affect creatures or objects or other effects, not inherent properties of a given creature.

Acid has an Effect. A spell has an Effect. A magical item has an Effect (but if you take the magical item away, it no longer affects the creature). So, a Girdle of Strength has a magical Effect on the creature wearing it, but his strength bonus is not an Effect on his weapon damage. True, it adds to weapon damage. But, a PCs strength bonus is not an effect.

 

[IcyCool]

I guess I'm still baffled how people can still consider INA to not be allowed by the 'rules' ...since it's a recommended feat for monks in the PHB2 and clearly allowed in the FAQ.

Because by the Rules As Written, it isn't (my opinion of course). And because the FAQ isn't a rules source, it's an "official" clarification document. Core and Errata are rules sources, and what are considered when RAW is talked about, generally. Example text is notoriously flawed, so the PHB 2 examples are only moderately helpful.

I will say this though. If I were a guessing man, I would guess that the developers who wrote the Monster Manual never had monks in mind when they came up with Improved Natural Attack.

Agreed. An official errata entry stating that monks qualify for Improved Natural Attack and that the feat augments their unarmed strike damage would, of course, settle any debate here on it.

*shrug* I haven't had to make a decision on it when I DM'd (currently a player), and one of the DM's I've played with decided not to allow it.

Either way seems fine to me. (Although allowing it does significantly increase the damage output of a monk).

 

[Artoomis]

Well, I do not like the second viewpoint either. Nor do I like the first.

To me, feats do not have effects per se. They can modify other effects (maybe an effect on an effect in some peoples lingo), but are not effects in themselves.

Just like the Strength bonus modifier of a PC is not an effect. Just like BAB is not an effect.

These are abilities of the PC, not effects.

To me, effects are external influences that affect creatures or objects or other effects, not inherent properties of a given creature.

Acid has an Effect. A spell has an Effect. A magical item has an Effect (but if you take the magical item away, it no longer affects the creature). So, a Girdle of Strength has a magical Effect on the creature wearing it, but his strength bonus is not an Effect on his weapon damage. True, it adds to weapon damage. But, a PCs strength bonus is not an effect.

A perfectly reasonable point of view, but, if applied to INA and monks, implies that the designers really meant some game term of "effects" and were not using that term in any sort of general sense.

I have trouble with that since "effects" is not a D&D defined term. It's used in a lot a places , but never truly defined. "Effects" is an imprecise term in D&D. We could go one and on about dictionary defintions and such, but what's the point?

That's why I posted the two daimetrically points of view that I feel are really legitimate RAW ways to rule.

My goodness, the issues are well-known (if they were not before by anyone they sure are now), is there really anything new to say? Perhaps we should all just call it a day just move on...

I will if you will.