Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?
- Thread starter Artoomis
- Start date
- Status
Not only would we probably have to rekindle the fires of the polarized personalities, we'd probably have to bring up ancillary issues or see some kind of new data from somebody poring over the Core material with a microscope...
863?
863?
I think I found evidence that a monks unarmed strikes are natural weapons. People say they aren't because they supposedly don't follow the natural attack rules. Well, I found a monster that violates those very rules, which I think shows that some things give abilities that break the normal rules, and because of this, it's pretty clear that the monk's abilities allow their unarmed strikes to break those natural attack rules.
Living Holocaust, Fiend Folio
The natural attack rules haven't changed from 3.0 to 3.5, so the source is still legit. The living holocaust's natural attack is its fiery windspike. Guess what? It gets iterative attacks. This shows that exceptions to the normal rules are out there.
Given that Andy Collins and everyone at WotC that has commented confirms that monks can take the feat, well, I'd say it's silly to think otherwise.
Of course if that isn't good enough, I have this most recent thing from customer service, and from Trevor no less. This also has a bit about the FAQ's legitimacy, and states outright what Artoomis kinda knew all along; the FAQ and the errata are different, and although it's intended for errata to only be found in the errata file, well, that's not how things went.
Response (Trevor K.) 10/30/2005 03:44 PM
Hey there Brandon.
1. The ruling is that monks can take feats that require natural attacks. This comes from Research and Development and is in the FAQ. Effect is not a fully defined term in the context of the game, so unfortunately I wouldn't be able to nail that one down for you. Just like volley attack isn't a glossary term, it just has inferred meaning and is used in the FAQ. But again, for the purpose of the monk, any feat, spell, or magical items that looks at or requires a natural attack will see the monk's unarmed strikes as natural attacks.
2. Yes, I have indeed stated that errata and the FAQ are different. Chris, Zephreum and I are all on the same page on this one. When an errata is made, then yes, it may then be discussed in a FAQ, but rules changes appear in errata first. Or at least that is the intention. I apologize for any confusion my wording my have caused before. Since there appears to be so much confusion on if the FAQ is actually correct for some odd reason, I can pass this along to the R&D teams so they are aware and perhaps they can make some amendments or notes to clear things up.
Good gaming!
We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.
To login to your account, or update your question please click here.
Trevor K.
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 7am-6pm PST / 10am-9pm EST
Customer (Brandon Harwell) 10/29/2005 12:28 AM
I have two fairly big questions here this time, the second being yet another question in the debate about the FAQ.
1. Even though the FAQ confirms that monks are allowed to take Improved Natural Attack, some people still insist that they can't and, that the ruling is in error according to the supposed "Rules As Written".
The question is about the text that says a monk's unarmed strike is consider both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purposes of "spells and effects" that enhance or improve natural weapons or manufactured weapons.
They opposition claims that feats are not effects. They maintain that the benefits of a feat may be effects, but that prerequisites of feats are not effects and therefore prevent monks from qualifying for the feat in the first place. I find that line of reasoning inane, and the FAQ appears to concur with this.
So the real question is, since the word isn't defined, what is considered an "effect" in the game? Are feats themselves considered "effects" as far as the wording goes?
2. Also, a lot of people are claiming that the FAQ may be a "source" of errata but that it isn't a "listing" of errata, and claim there is a difference between the two words for what's official. So far, two of your customer service reps (Chris and Nephreum) have verified that everything in the FAQ is official and that the FAQ absolutely includes errata, while a third customer service rep (Trevor) stated that the FAQ isn't allowed to print errata; I believe Chris and Nephreum are correct on this point. Andy Collins's work in the FAQ implies that it is indeed a verified source of errata, however, so there's that as well. They say that until the errata file is updated, nothing in the FAQ is official and all the changes therein are considered "advice" and not official rules changes. Since it's pretty clear the FAQ is being used to print errata now with several of the changes within it, is there any way for WotC to verify via the web site that this is indeed the case, perhaps with a note in the FAQ itself or in the FAQ section?
Sorry for the trouble, thank you for your time.
As you can see, changes are supposed to show up in the errata first. That was the intention, but not the result. The fact that he states that Zephreum, who said outright word-for-word that errata is in the FAQ, still sees the FAQ and errata as different, proves this pretty conclusively. The files are different, but because of whatever reason we may hopefully soon know, errata has popped up in the FAQ. I put emphasis on the related parts of the above e-mailing.
One thing is also certain, Trevor was pretty clear that the FAQ is correct, as he's now passing it on to R&D to (hopefully) make things clear. If we're lucky, something solid will emerge with the next releases. A merging of the errata and FAQ would be the best method, as it would leave us with only one file that could not be debated, but that could possibly slow down the FAQ if WotC is lazy about it. On the other hand, stating that the FAQ contains errata, or quickly transferring FAQ material to the errata would work.
I'm hoping this is cleared up either which way. All I know is that I go where the designers point as far as "the rules" go (although I have craploads of house rules, showing that I don't always like the rules). For now, it's still pretty clear that errata has slipped into the FAQ. That could change soon, or it could be confirmed on the web site itself. Either way I'll be glad to have an absolute answer.
Living Holocaust, Fiend Folio
The natural attack rules haven't changed from 3.0 to 3.5, so the source is still legit. The living holocaust's natural attack is its fiery windspike. Guess what? It gets iterative attacks. This shows that exceptions to the normal rules are out there.
Given that Andy Collins and everyone at WotC that has commented confirms that monks can take the feat, well, I'd say it's silly to think otherwise.
Of course if that isn't good enough, I have this most recent thing from customer service, and from Trevor no less. This also has a bit about the FAQ's legitimacy, and states outright what Artoomis kinda knew all along; the FAQ and the errata are different, and although it's intended for errata to only be found in the errata file, well, that's not how things went.
Response (Trevor K.) 10/30/2005 03:44 PM
Hey there Brandon.
1. The ruling is that monks can take feats that require natural attacks. This comes from Research and Development and is in the FAQ. Effect is not a fully defined term in the context of the game, so unfortunately I wouldn't be able to nail that one down for you. Just like volley attack isn't a glossary term, it just has inferred meaning and is used in the FAQ. But again, for the purpose of the monk, any feat, spell, or magical items that looks at or requires a natural attack will see the monk's unarmed strikes as natural attacks.
2. Yes, I have indeed stated that errata and the FAQ are different. Chris, Zephreum and I are all on the same page on this one. When an errata is made, then yes, it may then be discussed in a FAQ, but rules changes appear in errata first. Or at least that is the intention. I apologize for any confusion my wording my have caused before. Since there appears to be so much confusion on if the FAQ is actually correct for some odd reason, I can pass this along to the R&D teams so they are aware and perhaps they can make some amendments or notes to clear things up.
Good gaming!
We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.
To login to your account, or update your question please click here.
Trevor K.
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 7am-6pm PST / 10am-9pm EST
Customer (Brandon Harwell) 10/29/2005 12:28 AM
I have two fairly big questions here this time, the second being yet another question in the debate about the FAQ.
1. Even though the FAQ confirms that monks are allowed to take Improved Natural Attack, some people still insist that they can't and, that the ruling is in error according to the supposed "Rules As Written".
The question is about the text that says a monk's unarmed strike is consider both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purposes of "spells and effects" that enhance or improve natural weapons or manufactured weapons.
They opposition claims that feats are not effects. They maintain that the benefits of a feat may be effects, but that prerequisites of feats are not effects and therefore prevent monks from qualifying for the feat in the first place. I find that line of reasoning inane, and the FAQ appears to concur with this.
So the real question is, since the word isn't defined, what is considered an "effect" in the game? Are feats themselves considered "effects" as far as the wording goes?
2. Also, a lot of people are claiming that the FAQ may be a "source" of errata but that it isn't a "listing" of errata, and claim there is a difference between the two words for what's official. So far, two of your customer service reps (Chris and Nephreum) have verified that everything in the FAQ is official and that the FAQ absolutely includes errata, while a third customer service rep (Trevor) stated that the FAQ isn't allowed to print errata; I believe Chris and Nephreum are correct on this point. Andy Collins's work in the FAQ implies that it is indeed a verified source of errata, however, so there's that as well. They say that until the errata file is updated, nothing in the FAQ is official and all the changes therein are considered "advice" and not official rules changes. Since it's pretty clear the FAQ is being used to print errata now with several of the changes within it, is there any way for WotC to verify via the web site that this is indeed the case, perhaps with a note in the FAQ itself or in the FAQ section?
Sorry for the trouble, thank you for your time.
As you can see, changes are supposed to show up in the errata first. That was the intention, but not the result. The fact that he states that Zephreum, who said outright word-for-word that errata is in the FAQ, still sees the FAQ and errata as different, proves this pretty conclusively. The files are different, but because of whatever reason we may hopefully soon know, errata has popped up in the FAQ. I put emphasis on the related parts of the above e-mailing.
One thing is also certain, Trevor was pretty clear that the FAQ is correct, as he's now passing it on to R&D to (hopefully) make things clear. If we're lucky, something solid will emerge with the next releases. A merging of the errata and FAQ would be the best method, as it would leave us with only one file that could not be debated, but that could possibly slow down the FAQ if WotC is lazy about it. On the other hand, stating that the FAQ contains errata, or quickly transferring FAQ material to the errata would work.
I'm hoping this is cleared up either which way. All I know is that I go where the designers point as far as "the rules" go (although I have craploads of house rules, showing that I don't always like the rules). For now, it's still pretty clear that errata has slipped into the FAQ. That could change soon, or it could be confirmed on the web site itself. Either way I'll be glad to have an absolute answer.
(my emphasis above) Everyone? That seems to be another overstatement.Anubis said:
And nice to see WotC admitting they got it wrong with the use of errata and FAQ. Maybe you should post that response on the Errata v FAQ thread?
Can't wait to see the errata on Monks taking INA.
Silly.
Last edited:
And I'm still having trouble with a couple of things in order to accept the FAQ answer (regardless of whether it is an FAQ response or supposedly errata).
Namely that in Oriental Adventures (3.0), which is widely acknowledged as a monk friendly rule source, the Empty Hand Mastery martial arts style required no less than 6 feats (with minimum Str 13+, Cha 13+, and Dex 15+) and 4 ranks in a cross-class skill (Bluff) in order to achieve the same effect (there's that word again!) as Improved Natural Attack. It would seem to me to be a significant shift in power to reduce it to a single feat.
Secondly, the text for Power Attack makes a distinction about light weapons "except with unarmed strikes OR natural weapons" (my emphasis). I read that as saying unarmed strikes differ from natural weapons. Therefore monks do not qualify for INA (accepting the premise that feats are not effects etc). If this issue has been dealt with earlier in the thread, then I apologise.
Thirdly, it was specific wording chosen for the monk's unarmed strike to deem it a 'natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve....'. They could have removed all doubt by being significantly clearer in their choice of words (for either the monk ability or the INA feat itself).
Personally, I believe that some elements of WotC are trying to 'power-up' monks to reduce the perception (well, reality) that monks are underpowered.
I ran a short poll last week as to whether INA would be a 'no brainer' feat for your generic 10th level monk in a core rules only campaign. It was a 4:1 ratio that said they would select it most times, which indicates that it is seen as an important feat for monks in order to overcome one of their shortcomings. I believe that the result shows that for the cost of a single feat, that INA is overpowered for monks, and that it supports my theory that WotC are trying to fix the monk through the back door. Both of these lead me to the conclusion that monks do not (as the rules stand) qualify for INA.
However, I think the 'yes' side of the argument has merit and acknowledge that. I just happen to disagree with it.
But I'll still happily use it once it is in errata.
Namely that in Oriental Adventures (3.0), which is widely acknowledged as a monk friendly rule source, the Empty Hand Mastery martial arts style required no less than 6 feats (with minimum Str 13+, Cha 13+, and Dex 15+) and 4 ranks in a cross-class skill (Bluff) in order to achieve the same effect (there's that word again!) as Improved Natural Attack. It would seem to me to be a significant shift in power to reduce it to a single feat.
Secondly, the text for Power Attack makes a distinction about light weapons "except with unarmed strikes OR natural weapons" (my emphasis). I read that as saying unarmed strikes differ from natural weapons. Therefore monks do not qualify for INA (accepting the premise that feats are not effects etc). If this issue has been dealt with earlier in the thread, then I apologise.
Thirdly, it was specific wording chosen for the monk's unarmed strike to deem it a 'natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve....'. They could have removed all doubt by being significantly clearer in their choice of words (for either the monk ability or the INA feat itself).
Personally, I believe that some elements of WotC are trying to 'power-up' monks to reduce the perception (well, reality) that monks are underpowered.
I ran a short poll last week as to whether INA would be a 'no brainer' feat for your generic 10th level monk in a core rules only campaign. It was a 4:1 ratio that said they would select it most times, which indicates that it is seen as an important feat for monks in order to overcome one of their shortcomings. I believe that the result shows that for the cost of a single feat, that INA is overpowered for monks, and that it supports my theory that WotC are trying to fix the monk through the back door. Both of these lead me to the conclusion that monks do not (as the rules stand) qualify for INA.
However, I think the 'yes' side of the argument has merit and acknowledge that. I just happen to disagree with it.
But I'll still happily use it once it is in errata.
Artoomis
First Post
Legildur said:
Well, first, the survey (like all of them, nine included) was flawed so conclusions must be drawn with care. Second, the mere fact that most folks would take the feat does NOT make it "overpowered." I'd wager that most fighters take Power Attack - does that make it overpowered? You leaping to conclusions that are not really justified, I think.
Legildur said:However, I think the 'yes' side of the argument has merit and acknowledge that. I just happen to disagree with it.,.
Thanks, I appreciate that.
As for unarmed strikes being natural weapons, I think it's a defendable position, but by no means is there overwhelming evidence supporting it.
My position is that it does not matter how you think of it, it comes out the same. Either unarmed strikes are natural weapons with special rules or are special attacks that are treated like natural weapons sometimes (not for itertive attcks, etc.). Whichever- it amounts to the same thing. They end up getting treated identically no matter which way you think of them.
The only difference is which of the following questions you ask when it comes up:
1. Is this a case where an unarmed strike does not follow a natural weapon rule?
or
2. Is this a case where an unarmed strike is being treated like a natural weapon?
Six to one, half-dozen to the other, really.
Last edited:
Artoomis
First Post
Legildur said:(my emphasis above) Everyone? That seems to be another overstatement.
And nice to see WotC admitting they got it wrong with the use of errata and FAQ. Maybe you should post that response on the Errata v FAQ thread?
Can't wait to see the errata on Monks taking INA.
Silly.
1. I don't think you'll find ANYONE at WotC now stating that monk's cannot take INA. At one time that indeed was the position (unpublished - at least that's my understanding), but no longer.
2. You'll not (ever) see any errata on this because only a clarification was required, thus only a FAQ entry would be needed.
(869 - 131 to go!)
Last edited:
Infiniti2000
First Post
Actually, yes, I believe that to be the case. If you provide options and one option is so overwhelmingly popular, that option is likely overpowered. The alternative is that the flavor of that option is so good that everyone wants it. Since power attack has little flavor (like INA), that truly can't be the case (I would certainly not buy any arguments to that effect), so INA and power attack or whatever example option would be overpowered.Artoomis said:
Now, the question then becomes: now that we know INA (or PA or whatever) is overpowered is that a good or bad thing? Does the monk need INA to compete or is +7 damage by 20th level too good (it's way above the best +damage anyone else could ever possibly get)? I argue for the latter. Is double damage on THF PA too good? Many (including me) argue yes, it is. The fact is, however, that that is a separate issue.
The easiest/best way to find out if an option is overpowered is to count the number of people selecting that option versus the alternatives. The secondary question becomes whether that overpoweredness is an issue that requires a remedy.
This has been an official response by I2K.
- Status
Similar Threads
D&D 3E/3.5
Homebrew Content
