Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Infiniti2000]

No, it literally 'is' one step.

The difference in base weapon damage has no bearing on my comparison. They each do effectively the same thing in that area, one step of increase.

The 'steps' involved do not have the same meaning and comparing them is disingenuous, like Patryn said. Your comparison is analogous to comparing the +1 bonus on skill rolls to a +1 bonus on caster level. They're both bonuses so they should be equivalent, right? Obviously not.

A few points of extra damage (7 at 20th level is a red herring - it's ONLY at 20th level) for INA.

+7 is "a few points"? I guess if it were +20, that'd still be only a "few points"? It's almost twice the best feat that a fighter can take, albeit at 12th level, and doesn't have a long list of prerequisites.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

A few points of extra damage (7 at 20th level is a red herring - it's ONLY at 20th level) for INA.

And it's better than Weapon Specialization for the entirety of the feat's "useful life."

Reach weapon that also lets you strike adjacent foes AND use trip attacks AND get +2 on disarm attempts AND use Weapon Finesse. (Spiked Chain)

And 2d4 damage vs, say, the 2d6 or more you get from a "standard" two-handed martial weapon.

Again, as I said before, you don't pick EWP (Spiked Chain) if you want to deal more damage. Since that's the only reason to pick INA, the two are not directly comparable.

P.S.: Isn't there a feat that lets you use a weapon one size category larger than normal? That would add 3.5 pts of damage for a greatsword - not beaten by INA until 16th level.

Monkey Grip.

It allows you to use a single, one-handed weapon of one size category larger than yourself without changing its use designation. You also still take a penalty on your attack rolls.

 

[Artoomis]

... +7 is "a few points"? I guess if it were +20, that'd still be only a "few points"? It's almost twice the best feat that a fighter can take, albeit at 12th level, and doesn't have a long list of prerequisites.

As I said, this is a "red herring" - focusing on what happens at 20th level is a distraction from the real comparison.

Let's face it, right after that it's EPIC and REALLY odd things start happening.

Again, it takes a REAL analysis to figure this out, not just focusing on one thing..

 

[Hypersmurf]

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.

Elementals in 3E got iterative slams. In 3.5, this has been corrected - they get two slams at full attack bonus.

If the Living Holocaust were updated for 3.5, I'd expect a similar correction to be made.

-Hyp.

 

[Scion]

The 'steps' involved do not have the same meaning

Completely false.

By definition they mean the same thing.

Just because after you apply them to different weapons the final total might be different is irrelevant to my point.

All the arguement of +X damage vs. +Y damage says, for this comparison, is that different weapons have different base damages.

The weapon damage itself is a factor of a bunch of other balance issues that have nothing at all to do with the base fact: Both have an equivalent effect, increasing damage by one step.


First we find the basis that is true:
INA increases a natural weapons damage by one step.
EWP can increase a base weapons damage by one step, which then makes it a different weapon.
EWP could instead produce a number of other effects instead (possibly in addition do, I havent looked up every exotic weapon to check).


These are true. In the basis we have that they can do equivalent things.

Next we get to 'why' weapons do the base damage they do and how much the overall increase in damage will be. But this is a completely seperate arguement and is based on so many different balancing factors (BAB of the class, weapon type, weapon effects, etc) that we then would have to have a whole other discussion just to come to grips on what to include and what to exclude from the comparison.


But, at its base, they can both do the same effective thing: Increase damage die of a weapon by one step.


As a corallary we also know that EWP is much easier to get than INA. Typically feats which are harder to get are at least a little stronger. But, strength is measured in a lot of ways, INA only does one thing, EWP has the potential of 'many' different things, just not at the same time.

Which is 'better' depends entirely on what you are after.

 

[Infiniti2000]

As I said, this is a "red herring" - focusing on what happens at 20th level is a distraction from the real comparison.

I never intended to focus on 20th level (in the other thread at least). Compare it at the beginning. It's better than weapon specialization in all ways, except that arguably WS can be taken slightly earlier. But, the fact is that you must do the comparison up to 20th level. You can't stop at 12th.

These are true. In the basis we have that they can do equivalent things.

No, they're not true. You are not comparing the same things at all. Let me show you.

INA increases a natural weapons damage by one step.
EWP can increase a base weapons damage by one step, which then makes it a different weapon.

INA increase a natural weapons damage by one step in size category. EWP, at beast, increases the weapon damage by one die. In other words, as Patryn pointed out, EWP goes from 1d8 (longsword) to 1d10 (bastard sword) -- at best -- whereas INA goes from 1d8 to 2d6. That is a significant improvement and calling them the same is absolutely wrong.

So, your attempt at comparing INA to EWP in this regard is completely without merit.

 

[Artoomis]

...

Like I said, we need to do a better, more thorough comparison for this to be of any value.

 

[Anubis]

Well, lemme try to address everyone for once. I also have some interesting new information that could put both sides of this in a weird place. This is a long one, so bear with me and I'll answer every single post.

Riiight.

So, what "thing" gives the Living Holocaust the ability to break normal rules?

Hint: a mistake.

Nope, no mistake.

(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?

I consider this thread merged with that one. The whole point about monks taking that feat revolves entirely around the validity of the FAQ, so they can be considered the same. I have no intention of posting in multiple threads anymore, so I'm just gonna stick it out here.

Can't wait to see the errata on Monks taking INA.

Silly.

I'll be getting to this later in the post. You won't like the answer, though.

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.

Invalid point. The Diehard feat is used to be called Remain Conscious and appears in Sword and Fist originally. Back then, it had a ton of prerequisites, but now it has only one. Same thing applies here. It's basically part of the revision. Oriental Adventures was firmly 3.0, and that's quite a change between versions. Same as Diehard now is. Several splatbook feats now appear in the core rules and easier to access.

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.

The reason there is a distinction is because unarmed strikes do nonlethal damage. Again, this is also part of why monks are considered special cases; their unarmed strike does lethal damage. Still, the text stating that a monk's unarmed strikes are considered natural and manufactured weapons is the sticking point here and the biggest reason why your side of the argument can't be correct.

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).

Nowhere in the rules have I ever seen specific mention of one ability worthy of special note over any others. To actually point out that feat would make it unnecessarily wordy.

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.

This is where your problem is, and like I said, you aren't gonna like the answer.

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.

I got an even better example than Power Attack (which isn't as must-have as you might think). Weapon Focus. I got another one. Weapon Specialization for fighters. I don't know a single fighter who won't take both of these feats, likely for multiple weapons even.

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.

Actually, this is a good place to show why the book words it as "treated as". It's because there are other rules for natural attacks which do not apply to monks. Monks can't take Multiattack (even though they technically have four limbs with which to attack), they can't attack separately with their hands and feet, and they require a class to be considered natural weapons for most purposes.

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 latter is what I'd consider the reality, and you are right either way.

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.

I'd say number two.

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!)

You are right on both points, as I'll shortly prove.

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.

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.

Sorry, but I find that to be quite ridiculous. Are one-handed martial weapons overpowered because every single fighter would pick one over any of the light weapons? Heck no. Oh, and don't even argue that some fighters would pick the light weapons, that's just silly. No fighter would ever pick a dagger over a longsword as a primary weapon, even if most would have both available to use for various purposes.

Just because something is taken by everyone doesn't make it overpowered, it makes it standard. In Final Fantasy XI, we call this "cookie cutter". In that game, the cookie cutter attitude is very harmful to the gaming community as a whole, but only because people see the alternatives as too weak, not because the cookie cutters are too powerful.

To see it clearly, make a fighter who doesn't take any Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Power Attack, or Combat Expertise feats. You'll notice that by Level 20, they'll be terribly weak for their level and unable to stand up with other classes because of it.

Basically, some things are status quo. That doesn't equate to overpowered.

The iterative attacks for Living Holocaust are a mistake, aren't they? Unless they have a listed ability that explicitly overrules the normal rules for iterative attacks, they should not be making iterative attacks.

Well, they do, and you can't change that. There is no errata taking away their iterative attacks, so they stay as part of the rules. You can't make such a bold claim without evidence. You have none, sorry to say.

Anubis seems to be saying that the INA ruling should have been in the errata.

Wrong. I never stated or implied such things. Remember, although the monk thing is central to this debate, people have claimed there are many rules changes in the FAQ. I haven't personally seen any, but I'm taking your word for it. I claim that changes would indeed be official. The thing is, no errata is needed for monks to take that feat, as there is no clear rule to begin with.

The intention of the FAQ was rules clarifications. This rule was unclear and needed clarification, and you got it. Not my fault if you can't accept it. It's still a rule. If you don't want monks taking the feat, take it over to the House Rules forum.

In other words, that it *was* a change in the rules, and not merely a clarification.

Wrong again.

If the rules had to be changed to allow the monk to take INA, then by the rules as written (pre-FAQ) the monk could not take INA, but now he can.

Except that's not the case, so your point is invalid.

Funny. I had thought that Anubis was on the Yes side, the side that said that the Sage was merely restating the current rules in a clearer way, not changing them.

I am on that side, and I don't believe that monks taking that feat is a change. I was just talking that, in general, changes are still official. Don't put words into my mouth, it'll just get you in trouble later, heh.

Power attack is also taken not just because it is powerful, but because it is a prerequisite to other feats (like cleave and sunder) and prestige classes. If it wasn't a prerequisite for other things, many fewer people would take it.

INA is being taken just for the benefit it provides, and provides twice the benefits of two hard to get fighter feats. It's hard to argue that it is not overpowered; the only justification for allowing it might be if the monk needs a power up, but that merely underscores the fact that yes, INA is overpowered for a monk.

The problem with this idea is that, by your reasoning, the feat would be overpowered period, regardless of who took it. A great wyrm red dragon sees far more benefit from this feat than a monk, and a monk gets more than a lizardfolk does. Some feats scale (i.e. get more powerful the more powerful the person taking it is), and this is one such feat. Not all feats are equal.

Acrobatic obviously gives less benefit than, say, Iron Will. Iron Will is less useful overall than Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization. None of those feats scale, though, they're linear. Other feats grow exponentially, and Improved Natural Attack is one such feat. Power Attack is another.

You logic is flawed as we most certainly do NOT know that INA (or power attack) is over-powered. What we do know (or can reasonably surmise) is that the flavor of these feats (increasing damage) is something that players of combat-oriented characters will like and tend to choose.

Well, duh!!

On the other hand, their hands cannot be enchanted and get the same bonuses that a weapon can get that way.

Right on. Testify!

No, that's not the best way. That's a popularity contest. The best way is through anaylsis that carefully considers ALL other balancing factors. That's not yet be attempted here. It would have to include factors like the opportunity cost of taking a feat for the monk (smaller number of feats that fighters), the fact that monks unarmed strikes cannot be permanently enchanted, the various ways that other character get damage multipliers that to which a monk does not normally have access, the bonuses at each level compared to other melee-type characters, etc., etc.

I doubt it's necessary. It should be a given that not all feats are created equal. If they were, it'd be pretty boring, wouldn't it?

You could see an errata. If they ever get around to updating it. Errata are not prohibited from making things clearer.

And if the argument is that it is a mistake that natural weapons were referred to in the prerequisites line, well, that seems to be something that can be addressed in the errata. Errata is supposed to fix mistakes, right?

I agree with you that polling is not the best way to get to the right answer. Whether or not the polls agree with me. Although if you don't believe in the relevance of polls, why do all these threads you start have them?

There was no mistake. You people just misunderstood the meaning of "effects". Andy Collins clarified it in the FAQ, yet you're still being stubborn about it.

Because it's fun and, while not irrelevant, you do have to be very careful in drawing conclusions from them. The answers are always influenced (intentionally or not) by the way the questions are perceived.

It is interesting to see how the folks on this board see an issue and to get a numerical summary of that information. How much value that really has is anybody's guess, but it's still interesting to do.

In one case (not this one) I have been quite surprised at how my position turned out to be very much in the minority. As I said, interesting.

In the case of FAQ as Errata the results were a majority both for and against, depending upon phrasing of the question and options.

I think this only happened because of misconceptions, and those should soon be fixed.

You're right - I think there is an example or two in there of that. Still, I very much doubt it.

The chances of errata are slim, because none is really needed. The only errata needed might be to define "effects".

How is my logic flawed? INA is 4-1 a 'no brainer' which makes it overwhelmingly popular. I think, a vast majority agree, that INA is overpowered compared with all other feats that the monk could take.

Your logic is flawed because, as I showed earlier, popular doesn't equal overpowered.

Of course they can be enhanced (I'd not like my unarmed strikes to be enchanted quite honestly). Why would you say they can't?

You are correct here. There is a wondrous item that enhances a monk's unarmed strikes.

It's not a mere popularity contest. Don't try to mischaracterize the poll to fit your opinion.

Whoever would do such a thing would first need to get the facts straight. The rest of your 'factors' you allude to are fluff. You are not listing out any facts at all and trying to appeal to a concern that doesn't exist. How in the world can you defend the position that INA is not overpowered when you can't even get your facts straight? Do your analysis and then we'll talk. For me, the poll and comparison to any other class's feats is more than enough.

Just like you're ignoring certain facts?

Just stopping by to drop a little comment

Improved natural attack is very much like the monks (or other creatures with natural attacks) version of exotic weapon proficiency.

Both can increase the damage of a single weapon by 1 step (some are exotic because they are weird, but a good amount do provide some extra benefit)

Exotic weapon proficiency can sometimes get other benefits instead, and its prereqs are much easier to meet. So, even if some view exotic weapon prof to be a little weaker in the damage dealing area for whatever reason it makes up for it by having a greater selection of options and being much easier to get.

Not every fighter type gets exotic weapon prof, even though it can give the same benefit as INA. This could be primarily because of the number of feat choices out there for different builds while the monk is a bit more limited in some ways for feats that would really help.

That might be a decent comparison, except you can take Improved Natural Attack multiple times.

Except that INA is much, much more powerful than EWP. The increase is, generally speaking, much more than a single step.

Incorrect. The increase is one step, it even says so. Like I said, it's more powerful only because you can take it multiple times and the effects stack.

Since the increase that INA gives is pretty much the definition of a single step I would have to say that your statement is rather incorrect.

Emphasis mine.

What he said. I concur.

EWP often grants other benefits. Such as EWP: Spiked Chain.

Yeah, but I would still agree that Improved Natural Attack is "more powerful".

Keep reading.

"... increases one step, as if the creature’s size had increased by one category."

Same thing. If the creature increases in size, the damage goes up only one step. You can also find this on the Increasing Weapon Damage by Size table on DMG p.28; honestly, the steps are measured by size, so it can be no other way.

So you are saying that it increases by more than one step.. even though it says it increases by one step? With the part I did not bold, but I did quote, the statement I made still does not change. It is still a single step of increase.

Also, as I said before, one could make a case for the damage increase being slightly less (still one step but not always dont according to the same table), but ewp is also much easier to get and can be used for a whole host of other very good options which are harder to compare directly to damage.

Scion scores again!

No, it says it increases your damage by one step, as if you had increased in size by one category.

We know what that means for a monk, because it's already given to us in the Monk table. That being said ...

Monk 6: 1d8 -> 2d6 = +2.5 damage
Monk 8: 1d10 -> 2d8 = +2.5 damage
Monk 12: 2d6 -> 3d6 = +3.5 damage
Monk 16: 2d8 -> 3d8 = +4.5 damage
Monk 20: 2d10 -> 4d8 = +7 damage

Are you trying to tell me that any of these steps are less powerful than EWP (Bastard Sword or Dwarven Waraxe) (+1 damage) or Weapon Specialization (+2 damage)? Comparing it to, say, EWP (Spiked Chain) is a flawed comparison, because the only possible use of INA is to increase damage dealt. Accordingly, you should compare it against an EWP taken to improve damage dealt (as I have done).

So, no, INA does not give the same or similar benefit to EWP.

You are correct on this point. That still doesn't make it overpowered, though.

Which means that it increases by one step.

When it says, 'increases by one step' I think that I am perfectly justified in saying, 'increases by one step'.

If you feel that stating exactly what the rules state is incorrect then I dont know what to say other than I disagree and feel that you are incorrect.

Just because the monks damage changes later is irrelevant, both effects can do the same thing. Increase the damage die of the base weapon by one step.

So yes, they have an effect which is essentially the same.

Monks have a weapon which goes from X damage to Y damage, one step increase.
EWP, as compared with the weapon it was derived from, can be going from A damage to B damage, one step increase.

Much like enlarge increases the damage by one step as well. Unless you wish to argue that enlarge doesnt do what it says either?

Another one for Scion. On a roll today, eh?

I'm saying that you're being disingenuous when you say "one step."

Yeah, it's "one step." However, that "one step" for a monk means an awful lot more than "one step" does for a fighter.

For a fighter, "one step" is, generally speaking, +1 to damage. That's it. Finis. For a monk, it's more - and, generally speaking, a lot more.

Yeah, well fighters get access to a lot more feats numerically, and get several feats monks can't have without multiclassing and giving up some power.

No, it literally 'is' one step.

The difference in base weapon damage has no bearing on my comparison. They each do effectively the same thing in that area, one step of increase.

The monk gets a higher base damage for other balance reasons (more difficult to get weapon bonuses, less BAB, etc) but those do not change what I have said.


If you wish to redifine terms feel free, but this is the rules forum, I am going with the rules.

Scion with another point!

But it should, because you want us to compare it to Exotic Weapon Proficiency and, thereby, realize that it's no big deal.

INA, from a strictly damage-dealing standpoint, is far superior to EWP specifically because the weapons involved have wildly varying base damage.

The move from 1d8 to 1d10 - MWP (Longsword) to EWP (Bastard Sword) is smaller - and will always be smaller. The minimum move associated with INA is just as good as EWP and Weapon Specialization (+2.5 vs. +3) - and, later, it will be better than both. Eventually, this single feat outpaces Greater Weapon Specialization, which has three other feats and a class level requirement as prerequisites.

This feat is much, much more powerful than EWP. To compare the two and say they are "on par" is laughable.

I'll add now that if Improved Natural Attack is overpowered, then monks are overpowered all by themselves. I don't know any way for a fighter to get 2d10 base damage with any weapon, and monks also get to bypass certain types of damage reduction for free without any enhancements or items. Should monks be banned now for being overpowered?

Oh, and a greatsword beats out a dagger by 4.5 damage (2.5 to 7). Are greatswords overpowered? Not all things are equal.

Hmmm.....

A few points of extra damage (7 at 20th level is a red herring - it's ONLY at 20th level) for INA.

Compared to EWP:

What can EWP get you?

Reach weapon that also lets you strike adjacent foes AND use trip attacks AND get +2 on disarm attempts AND use Weapon Finesse. (Spiked Chain)

This seems in line with that, certainly.

In any case, a true analysis of the "power" of INA for a monk needs to be much more in-depth.

P.S.: Isn't there a feat that lets you use a weapon one size category larger than normal? That would add 3.5 pts of damage for a greatsword - not beaten by INA until 16th level.

First, yes, there is a feat that allows you to use a weapon one size larger than normal. In fact, there are two. Monkey Grip and Wield Oversized Weapon. The first allows you to wield a bigger weapon than normal at -2 to attack, the other is an epic feat that allows you to treat any weapon as one size smaller.

Still, like I said, not all feats are created equal.

Anyway, yes, the extra 7 is really nothing. The averag CR 20 creature has well over 200 hp, and the average CR 40 creature gets close to 1000 hp.

No, because of the reasons I have already outlined.

In addition, there are other factors involved, as I and atroomis have both mentioned before.

Just because the base damage die of the weapons happen to be different isnt what is important in the comparison, merely that the effects that they generate can effectively be the same is.

Scion is becoming the Energizer Bunny! Heh! Still going!

The 'steps' involved do not have the same meaning and comparing them is disingenuous, like Patryn said. Your comparison is analogous to comparing the +1 bonus on skill rolls to a +1 bonus on caster level. They're both bonuses so they should be equivalent, right? Obviously not.

+7 is "a few points"? I guess if it were +20, that'd still be only a "few points"? It's almost twice the best feat that a fighter can take, albeit at 12th level, and doesn't have a long list of prerequisites.

So? It is a very small benefit, and it's an average die roll +7 not an absolute certain +7 like Weapon Specialization is an absolute certain +4.

And it's better than Weapon Specialization for the entirety of the feat's "useful life."

How exactly is +7 potential damage better than +4 guaranteed damage?

And 2d4 damage vs, say, the 2d6 or more you get from a "standard" two-handed martial weapon.

Again, as I said before, you don't pick EWP (Spiked Chain) if you want to deal more damage. Since that's the only reason to pick INA, the two are not directly comparable.

Monkey Grip.

It allows you to use a single, one-handed weapon of one size category larger than yourself without changing its use designation. You also still take a penalty on your attack rolls.

I'm not certain why we're debating the value of feats. No two feats are created equal.

As I said, this is a "red herring" - focusing on what happens at 20th level is a distraction from the real comparison.

Let's face it, right after that it's EPIC and REALLY odd things start happening.

Again, it takes a REAL analysis to figure this out, not just focusing on one thing..

You're right on the mark.

Elementals in 3E got iterative slams. In 3.5, this has been corrected - they get two slams at full attack bonus.

If the Living Holocaust were updated for 3.5, I'd expect a similar correction to be made.

-Hyp.

There's no such thing in the update booklet for Fiend Folio, so I'd expect you're wrong. If they change it later, fine, but as of now, the update does not change the attacks on the living holocaust.

Completely false.

By definition they mean the same thing.

Just because after you apply them to different weapons the final total might be different is irrelevant to my point.

All the arguement of +X damage vs. +Y damage says, for this comparison, is that different weapons have different base damages.

The weapon damage itself is a factor of a bunch of other balance issues that have nothing at all to do with the base fact: Both have an equivalent effect, increasing damage by one step.

First we find the basis that is true:
INA increases a natural weapons damage by one step.
EWP can increase a base weapons damage by one step, which then makes it a different weapon.
EWP could instead produce a number of other effects instead (possibly in addition do, I havent looked up every exotic weapon to check).

These are true. In the basis we have that they can do equivalent things.

Next we get to 'why' weapons do the base damage they do and how much the overall increase in damage will be. But this is a completely seperate arguement and is based on so many different balancing factors (BAB of the class, weapon type, weapon effects, etc) that we then would have to have a whole other discussion just to come to grips on what to include and what to exclude from the comparison.

But, at its base, they can both do the same effective thing: Increase damage die of a weapon by one step.

As a corallary we also know that EWP is much easier to get than INA. Typically feats which are harder to get are at least a little stronger. But, strength is measured in a lot of ways, INA only does one thing, EWP has the potential of 'many' different things, just not at the same time.

Which is 'better' depends entirely on what you are after.

Rock on, Scion.

I never intended to focus on 20th level (in the other thread at least). Compare it at the beginning. It's better than weapon specialization in all ways, except that arguably WS can be taken slightly earlier. But, the fact is that you must do the comparison up to 20th level. You can't stop at 12th.

No, they're not true. You are not comparing the same things at all. Let me show you.

INA increase a natural weapons damage by one step in size category. EWP, at beast, increases the weapon damage by one die. In other words, as Patryn pointed out, EWP goes from 1d8 (longsword) to 1d10 (bastard sword) -- at best -- whereas INA goes from 1d8 to 2d6. That is a significant improvement and calling them the same is absolutely wrong.

So, your attempt at comparing INA to EWP in this regard is completely without merit.

You realize there is only a 1.5 damage difference between 1d10 and 2d6, right? I don't consider that very significant. A 3 damage difference (Improved Natural Attack versus Greater Weapon Specialization) at Level 20 make no difference whatsoever.

Like I said, we need to do a better, more thorough comparison for this to be of any value.

Honestly, I don't see why it matters in the first place.



Anyway, on the the meat of my post. Good grief I didn't realize there had been like 50 posts since my last one. Exhausting responding to all of them. Anyway, I talked it over with Trevor, and it was quite enlightening. While you people were here bickering, I was discussing the situation with people who actually had a say in the matter, and I finally got them to take this matter seriously. They know now how confusing this issue is.

Here is what was said. I'll be putting emphasis on the most important parts.


Response (Trevor K.) 11/01/2005 09:34 AM
Hey there Brandon. Zephreum, Chris and I sat down with the teams in R&D and talked with them about this, just so we would all be on the same page and to alleviate your confusion and the confusion of the people who are having a hard time understanding the difference between the FAQ and errata. The conclusion we came to was the one that I originally gave you: Errata is for rules changes and the FAQ is for rules clarification. This comes straight from the guys who make the FAQ and errata.

Now, much of this confusion is stemming from the fact that the Monk's unarmed strikes are considered natural attacks for qualifying for feats such as Improved Natural Attack, and some people see this as a rules change. It is not. It is a clarification on the types of things that fall into the "effects" category concerning the monk's unarmed strikes.

Regardless, the FAQ is an official source of rules and should be followed. If the FAQ is every incorrect or misleading, then we update it with a fix as quickly as possible. Everything in the FAQ is official rules information, so if you see something that you perceive as errata in the FAQ, it is still official and should still be applied to the rules. People shouldn't just disregard the new monk/natural attack information just because they think of it as errata.

There are no plans to merge the errata with the FAQ, and again, these types of things like the Monk issue mentioned above are indeed not rules changes, just clarifications. Also, if you have any other issues that appear like errata popping up in the FAQ that you would like to discuss, please feel free to respond with those.

I have checked in at EN World and the debate is raging. I'm not sure why people believe they can disregard information in the FAQ and pretend it's not there, but I'm coming from a place where I have to read and assimilate all the information in order to do my job correctly and give people the right answers, so that they can give their players and fellow DMs the right answers. If we didn't want players or DMs to read and assimilate the information provided in the FAQ,we wouldn't provide one. But don't feel like you're annoying us! This is our job, we're here to answer questions, and I would love to help you guys clear this up. If you have any more questions, feel free to respond with them.

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) 11/01/2005 12:50 AM
I'm a bit confused by your answer. When I asked if the FAQ provides errata, Zephreum told me, and I quote, "Yes the D&D FAQ is also a source for Errata."

This seems to conflict with your statement, kinda.

Now, you admit it's "intended" that changes appear in the errata and not the FAQ, but given that rules changes have indeed been implemented in the FAQ (and not placed in the errata), what does this mean? Is it that, despite intentions, errata is popping up in the FAQ even though it shouldn't? Or are rules changes in the FAQ not actually official until those changes appear in the errata? (Chris said "everything" in the FAQ is official, so I would think that includes rules changes as well.)

I dunno if you ever visit the web site EN World, but that's where the debate is going on. Several people there are fighting rather heatedly about how "nothing change-wise is official until it's in the errata", and claim the rule about primary sources put the actual books above the word of Andy Collins or customer service (I think that stance is pretty stupid myself); others think that the FAQ is outright wrong about monks being qualified. I, for one, believe that everything in the FAQ is absolute until someone says otherwise, but yes, this is a very confused issue.

Basically, unless the errata is merged with the FAQ, no one will take it seriously. Aggravating for serious rules discussion.

This all must be very annoying, lol. I find it annoying myself, but I figure instead of complaining about it as others have, that's why I continue discussing this with the customer service in hopes of putting very clear language in as to whether the FAQ is whjolly official including any changes or not. Sorry to be such a bother. I'm just hoping to finally end the debate over at EN World (which has currently grossed well over 1000 posts over five different topics).


So, basically, both sides had a point in all this. The FAQ and errata are different indeed, but, the monk issue isn't a rule change, it's a rule clarification. Regardless of that, everything is still official rules information.

Now I'm not sure what other changes people see other than the sheath for free during a move, but basically Trevor has said if you find something that's considered a rule change, inquire about it! That means, don't come here talking about how the FAQ and customer service are wrong so much. If you don't bring up the valid questions and press the issue, you'll never be satisfied. In other words, getting everything right takes teamwork from us to point out any potential errors and from R&D and customer service giving it the proper attention.

I think this is pretty clear at this point. Even if you think something in the FAQ is a change, it's still official and thus applied to the rules. Any perceived changes you find, let Andy Collins or customer service know, multiple times if need be, that way everything is made clear. You attack their credibility yet do nothing to help the situation. They're human, and this stuff takes teamwork.

I'm a writer. I make mistakes myself. The thing is, I usually don't catch my mistakes. That's what a proofreader is for. Now they have those and those people caught the obvious mistakes, but as players, it's our job to point out anything that was overlooked. This couldn't be more clear to me now. As such, stop complaining about it. If you see something you think is a change, it either isn't or it's a mistake or it's something else; ask them!

Anyway, I hope this clears everything up.

 

[Scion]

No, they're not true. You are not comparing the same things at all.

I dont know how to be more clear than when the rules literally state something explicitly.

They literally do increase by one step. If you wish to say that one weapon does too much base damage vs another go right ahead, but that is a completely seperate arguement. Or even if a certain weapon does not increase properly according to other parts of the RAW, which is again a seperate arguement.

 

[Infiniti2000]

You realize there is only a 1.5 damage difference between 1d10 and 2d6, right? I don't consider that very significant.

You might consider it more significant if you actually use the correct numbers. You even reference my post and you misread the numbers, to your benefit of course. It's 1d8-->2d6, which is +2.5, which is better than weapon specialization through the life of either feat.

A 3 damage difference (Improved Natural Attack versus Greater Weapon Specialization) at Level 20 make no difference whatsoever.

+7 is almost double +4 and keep in mind we're now comparing the same feat (INA) to a new, higher level feat (GWS instead of WS that we compared earlier) and it's STILL FAR BETTER. Puhlease.

Like I said, we need to do a better, more thorough comparison for this to be of any value.

I don't agree. What Patryn and I have posted already shows that beyond a shadow of a doubt, INA is overpowered. I'd help with the comparison, but you need to tell us where to continue it beyond what we've already done. Is the comparison on INA versus the entire GWS tree insufficient?