Improved monk attack
- Thread starter apesamongus
- Start date
Sejs
First Post
Again, no. Natural weapons and unarmed strikes are different things, and both are quantified terms in D&D. An attack using the body doesn't equal natural weapon, and similarly, just because you have natural weapons doesn't preclude you from making unarmed strikes.
As an example, look at a house cat. A house cat has claws and a bite. When a house cat is hunting a mouse, sometimes it will use its claws and teeth to shread or mangle the mouse. Other times it will keep its claws in and just batter the mouse around, whap it into the ground, slap it into things, and so on until it's unconscious, or in shock.
Likewise, just because you can attack with your body, doesn't mean you have natural weapons. If I get into a fight, I may be able to beat up my opponent, but no matter what I do, I'm not going to be able to rake 3" deep rents in his flesh just by hitting him with the business-end of my hand. If I had a knife, sure, but not using just what my body comes equipped with naturally.
apesamongus
First Post
Egres said:
Why not?
Trainz
Explorer
Unless the mighty wizard that lives by the sea claims otherwise, there is nothing in the rules that prevents a Monk from taking the feat.
Intent. When someone tries to clear something up, one must consider intent. It what's seperates rules-lawyers from good refereeing GM's.
We have two hints towards this intent: the fact that VoP considers a monk's fists as weapons, and the passage in the PHB that says "The monk is considered a melee weapon, or natural weapon, whatever". We have nothing else in the rules that hints towards limiting this versatility of the monk.
One could debate (as one does) that this is not so, but the RAW at this time certainly permits it. Which is quite sufficient for a DM who wants to permit it.
Intent. When someone tries to clear something up, one must consider intent. It what's seperates rules-lawyers from good refereeing GM's.
We have two hints towards this intent: the fact that VoP considers a monk's fists as weapons, and the passage in the PHB that says "The monk is considered a melee weapon, or natural weapon, whatever". We have nothing else in the rules that hints towards limiting this versatility of the monk.
One could debate (as one does) that this is not so, but the RAW at this time certainly permits it. Which is quite sufficient for a DM who wants to permit it.
Trainz said:
I contend that arguing intent is pointless. First, no one here can read the mind of the writers, so we can't know true intent. And second, it doesn't really matter what the intent was if they didn't write it that way. I could claim the writers intended for monks to fly, but a typo caused that clause to be left out. But that's no basis for giving monks the ability to fly. Intent is fun to discuss when you want to sit down and talk about what the rules should be, but it doesn't have much of a place when discussing what the rules actually are.
Furthermore, I would have to say that I believe the game designers did not intend for INA to be accesible to a monk. If they did, the feat would be in the Players Handbook, not the Monster Manual. Furthermore, they would have clearly stated that a monk's attack is a natural attack "for the purpose of magical spells and effects and feats". But they didn't.
Now, if you would like to discuss whether or not the feat should be allowable for monks, feel free. But I think the thread will be a lot less snarky overall if no one claims that something is true because they think it should be.
/intent discussion
My Conclusion:
The discussion of this feat (and any other feat dealing with natural attacks and monks) all boils down to one line. "A monk's unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects". Is a feat an effect? If you say yes, then play it that way. If you say no, play it that way (and, for the record, I say no). But since the word "effect" is not a properly defined term in D+D, we will never come to a concensus on it unless they print some errata regarding it.
/conclusion
apesamongus
First Post
Deset Gled said:
They also don't state that the monk can attack unarmed both on Mondays AND in May.
