Monks & the Improved Natural Attack Feat

[glass]

Except that, in the FAQ, this exact question is raised, and the FAQ specifically states that a Feat IS an effect.

Honestly, this entire debate wouldn't exist if people just read the FAQ. It's right there, plain and simple. You can choose to not allow it, which is fine- just be aware that you're making a House Rule.

Of course the debate would exist if people read the FAQ. Indeed most of the debates in the Rules forum over the years have been kicked off by people reading the FAQ. Because the FAQ is often (as in this case, IMO) wrong.


glass.

 

[Cheiromancer]

Actually, I would be very interested to hear from someone that owns the Rules Compendium to find out if any of the wording about this has been changed there. We're about due for this topic to come up again, anyway (it happens about once a year).

Just to round up the various points that have been discussed on this issue in other threads, here's a list of the most prominent opinions I have seen:

Rules POV:

1. Monks can take INA. Their unarmed strike counts as a natural weapons for spells and effects, and feats are effects.

2. Monks cannot take INA. Their unarmed strike counts as a natural weapons for spells and effects, and feats are not effects. (Many secondary sources are incorrect per the Primary Source rule.)

3. Monks cannot take INA. Their unarmed strike counts as a natural weapons for spells and effects. Feats are effects, but their prerequisites are not. (Many secondary sources are incorrect per the Primary Source rule.)

4. Monks can take INA. The primary source is ambiguous, and other sources clarify that they can.

Balance POV:

A. Monks can take INA. The monk is underpowered, and this feat helps balance them.

B. Monks cannot take INA. INA is too powerful for a feat. Other sources provide better alternatives.

Intent POV:

I. Monks cannot take INA. INA was intended for monsters only. (Many secondary sources were written by authors that did not follow the original intent.)

II. Monks can take INA. INA was intended to improve any attack made without weapons.

Of course, there are always fringe theories, but I think this covers most of the bases.

If anyone objects to people discussing this issue, or feels that they cannot remain civil in the discussion, I would humbly request that you simply not participate in the thread.

That's a masterful summary there, Deset Gled! With the possible exception of what (if anything) the Rules Compendium introduces, I think you've covered everything. And in an even-handed and non-prejudicial way.

 

[Piratecat]

Honestly, this entire debate wouldn't exist if people just read the FAQ. It's right there, plain and simple. You can choose to not allow it, which is fine- just be aware that you're making a House Rule.

Whoops, missed this!

It's been a while, but we'd rather not have people calling "house rule!" at folks. Morrus mentions this here in post 3...

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=155143

and it's best avoided.

Thanks.

Incidentally, Deset Gled -- best summary of this topic I've ever seen!

 

[Christian]

That's a masterful summary there, Deset Gled! With the possible exception of what (if anything) the Rules Compendium introduces, I think you've covered everything. And in an even-handed and non-prejudicial way.

I haven't found anything relevant to this in RC ... The monk special unarmed abilities are 'rules exceptions', so I'm thinking that's why there's nothing about them in that book.

 

[RigaMortus2]

And by the same vain of logic, it says in complete Adventure that monks can not take INA. What I am getting at is when a sources it is asked for, post where the said information can be found so it can be reviewed rather then expecting people to believe it is true because you said it.

---Rusty

Didn't he clearly say (in the post you quoted from him) that is was from the FAQ??? And several posts above him had the actual quote from the FAQ and labelled it as such. All it takes is a little bit of reading. No need to jump down someone's throat because YOU neglected to read.

 

[DungeonMaester]

Didn't he clearly say (in the post you quoted from him) that is was from the FAQ??? And several posts above him had the actual quote from the FAQ and labelled it as such. All it takes is a little bit of reading. No need to jump down someone's throat because YOU neglected to read.

And by the same vain of logic, it says in complete Adventure that monks can not take INA. What I am getting at is when a sources it is asked for, post where the said information can be found so it can be reviewed rather then expecting people to believe it is true because you said it.

Like How I posted page numbers from the MM in my first post. If you are posting that information is somewhere, make the information readily available.

---Rusty

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Again, thanks to Deset Gled for the summary!

 

[Hypersmurf]

And by the same vain of logic, it says in complete Adventure that monks can not take INA.

Do you have a page number on that, by the way?

-Hyp.

 

[eamon]

No, because IUS counts as a natural weapon for the purpose of spells. So spells that target natural weapons can target a monk's unarmed strike. If the wording was that that a monk's IUS counted as a natural weapon for the purpose of feats, then we wouldn't need this discussion.

But it doesn't say "feats", it says "effects". And while a feat has one or more effects, it is not an effect. Some feats, including INA, also have prerequisites. Prerequisites are not effects. Satisfying the target requirement of an effect is different from satisfying the prerequisites of a feat. IUS satisfies the target requirements of INA but not the prerequisites. And if the FAQ says otherwise, the FAQ is wrong.

There is no in-game definition of "effect". That term is used extremely frequently in D&D, and with various meanings derived from the plain english dictionary definition. There's no meaningful distinction I can find between supernatural abilities, spells, skills, skill tricks and feats from the perspective of an "effect" - they all have some game-mechanical "consequence" after all.

Traps - you "receive a saving throw to mitigate its effects" (DMG 67)
Aging - "Aging Effects" (PHB index)
Poison/Diseases - "Poisons, Diseases, and other effects can temporarily" (PHB10)
Races - Half-Elf, PHB18 - "For Effects related to race, a half-elf is considered an elf" and "can use magic items that are only usable by elves" (prerequisites?)
Class Abilities - Smite Evil - "...that is not evil, smite has no effect..."

In plain English, the feat Improved Natural Attack simply "improves" natural attacks. That's its effect. How then, could a monk's unarmed strike fail to benefit - since it's considered a natural weapon for such purposes?

A spell, just like a feat, is not by itself a single effect. It can have prerequisites (i.e. a "Target:" line), and it can have multiple consequences. The difference between an instantaneous spell effect and a feat is slim-to-nonexistent. Is a supernatural ability an "effect"? An extraordinary ability? Assuming these abilities actually have consequences - yes.

Effects which specifically improve natural weapons are those which the monk gains access to. If they weren't specific to natural weapons, the monk's exception would have no effect. Any effect which is specific to natural weapons, and thus limited to effecting natural weapons (as opposed to everything else), clearly requires a natural weapon to have any consequence, and thus has a natural weapon as prerequisite. So, the monk's exceptional ability to benefit from effects which apply to natural weapons is equivalent to saying that a monk's unarmed fist is considered a natural weapon if the consequence ("effect") is beneficial.

The monk's rules ask the reader to interpret an effect and judge whether it is an improvement or not. The rules are only relevant for those effects which apply only to natural weapons. In these relevant cases, the effect is permitted if and only if you judge it beneficial. It's disingenuous to distinguish between the prerequisite and the effect, for that would mean that no prerequisites would be waived, since any effect deemed beneficial would nevertheless have the separate requirement that it applies solely to natural weapons. Specifically, Magic Fang (which can be cast on any living creature) would not apply, since although the rule would allow the Magic Fang's beneficial effect, it would not allow you to choose the unarmed strike to apply it to, since the unarmed strike would be considered a natural weapon only for purposes of the effect (the +1 enhancement bonus), and not for purposes of choosing which weapon to apply it to. This interpretation of the rule applied to Magic Fang comes down to absolutely nothing, and is in direct contradiction with the PHB - and yet, you're proposing to apply exactly that logic to Improved Natural Attack!

The only way the monk's unarmed strike rule can ever have effect is by waiving the requirement for a natural weapon. The rule doesn't limit the requirement nor the effect in any way other than that the effect must be an improvement to the natural weapon, and that the requirement to be waived must be a requirement for a natural weapon.

• Any effect of limited applicability has a prerequisite by definition.
• There's no basis to assume that a feat is not an effect.
• The PHB2 (RAW), its errata, the FAQ (potentially RAI), and the RotG support the notion that INA is applicable to a monk's unarmed strike.

Probably you'll agree that some prerequisites (namely those in some way "part of the effect") should be addressed by the rule, but perhaps that other, more external prerequisites should not be. This distinction would allow Magic Fang (whose "more external" Target: line only mentions a living creature), but disallow Improved Natural Attack (whose "more external" prerequisites section does mention natural attacks). There's no basis for choosing which prerequisites can so be waived an which cannot, however, so that makes this interpretation problematic. Furthermore, beyond being ill-defined, such an interpretation leads to odd results: consider a warforged or any other creature with a natural attack and +3 bab (which thus clearly satisfies the prereq. of INA). Assuming your interpretation that a feat is not an effect but can have several effects, this would then perversely imply that a warforged can take the feat because of his slam, but then apply the feat's beneficial effect to his unarmed strike (assuming he is a monk)!

My take: there's plenty of evidence that INA should be applicable to a monk's unarmed strike. There's an extremely short rules blurb which indicates a monk can benefit from "stuff" that improves natural weapons, and it's possible to simply apply that to all parts of the game without difficult distinctions. In other words, there's a straightforward interpretation, and a number of explicit examples, and all these work fine. Alternatively, there's a considerably less straightforward interpretation which requires a very specific literal reading - without any examples supporting it, and without any argument as to why this reading of "effect" should be more valid than any other, and without any precision as to what kind of prerequisites can be waived and which cannot.

In the face of that choice, my choice isn't formed so much by the fact that the rules distinguish clearly between these two options - but by the preference for the simpler, less complex (since it doesn't require implying specific rules-meaning to common words such as effect, and since it doesn't require distinguishing between prerequisites) and less controversial (since WotC has multiple publications using it) interpretation.

 

[Artoomis]

I am still reading this looking for something new. I do not own the Rules Compendium.

Can anyone answer the following question:

Is there anything in the Rules Compendium that puts any new twist on the argument on either side? I am very curious.