Monks & the Improved Natural Attack Feat

[DungeonMaester]

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

-Hyp.

It is untrue. I was using it as a facetious example. Sorry for any confusion.

---Rusty

 

[eamon]

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

Judging by the absence of posts on that topic to your indeed interesting question, I'd say it's unlikely. In any case, the Rules Compendium seems to be an overview of mostly basic rules, not detailed class reinterpretations (though I haven't seen it).

In any case, your post seems to suggest there's nothing new to add. The old thread(s), as far as I can tell, did not address the recent "rules of the game", nor the PHB2 nor it's errata.

I included these three new items in the post just preceding yours. Of course, it's not much, but every little bit helps, hopefully .

 

[Deset Gled]

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 ...

Obviously, some people (myself included) disagree that a prerequisite should be treated the same as the effect it is a requirement for. However, your Magic Fang example does not help prove your point here for two reasons. First, monk strikes are explicitly treated as natural attacks for "spells and effects", so this would fall under the category of spells, not effects, and wouldn't be an issue. Second, note that the target of Magic Fang is one "living creature touched" not a natural weapon; a monk is a living creature, and thus fulfills the prerequisite of the spell.

I could have sworn there was a Sage article that specifically addressed the issue of whether a prerequisite counts as an effect, but I haven't been able to find it now. IIRC, it gave an example that changed my mind for awhile, but then someone else found text that contradicted it.

The old thread(s), as far as I can tell, did not address the recent "rules of the game", nor the PHB2 nor it's errata.

The PHB2 has been brought up many times in other threads, but was always thrown out as being a meaningless point because it gave INA to a monk at first level; knowing that the authors forgot about one prerequisite makes it pretty easy to assume they forgot the second.

The PHB2 errata, however, is a new point that I haven't thought about before. It is very significant to me, as it is the first errata document that we have addressing the issue (in a very roundabout way). It's a pretty odd case, and I'm not 100% sure how it meshes with the Primary Source rule. It's obviously official errata, giving it power over a primary source, but it's not addressing the primary source in question. I'll have to mull this over for a bit and get back to you with an opinion.

For reference, the PHB2 errata says:

Page 212 –Monk Destroyer Build Table
[Substitution]
Improved Natural Attack cannot be attained until 6th level for a monk. An alternative is to take Power Attack at 1st level, Improved Bull Rush at 3rd level in place of Power Attack, and Improved Natural Attack in place of Improved Bull Rush.

Again, thanks to Deset Gled for the summary!

You're quite welcome. I'm glad it was helpful.

 

[Christian]

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.

I didn't find anything. Although I can't say I read every word on every page, I didn't find a likely spot for it to fit.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Although I can't say I read every word on every page, I didn't find a likely spot for it to fit.

One of the reasons I didn't buy that one...

 

[mvincent]

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.

The name of the source was provided in his post. The actual text itself was provided here also: once when you asked for it, and once before that. How was this not to your liking?

 

[Cheiromancer]

@eamon: the "effect" question has been discussed quite thoroughly in the big thread. Posts 55 and following - it goes on for quite a while. I posted in the thread under the alt of "Borlon". Hypersmurf said he thought that one of my posts (#86) summed up the situation fairly well.

glass, in post 123, raises the issue of "effect" not being a defined D&D term.

...I don't think I'm going to reread the whole thing. It's a long thread. But very thought provoking- IIRC I changed my mind at least twice during the course of the discussion.

 

[eamon]

Musing about effects: Although effects are the consequences of some cause, when you use the word effect, you're generally referring to the result, consequence, or effect and not the cause. The word effect is particularly attractive when speaking of some specific consequence in cases when the cause may vary or is unknown. In D&D, where the same effect might be brought about by any number of means, it's a frequently used term - probably precisely because it focuses attention on the consequences, and not the cause. The way I read it, effect is a neutral way of saying "crunch" in the terms of rules. Whether it comes from an aura, spell, race or feat, it's the effect/crunch that matters.

@Desert Gled: Magic Fang is a very weak example, admittedly. Magic fang can be cast on any creature, even those without natural weapons. The key issue is the first sentence: "Magic fang gives one natural weapon of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls." The effect (+1 enhancement bonus) is beneficial and can thus be applied to the monk's unarmed strike. However, you need to choose one natural weapon! That choice, taken separately, is not beneficial, and the monk's text does not trigger for it. The obvious counter argument is that the spell as a whole is beneficial, and the monk's text thus applies (specifically to spells). But if you're willing to view a spell holistically, then why not a feat?

@Cheiromancer: thanks for the pointers to specific posts, that way the thread is less overwhelming.

It's unfortunate that there are so few core "effects" which apply to natural weapons, to give us better examples. Nevertheless, I'm convinced that essentially every other non-spell effect follows the same principles: if it's limited somehow to natural weapons, then you can always argue that the limitation is itself an effect which isn't satisfied by the monk. That argument basically means that you can only apply spells, and no other effects, despite the rules text. Since it conflicts in that way, I don't think it's intended - the over-arching word "effect" means that it's a general ability applying to more than just spells, so any reasoning to the contrary must be faulty.

Also, don't forget that the text's calling for a judgment call - is an effect an improvement or not? Who better to make that judgment call than the monk himself. And no monk would ever consider Improved Natural Attack anything but an improvement.

Further, there's no reason that multiple effects can't be combined into a larger effect. I doubt a prerequisite is an effect without the rest of the feat (it's not a consequence or result in and of itself, after all), but even if it is, then you could still take the two separate effects and combine them into a larger effect.

So... the real problem is that there aren't any better examples in core, and specifically no real counter-examples.

And I sure hope nobodies punishing themselves by rereading that thread. It's insanely long. I've skimmed it, but, probably largely because there aren't any good examples, most arguments are rehashed frequently, and even the most obscure indirect evidence is analyzed to hopefully provide some clue. Sometimes that's insightful, but often it's just frustrating.

But there aren't really any; an effect remains a catch-all undefined term in D&D, and as such, if you want to make it more precise (at least for the monk) and prevent INA from applying to the unarmed strike of monks without other natural weapons, you can, but there's no real reason to, and you can just as well allow it - as WotC consistently seems to do.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The way I read it, effect is a neutral way of saying "crunch" in the terms of rules. Whether it comes from an aura, spell, race or feat, it's the effect/crunch that matters.

Agreed, and that's the response I've gotten from WizCustServ.

The key issue is the first sentence: "Magic fang gives one natural weapon of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls." The effect (+1 enhancement bonus) is beneficial and can thus be applied to the monk's unarmed strike. However, you need to choose one natural weapon! That choice, taken separately, is not beneficial, and the monk's text does not trigger for it.

The text is explicit here- Magic Fang works according to the last parenthetical in the discussed paragraph:

3.5Ed PHB p41
A monk's unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactrued weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons (such as the magic fang or magic weapon spells).

OTOH, spells like Align Weapon, Bless Weapon, or Holy Sword target weapons, not creatures. Some say "weapon touched" or "melee" or "ranged" as limitations, but few say "natural."

IMHO, though, its telling that the language of the relevant spells & effects changed from 3Ed to 3.5Ed.

 

[Thurbane]

My group allows it (no, we don't give a damn whether or not its "RAW") cause "monks suck anyways".

Seconded.