Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[Nail]

Given my real life Id gladly switch...... assuming I could bring my gaming group with me. 8)

I hear ya, bud.


Seriously: Saying "it's only a game" doesn't settle an argument. And (if that last statement didn't miff you) this forum is all about discussion and argument about how the rules work. It's a "given" for this forum.

In comparison to other on-line gaming forums, this one generates better points, more thought, and fewer ruffled feathers when it comes to "arguments". Why squelch a good thing?

 

[SteveC]

Of course, there are a few spells in the Spell Compendium that refer to a 'natural weapon or unarmed strike', just like several places in the PHB.

This tells me that a natural weapon is not an unarmed strike.

-Hyp.

But that's having it both ways: the PHBII suggests the feat for monk characters, but the response to that has been "it's not core." Well, neither is the Spell Compendium. By core references only, I'd say it's pretty clear that it is acceptable at this point. Of course, YMMV. There isn't a definition for "effect" in the glossary of either the PHB or DMG, so I'd have to say it is intended to mean what it does as an English language word. Again, YMMV.

--Steve

 

[Nail]

There isn't a definition for "effect" in the glossary..

But we can agree that "effect" is different than "prerequisite", right? No ambiguity there.

 

[Zimri]

I hear ya, bud.


Seriously: Saying "it's only a game" doesn't settle an argument. And (if that last statement didn't miff you) this forum is all about discussion and argument about how the rules work. It's a "given" for this forum.

In comparison to other on-line gaming forums, this one generates better points, more thought, and fewer ruffled feathers when it comes to "arguments". Why squelch a good thing?

I whole heartedly agree. I come here (though rarely) exactly for that reason. I love the level of actual DEBATE and exchange of ideas that exists here. I am of the group that (in this instance) can completely see Hypersmurf's point. I think it breaks the "keep it simple silly" mantra that I enjoy both in life and in game. If he wants to run a game where thats the ruling, fine I could probably enjoy it. Espescially since it is completely logical that IUS and INA shouldn't stack and well I am not giving up IUS.

I loved the 41 ish page "would a paladin lose his abilities for this" thread that had every "luminary" and "not so luminary" debating morality, ethics, and what lawful and good really meant.

Them were the days

 

[Hypersmurf]

To those who think that an unarmed strike is a natural weapon, I haven't seen this mentioned yet in this thread (though I may have missed it), but here's another bit that shows that either it is not, or we've added more redundancy:

There are a few places in the rules that refer to an 'unarmed strike or natural weapon'. When I brought that up before, it was suggested that someone could say "I like apples or fruit for breakfast" without excluding apples from being fruit.

If everything* would qualify for that clause under that unusual logic, then why bother making the prereq at all? As well add "BAB +0" as a prereq to every feat or "Base Fort +0" to Great Fortitude.

* except Locathah!

But that's having it both ways: the PHBII suggests the feat for monk characters...

The PHBII suggests the feat for monk characters with a BAB of +0.

I can guarantee that a monk character with a BAB of +0 doesn't qualify for the feat, without fear of much dispute. I'm of the opinion that a monk character with a BAB of +4 doesn't either, but that's obviously under debate.

Citing the PHBII doesn't add much strength to a position on what meets prerequisites, though, when the PHBII's use of the feat is patently ignoring the feat's prerequisites anyway.

-Hyp.

 

[Cedric]

I definitely join these topics for the pleasure of the debate. There are some very sharp minds on this board, I like sparring with them.

The truth is that while we've invested days and hundreds of posts (along with who knows how much research) into debating this subject...if it came up in the midst of a game, I'd make a decision within 15 seconds, hear immediate arguments and unless someone is vehement would stick with it.

If they are vehement, I might relent and rule in player's favor for "this" game, then research it and come up with a permanent answer that would be used for the next game and beyond.

 

[BryonD]

But we can agree that "effect" is different than "prerequisite", right? No ambiguity there.

In this specific context only in the same way that canine is different than poodle.

The idea that the word effect specifically excludes qualifying as a prereq is a self imposed constraint that flys in the face of the concept being expressed, as well as the stated intent.

 

[BryonD]

You know Hyp, it seems interesting to me that you keep pointing out WotC's errors in wording to make your case, and yet the crux of your case is that the definition "effect" is perfectly stated and intended with zero chance of error or confusion.

The fact that WotC makes the errors you keep pointing out only further supports the point that reasoned interpretation is not just better but is the correct approach to take.

 

[SteveC]

But we can agree that "effect" is different than "prerequisite", right? No ambiguity there.

Actually, I think in this case we can't agree on that. I see "effect" as basically meaning "purpose." I think, as was said earlier, that the definition of "effect" defines the argument in terms of the core rules. There is the mention under magic weapon, but I think that if you believe that an effect includes a prerequsite for a feat, you'll agree that a monk can take INA. Now obviously everyone doesn't agree on this, including many folks I normally agree with, so it's far from being ultimately settled. Outside the core rules, I'd say it has been settled.

Just something to think about: for attacks we basically have three broad categories by the core rules: unarmed attacks, natural attacks and weapons. As far as the monk goes, I would contend that the improved unarmed strike simply makes your basic unarmed strike into a natural attack, and the monk has the added ability of getting to choose whether to be treated as a weapon or an natural attack on a case by case basis.

For me, this is a lot simpler than saying that improved unarmed strike creates a fourth category of attacks. I think if this were the case, there would be a lot more description on how exactly they work and interract with other effects (spells, feats, actions, etc.)

That's just my $.02.

--Steve

 

[Zimri]

Actually, I think in this case we can't agree on that. I see "effect" as basically meaning "purpose." I think, as was said earlier, that the definition of "effect" defines the argument in terms of the core rules. There is the mention under magic weapon, but I think that if you believe that an effect includes a prerequsite for a feat, you'll agree that a monk can take INA. Now obviously everyone doesn't agree on this, including many folks I normally agree with, so it's far from being ultimately settled. Outside the core rules, I'd say it has been settled.

Just something to think about: for attacks we basically have three broad categories by the core rules: unarmed attacks, natural attacks and weapons. As far as the monk goes, I would contend that the improved unarmed strike simply makes your basic unarmed strike into a natural attack, and the monk has the added ability of getting to choose whether to be treated as a weapon or an natural attack on a case by case basis.

For me, this is a lot simpler than saying that improved unarmed strike creates a fourth category of attacks. I think if this were the case, there would be a lot more description on how exactly they work and interract with other effects (spells, feats, actions, etc.)

That's just my $.02.

--Steve

You know I honestly have never understood why a human (oid) didn't get a claw claw bite or equivalent attack having been in many a bar brawl in real life I assure you humans have those espescially if they file and harden their fingernails. Improved unarmed strike would seem to me to make it function as an actual melee weapon AND a natural attack rather than just the 1d3 natural attack