Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[HeapThaumaturgist]

And then they thought "it'd be a waste of a feat, because at level 4 their damage from an unarmed strike would be the same as if they had improved the damage of their natural attack, anyway."

I always rule that part where it says "as if the creature’s size had increased by one category" to then cause subsequent checks for die increase from Monk levels to check "as if the creature’s size had increased by one category". YMMV, but once I've established it works I'm not going to be a jerk.

--fje

 

[Artoomis]

I think maybe this got lost. I'd love a response:

I've already stated my opinion of this several times in this and other threads.

An effect is an external influence to a given creature, object, or other effect. I base this definition off of the standard usage of the word effect found throughout the rules.

There appears to be three basic game elements: creatures (and their properties), objects (and their properties), and effects (and their properties: magical or mundane). Virtually every thing in the game appears to fall into one of these 3 categories....

Not a bad analysis, in general, but where is the strict from-the rules-text-only backup for this? It does not exist. (I told you this would get "interesting ) I think when you look deeper it becomes clear that the rules don't always distinguish between a "thing" and its "effects."

For example:

...Multiple effects that increase a weapon’s threat range (such as the keen edge spell and the Improved Critical feat) don’t stack.

Note the lack of distinction between a spell, a feat and their effects.

What reason do we have to be certain that when "effects" is referred to in the monk class description they actually mean "effects" seperate from that which caused the effect?

Why can we not assume they meant it in the same sense it was used in the "Keen Edge" spell where it was used in the most general sense to be inclusive of that which caused the effect?

How can you be 100% certain that the latter is not the correct meaning here?

 

[Cedric]

And then they thought "it'd be a waste of a feat, because at level 4 their damage from an unarmed strike would be the same as if they had improved the damage of their natural attack, anyway."

Ah yes, but of all the counter arguments that I feel have weight or validity in this thread, your's are not among them. So discounting what you're trying to twist my words to say, my statement stands.

 

[BryonD]

"Typically" or any other wording has nothing to do with it. Strike that whole sentence if it makes you feel better.

Strike the sentence? You say that like I'm the one who brought the sentence up.
If the sentence can be stricken then how could it possibly support your side?

The idea about mentioning the MM is to show intent. Surely, a feat published in the MM is intended for creatures in the MM, right?

Such as drow?
Or halflings?

And I agree it is intended for monsters. It is also intended for anyone else who a) qualifies and b) wishes to take it. Such as a monk.

Maybe the feats there can be used by PC races/classes, but the intent for INA was for monsters and not monks by virtue of its printing in the MM. So, people like No Name who are going strictly by intent should find this reasoning persuasive.

Bad logic.

Going back to the word typically, it actually makes perfect sense if you think about it.
The only core character class that qualifies for INA is the monk and only some small fraction of pc/npc monks will actually spend a feat on it. By a vast margin the feat will apply to monsters more commonly than to characters. And it is not at all logically to conclude that placing a feat in a grouping where it will be mostly commonly encountered disallows it to be used outside that grouping.

If it were monsters only, can you explain why the word "typcially" could possibly exist in the sentence previously referenced?
Or would you prefer to strike that sentence?

 

[KarinsDad]

The use of the word "typically" indicates a commonality of use among a specific group, in this case monsters. However it does NOTHING to exclude other qualifying groups.

By itself, no. But, there are some other words in that sentence.

This chapter provides descriptions of one skill, Control Shape, and a number of feats that are typically used only by monsters.

It is not "typically used" by monsters. It is not "used only" by monsters.

It is "typically used only" by monsters.

Just like one cannot drop the word "typically", one also cannot drop the word "only".

Only indicates that only monsters can use it. Period.

If anyone else uses them, they have to explicitly state so. That would be an atypical case.

But, if you exclude an explicit requirement, then you drop the word only from the sentence and you disregard RAW.


This, by the way, is another literal RAW reason that INA is not allowed by Unarmed Strike. It is just a little more obscure than the other reasons.

 

[BryonD]

I think when you look deeper it becomes clear that the rules don't always distinguish between a "thing" and its "effects."

Correct.
Also, it is a completely unfounded statement to claim that because a given word is typcially used with a specific definition in many places that commonly understood alternate or more general definitions of that word may not be used elsewhere. And when the context makes it clear that such a use is in place it is only reasonable to take that into account.

 

[BryonD]

Only indicates that only monsters can use it. Period.

WOW is THAT WRONG!!!!

ONLY means there are no exceptions.

TYPICALLY ONLY expressly allows that exceptions are allowed to exist.

If you boil it down to a boolean case they are exact opposites.

only = may not and
typically only = may

This, by the way, is another literal RAW reason that INA is not allowed by Unarmed Strike. It is just a little more obscure than the other reasons.

Actually, it is another nail in the coffin of "no".

 

[KarinsDad]

WOW is THAT WRONG!!!!

ONLY means there are no exceptions.

TYPICALLY ONLY expressly allows that exceptions are allowed to exist.

If you boil it down to a boolean case they are exact opposites.

only = may not and
typically only = may

What is wrong is claiming that:

"This chapter provides descriptions of one skill, Control Shape, and a number of feats that are typically used only by monsters."

has the exact same meaning as:

"This chapter provides descriptions of one skill, Control Shape, and a number of feats that are typically used by monsters."


They are different sentences, regardless of how many capital letters you put in your post.

 

[No Name]

Exactly. So, go with the intent that since INA is in the MM and not in the un-holy PHB then don't allow it for monks.

Nah, just don't allow it for human monks. Halflings are in the MM, and are said to be like children. Children have bite attacks (trust me). Therefore, halfling monks definately qualify for INA.

 

[Artoomis]

...It is not "typically used" by monsters. It is not "used only" by monsters.

It is "typically used only" by monsters.

Just like one cannot drop the word "typically", one also cannot drop the word "only".

Only indicates that only monsters can use it. Period.

If anyone else uses them, they have to explicitly state so. That would be an atypical case.

But, if you exclude an explicit requirement, then you drop the word only from the sentence and you disregard RAW...

That is an incorrect reading and incorrect application of the English language.

I'll give you a parallel example.

Battle dress unforms (BDUs) are typically only worn by the military.

While true, it tells you nothing about how often atypical uses happen. I'd say, just as a rule of thumb, if perhaps up to 25% (or so) of the time ordinary citizens had BDUs, then this statement would certainly still be true.

In the case of moster feats, there is NO guideline for how often an "atypical" use might happen.

I'd say the intent was that they were designed for monsters, but PCs could take them if they quailified - which would not happen for the typical PC.

As it turns out that's true. The generic PC would not qualify for any of them , I think. Only certain PCs built certain ways will qualify for any of these feats. Monks and druids come to mind, and there are others, too, certainly, but not the "typical" generic PC.

Of course, this is really all neither here not there. These feat have no "moster" restriction on them, they have preresquisits - meet them and you may take the feat.