-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack
- Thread starter Artoomis
- Start date
- Status
Artoomis
First Post
Yes, KarinsDad, I am eager to get off the MM discussion because it has no weight as a rule at all. It is only a comment. "Typical" means usually, or most of the time, or any other phrase like that. In this particular case, exceptions are spelled out using feat prerequisites and typically these prerequistes are only satisfied by monsters. 
Not that NOTHING in the rules prevents PCs from filling the prerequisites and thus being the "atypical" case where a PC takes a MM feat.
The whole "debate" on the MM feat language is a red herring. That is, it is "A distractor that draws attention away from the real issue."
Moving on...
KarinsDad: Would you please address "effects" and why it cannot mean both cause and effects since WotC has used it that way within the rules (as previously cited). How can you be 100% certain with no doubt whatsoever that in the monk's class description it somehow MUST be taken to mean only the "effect" and not also that which causes the effect?
Not that NOTHING in the rules prevents PCs from filling the prerequisites and thus being the "atypical" case where a PC takes a MM feat.
The whole "debate" on the MM feat language is a red herring. That is, it is "A distractor that draws attention away from the real issue."
Moving on...
KarinsDad: Would you please address "effects" and why it cannot mean both cause and effects since WotC has used it that way within the rules (as previously cited). How can you be 100% certain with no doubt whatsoever that in the monk's class description it somehow MUST be taken to mean only the "effect" and not also that which causes the effect?
Last edited:
Infiniti2000
First Post
You're misunderstanding the context of why that comment was made. It was merely about intent. Ignore all the wording is my point and just think about what book the comment was made in. Who uses that book, the DM or the player? Thus, do not ask who can use the feat, but who is the feat intended to be used by?BryonD said:
Artoomis said:
Let me get this straight.
You flat out dismiss the fact that the rules on Monster Feats are in the Monster Manual, a book primarily designed for use by the DM and not the players. You do not want to discuss that even though it is critical to the discussion.
You then want me to discuss effects again which we have done for about 5 pages here and you specifically want to discuss some nebulous "cause and effect" terminology that you created where cause is not even listed in the rules along with the word effects at all.
What's up with that?
Artoomis
First Post
KarinsDad said:Let me get this straight.
You flat out dismiss the fact that the rules on Monster Feats are in the Monster Manual, a book primarily designed for use by the DM and not the players. You do not want to discuss that even though it is critical to the discussion.
You then want me to discuss effects again which we have done for about 5 pages here and you specifically want to discuss some nebulous "cause and effect" terminology that you created where cause is not even listed in the rules along with the word effects at all.
What's up with that?
The MM feat argument is totally a red herring. The RULE of feats is that if you meet the prerequisites you get to take the feat. Period. The FLAVOR TEXT in the MM says the MM feats are typically (that is usually) used only by monsters - that says NOTHING except perhaps that these feats were made up with monsters in mind. It has NO rules value whatsoever.
"Cause and effects" is my shorthand way of noting that WotC is very sloppy about the way the term "effects" is used, and it has even included that which causes the effect - spells and feats - in at least one instance as "effects" This makes "effects" an unreliable term if it is used in a technical sense.
You have yet to make any meaningful counter to that argument. Without at least a meaningful counter, there is no way someone should be able to be 100% certain that monks cannot take INA.
Let me put this another way.
Yes, players can use the monster feats if the DM allows it.
They can also use monster templates if the DM allows it.
They can also use a monster race if the DM allows it.
But, the default of the Monster Manual is that this is a DM book for DM NPCs, not a mini-mart stop and shop for PCs.
The word "only" in that sentence takes precedence over the word "typically", solely based on which book we are discussing here. To get around "only", a PC either has to be a monster or he has to gain an ability which explicitly allows him to use the feat (shy of DM intervention). The word "only" cannot just be dropped out of the sentence as if it were not there and that is what the opposing POV is doing.
By default, PCs cannot just pick anything out of the Monster Manual. That book is the purview of the DM, not the players.
Yes, players can use the monster feats if the DM allows it.
They can also use monster templates if the DM allows it.
They can also use a monster race if the DM allows it.
But, the default of the Monster Manual is that this is a DM book for DM NPCs, not a mini-mart stop and shop for PCs.
The word "only" in that sentence takes precedence over the word "typically", solely based on which book we are discussing here. To get around "only", a PC either has to be a monster or he has to gain an ability which explicitly allows him to use the feat (shy of DM intervention). The word "only" cannot just be dropped out of the sentence as if it were not there and that is what the opposing POV is doing.
By default, PCs cannot just pick anything out of the Monster Manual. That book is the purview of the DM, not the players.
Artoomis
First Post
KarinsDad said:
Granted. Of course that's true for EVERY book other than the PHB. No book other than the PHB is allowed for players without specific DM permission.
There's not a whole lot of value in that argument, but I'll grant you the point- DM permission is needed for eveything other than the PHB.
Heck, even within the PHB DM permission is really needed as the DM has every right to house rule any rule in the PHB, though normally at least everything in the PHB is allowed.
So, for the rest of this debate, can we give you victory on this narrow issue (DM permission required) and assume the DM has allowed MM feats for PCs if they qualify?
Last edited:
Cedric
First Post
Why...why do I let myself get drug back into this!! *cries*
*sighs*
Ok, from the SRD...
The emphasis, via bolding, is mine. INA is a "General" feat, no special rules govern it as a group. If it were meant to be monster only, it would have its own type, "Monster" and have special rules to govern who might be eligible to take it.
Cedric
*sighs*
Ok, from the SRD...
Also...SRD said:
SRD said:
The emphasis, via bolding, is mine. INA is a "General" feat, no special rules govern it as a group. If it were meant to be monster only, it would have its own type, "Monster" and have special rules to govern who might be eligible to take it.
Cedric
Artoomis
First Post
Cedric said:
Correct, but to be fair...
"INA" is from the MM, so by the core rules it really should only be allowed if the DM agrees, and in the offical SRD it is in a file called Monster Feats which simply states, "These feats apply to abilities most commonly found amongst monsters or are related to monsters."
Bottom line: There is not an actual rules restriction from PCs taking these feats, but as they are presented in what should be DM's material, there is an implied requirement to get DM's permission before any of these feats may be taken.
Note that these are not "optional" rules and the requirement for DM's permission is only implied.
To sum up, here is what we have so far:
Outside of core, WotC is putting forth a rule that INA is allowed for Unarmed Strikes. Nobody seems to be arguing this point.
From a strictly RAW core POV, here is what we have so far:
1a) An Unarmed Strike is not a Natural Weapon. It follows virtually none of the Natural Weapon rules. Monks do not have a Natural Weapon and hence do not qualify for the feat in the first place.
1b) The counter position is that spells like Magic Weapon indicate that Unarmed Strikes are Natural Weapons.
2a) An Unarmed Strike can be considered a Natural Weapon for spells and effects, but for no other purpose. A feat prerequisite is a different purpose and there are no rules that feat prerequisites are either spells or effects.
2b) There does not appear to be a counter position to this other than 4b below.
3a) Feats have effects, but feats are not effects. Spells, on the other hand, satisfy both portions of the sentence: spells and effects. Hence, feats do not satisfy the sentence. The Unarmed Strike is a Natural Weapon for the effect of the feat, but not the feat itself and hence cannot be used as a prerequisite.
3b) There does not appear to be a counter position to this.
4a) A feat is not listed as an effect either. There are no rules in the feat section concerning feats as effects or having effects. Feats are listed as having benefits.
Note: There is one table qualifier in a different section of the rules that specifies that the feat description defines its effect. However, this is ambiguous as the feat description describes prerequisites, benefits, normal limitations, and special facts. None of these are specified as being effects and some of them do not make sense as effects. Not only that, but the general rule is that text overrides table entries and since there is no text in the feat section concerning feats being or having effects, it would be extremely difficult for a DM to find this obscure table entry in a totally different chapter of the book and come to the conclusion that it is real support for a INA allowed POV (In fact, this particular quote was first introduced to the discussion by me a few weeks ago. Search the Internet. Nobody even knew this obscure little sentence even existed in the rules with regard to the INA discussion until I mentioned it the other week, even though the INA Unarmed Strike discussion has been going on for years). This does not change the fact that the sentence exists, but it does illustrate that the sentence does not appear to be an intent by WotC that feats are or have effects. Instead, it is meant to illustrate what the action type of a feat might be with regard to the Action In Combat table. Using it to illustrate that feats have or are effects is taking it out of context of that table.
4b) The counter position is that the word effect means the English definition of effect. Hence, anything in the game that affects anything else is an effect. This includes BAB, saves, alignment, etc. With this interpretation, a feat or feat benefit could be or have an effect and hence, a Monk could apply INA to an Unarmed Strike. This counter position also indicates that the feat description defines its effect sentence gives feats the carte blanche ability to be or have effects, regardless of the term effect not being within the Feat rule section.
5a) The monster feats are listed as typically used only by monsters and are also found in the Monster Manual. This indicates that not only DM caveat is required to use them, but that the intent of them is for monsters only unless a core rule specifies otherwise.
5b) The counter position is that the word typically trumps the word only and means that any creature that qualifies for the feat can take it.
Was there any major points I missed? Did I misrepresent any of these points?
Outside of core, WotC is putting forth a rule that INA is allowed for Unarmed Strikes. Nobody seems to be arguing this point.
From a strictly RAW core POV, here is what we have so far:
1a) An Unarmed Strike is not a Natural Weapon. It follows virtually none of the Natural Weapon rules. Monks do not have a Natural Weapon and hence do not qualify for the feat in the first place.
1b) The counter position is that spells like Magic Weapon indicate that Unarmed Strikes are Natural Weapons.
2a) An Unarmed Strike can be considered a Natural Weapon for spells and effects, but for no other purpose. A feat prerequisite is a different purpose and there are no rules that feat prerequisites are either spells or effects.
2b) There does not appear to be a counter position to this other than 4b below.
3a) Feats have effects, but feats are not effects. Spells, on the other hand, satisfy both portions of the sentence: spells and effects. Hence, feats do not satisfy the sentence. The Unarmed Strike is a Natural Weapon for the effect of the feat, but not the feat itself and hence cannot be used as a prerequisite.
3b) There does not appear to be a counter position to this.
4a) A feat is not listed as an effect either. There are no rules in the feat section concerning feats as effects or having effects. Feats are listed as having benefits.
Note: There is one table qualifier in a different section of the rules that specifies that the feat description defines its effect. However, this is ambiguous as the feat description describes prerequisites, benefits, normal limitations, and special facts. None of these are specified as being effects and some of them do not make sense as effects. Not only that, but the general rule is that text overrides table entries and since there is no text in the feat section concerning feats being or having effects, it would be extremely difficult for a DM to find this obscure table entry in a totally different chapter of the book and come to the conclusion that it is real support for a INA allowed POV (In fact, this particular quote was first introduced to the discussion by me a few weeks ago. Search the Internet. Nobody even knew this obscure little sentence even existed in the rules with regard to the INA discussion until I mentioned it the other week, even though the INA Unarmed Strike discussion has been going on for years). This does not change the fact that the sentence exists, but it does illustrate that the sentence does not appear to be an intent by WotC that feats are or have effects. Instead, it is meant to illustrate what the action type of a feat might be with regard to the Action In Combat table. Using it to illustrate that feats have or are effects is taking it out of context of that table.
4b) The counter position is that the word effect means the English definition of effect. Hence, anything in the game that affects anything else is an effect. This includes BAB, saves, alignment, etc. With this interpretation, a feat or feat benefit could be or have an effect and hence, a Monk could apply INA to an Unarmed Strike. This counter position also indicates that the feat description defines its effect sentence gives feats the carte blanche ability to be or have effects, regardless of the term effect not being within the Feat rule section.
5a) The monster feats are listed as typically used only by monsters and are also found in the Monster Manual. This indicates that not only DM caveat is required to use them, but that the intent of them is for monsters only unless a core rule specifies otherwise.
5b) The counter position is that the word typically trumps the word only and means that any creature that qualifies for the feat can take it.
Was there any major points I missed? Did I misrepresent any of these points?
- Status
