Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[Deset Gled]

Was there any major points I missed? Did I misrepresent any of these points?

Heh, looks pretty similar to the breakdown that I posted here a week or so ago: http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3070203&postcount=131

The only thing you have that I didn't was the arguement about whether or not all unarmed strikes are natural weapons, since I consider the proof that unarmed strikes are not natural weapons to be trivial.

Around and around we go... At least this time I get to recycle the wood I throw on the fire.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

<edit>
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.

Was there any major points I missed? Did I misrepresent any of these points?

First, I disagree with the second clause of your second sentence under 5b.

Second, I don't think that INA was listed as being a "monster" feat, just as a general feat (though I could be wrong- my 3.5MM is on loan). MM3 lists it in a section called "Monster feats" with no designator, and saying that the feats in that section may be taken by PCs if they meet the prerequisites.

Third, Re: 2A/4b- there are sections of the PHB that list "fists" and "bites" as natural weapons. That's RAW. That the descriptions appear in spells does not diminish this fact. I can't think of a healthy human(oid) who can't form a fist or bite someone, so by the PHB definition of "natural weapon," that means they have natural weapons, despite not having them listed in their stat blocks, despite a WotC CustServ opinion to the contrary. They have them, they just suck.*

*The question thus REALLY becomes whether INA's effect allows PCs OTHER than Monks with INA and IUC to substitute their INA damage for their normal IUC damage.

As for the "obscure table," its obscurity doesn't matter. Like the small references to "fists" as natural weapons, if its in the Core, you have to consider it as part of the Core RAW. You can't just pick and choose which references you like and call them RAW while those you dislike are ignored.

The problem arises because their definitions of Natural Weapon and Unarmed Strike are, strictly speaking, not good definitions.

Definition
1. to determine or describre the limits of; to determine or set down the precise outlines of.
2. to determine and state the limits and nature of; to describe exactly...
Websters Deluxe Unabridged Dictionary

Natural Weapons deliver unarmed attacks with "body parts," while Unarmed Strikes are punches, kicks, head butts, etc.- also attacks with unadorned body parts (when the body part is adorned, it gets a weapon listing, like gauntlet). The "definitions" of Natural Weapons and Unarmed Strikes overlap- neither is described exactly, neither's "precise outlines" are determined.

Re: 1a- Unarmed strikes don't follow all the rules for manufactured weapons either. Try enchanting one.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I can't think of a healthy human(oid) who can't form a fist or bite someone, so by the PHB definition of "natural weapon," that means they have natural weapons, despite not having them listed in their stat blocks, despite a WotC CustServ opinion to the contrary. They have them, they just suck.

So can a night hag, say, make an unarmed strike? Is is a natural weapon?

-Hyp.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Sure- why not. Its got a mouth, thus it can bite. It has hands, thus it can use its fists to punch...

OH NOES!!! "Fists" are Natural Weapons...but "punches" are Unarmed Strikes!

See, this is why I have said repeatedly (here and in every other INA thread in which I've participated) that WotC got too cute with their use of words and messed up.

There should only be natural weapons and manufactured weapons- Unarmed Strikes as a chimaeric 3rd category needs to be struck from the game, and the term should apply only to strikes with natural weapons that have been improved by training.

Thus, the feat IUC would be re-written something like:

Improved Unarmed Combat
The skills you have gained through rigorous training make your natural weapons more dangerous.
Benefit:
You are considered to be armed even when unarmed- that is, you do not provoke attacks of opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed. However, you still get an attack of opportunity against any opponent how makes an (unimproved) unarmed attack on you.
Your Natural Weapons deal lethal or nonlethal damage at your option.
Your Natural Weapons use the superior iterative attacks and attack modifiers of manufactured weapons.
Normal:
Each (size M) humanoid has a natural weapon doing 1d3 B x2 (non-lethal)- as listed on the equipment chart- unless otherwise noted, and uses the "Natural Weapon" rules. Attacks with such natural weapons are considered unarmed, provoking attacks of opportunity.
A natural weapon that deals only non-lethal damage may deal lethal damage as per PHB p146.
A natural weapon that deals only lethal damage may deal non-lethal damage as per PHB p146.
Special:
A monk automatically gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat at 1st level, and need not select it.
A fighter may select IUC as one of his fighter bonus feats.

In such a context, INA would still have to be applied to a particular Natural Weapon, and could be taken once for each kind of Natural Weapon a creature has. As such, even though Monks would (obviously) be able to take it, they would also have to specify if that is the natural being used for a strike. Thus, a Monk with INA Fists would not get the improved damage when hanging by his hands from a rope or wielding a crossbow.

 

[Artoomis]

From a previous post:


"Effect" is not a game term - it is undefined for D&D 3.5. Further, WotC is very sloppy with the term "effect" in the core rules In at least one instance (Keen Edge spell, "effect" is used to refer to both a spell and a feat. There is no indication within the Monk description on how to read the word "effect.

It could, with equal validity, mean both the "effect" and whatever caused that effect (a feat, for INA) or it could mean some undefined game term, "effect." The latter seems unlikely but even if one assumes the latter, one must still conceded that the meaning in unclear at best.

This argument has not be refuted.

Any takers?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Sure- why not. Its got a mouth, thus it can bite. It has hands, thus it can use its fists to punch...

And yet, it adds 1.5x its Str bonus to its Bite attack, because its Bite attack is its sole natural weapon...

-Hyp.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And yet, it adds 1.5x its Str bonus to its Bite attack, because its Bite attack is its sole natural weapon...

So what?

Like I said before (and in the rest of the post you're quoting from)- IMHO, the rules as they are are a mess, and badly in need of revision.

The point stands- here is NO bright-line delineation between Natural Weapons and Unarmed Strike rules. Unarmed strikes (as written) are a chimaera.

 

[Artoomis]

Here's my summary of how everyone views monks and INA, in a concise a way as I could. Slightly edited from earlier comment I made in a previous discussion.

1. From core rules only perspective (no FAQ or other material)): No general agreement: Maybe allowed, maybe not. Hinges on such things as whether feats (or maybe feat prerequisites) are "effects." Really comes down to how precisely one reads the rule, how picky one is over the word "effects" (a large part of the problem is that "effects" is not a defined term), how precisely one assumes the class description was written and what one thinks was the original intent of the class allowing the monks's attacks to be manufactured or natural weapons for "spells and effects."

2. From core rules plus other WotC published material (notably FAQ and PHBII). General agreement: definately allowed. There is no serious alternative argument here. If you accept those materials as valid, then a monk can take INA.

3. Game balance. Two views here. Whether one prohibits this on game balance grounds depends on things like whether one thinks it too strong to allow monks to boost up their attacks like this at the cost of only one feat. Note that a "splat book" feat (Superior Unarmed Strike from Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords ) has a very similar effect for a monk and if one allows that feat, and, assuming no stacking of the two feats, then this becomes moot since one would simply take that feat instead of INA. There are two views even on that, and some think it is just fine to allow these two feats to stack.

That about sums it up, I think.

 

[Legildur]

I disagree with Dannyalcatraz that "unarmed strikes are a chimaera":

Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed.

An unarmed strike is not a natural weapon - a person does not threaten with an unarmed strike and it deals non-lethal damage, unless the appropriate feat is taken.

A 'natural weapon' is a subset of 'armed unarmed attack', which is a subset of 'unarmed attacks', and, eventually, of 'melee attacks'. I don't see how INA is applied to an unarmed strike - it applies to a natural attack.

As a frivolous example, would a creature with larger/sharper claws as an 'effect' (couldn't help myself) of the INA feat cause more damage with an unarmed strike, eg a fist?

 

[Legildur]

2. From core rules plus other WotC published matirial (notably FAQ and PHBII). Definately allowed. There is no serious alternative argument here. If you accept those materials as valid, then a monk can take INA.

Okay, no argument then, but only if my 1st level half-orc monk can take the PHBII starting package and have Improved Grapple, Improved Natural Attack and Weapon Focus (unarmed strike) as his/her starting feats, as published. Oh, and if we are including the FAQ rulings, I'll put some ranks in Bluff skill and be able to feint as a move action.