Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[FireLance]

Extrapolating from what?

As Kem pointed out (thanks, Kem!), racial abilities are not the only source of "special attacks". Class abilities can be "special attacks", too.

Then again, Dwarves are monsters.

In that case, so is every PC race in the PH except human, since they all get entries or mentions in the MM and the Monsters SRD, and the argument that monster feats are typically only used by monsters would only apply in the case of a human PC. However, this leads us to conclude that a dwarf monk could take Ability Focus (quivering palm) while a human monk could not because the definition of "monster" includes dwarves but excludes humans. Since I find this to be an absurd conclusion, I would reject the original premise that the "monster" feats (so called because they are in the MM and the "Monster feats" section of the SRD) can only be taken by "monsters".

Of course, others may not agree because they do not find the conclusion to be absurd. What's another straw, after all?

 

[Artoomis]

No problem...I'm just wondering: do you think it would be overpowering to do so? I can see how the monk's belt and the Tome of Battle feat might not stack since they basically do the same thing, but even with that, I just don't see the 3d6 damage as being a big deal. Heck even if you throw in enlarge, that's only up to 4d6...

I haven't really seen a power monk build that's on the level with any of the other extreme builds out there. Monk power build ?

--Steve

I see your point, and I think it is probably okay to allow monks to take both feats. Frankly, I think there are MUCH better choices for monks to take, so I have no trouble if they want to take these two feats, I guess.

 

[Infiniti2000]

No problem...I'm just wondering: do you think it would be overpowering to do so?

If +3.5 points of damage is not overpowering for a feat, why not allow weapon specialization to do it? How about allowing weapon specialization to give +7 points of damage at 20th level? It's not entirely about INA being overly powerful for a monk, because many people say that monk's are underpowered, it's about INA being too powerful as a feat in general when applied to a monk's damage progression. Search this thread for Frank's damage progression list for more details. If you want to improve the monk as a class, use better design than allow INA, which IMO breaks feat balance. Either create a new feat, give monk's good BAB, or something else.

 

[Artoomis]

If +3.5 points of damage is not overpowering for a feat, why not allow weapon specialization to do it? How about allowing weapon specialization to give +7 points of damage at 20th level? It's not entirely about INA being overly powerful for a monk, because many people say that monk's are underpowered, it's about INA being too powerful as a feat in general when applied to a monk's damage progression. Search this thread for Frank's damage progression list for more details. If you want to improve the monk as a class, use better design than allow INA, which IMO breaks feat balance. Either create a new feat, give monk's good BAB, or something else.

That's one side of the game balance argument, all right.

 

[Deset Gled]

"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. ...

This argument has not be countered.

Any takers?

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3084848&postcount=230

Your example of Keen Edge in no way sways my position on this. A spell itself could be considered an effect of a casting. There is no reasonable definition of "effect" that makes it the same as a "cause" (or, more importantly "prerequisite"), unless you're going to be reading the words so loosly that you could just as easily prove black is white. And that is an interpretation I will not agree with.

My summary serves a different purpose. It is designed to take the three basic view points (Core RAW, Core RAW plus FAQ (at. al) and Game Balance) and provide, as briefly as possible, the general basis for coming to one opinion or the other. After reading my summary you should be able to better understand the arguments on both sides.

That's the intent.

In that case, I believe your intent is wrong. First, there are more than three view points on this arguement, so there is no way to summarize the discussion in the form you chose. Second, your breakdown of Core vs. Non-core entirely ignores those that consider non-core sources, but believe them to be incorrect per the Primary Source rule.

Finally, I believe that the "general basis" that you wrote describes the logical path you took to reach the conclusion you did, but is a very poor summary of all the points that have been brought up. It is much better to present the multiple conclusions that have been reached by different people and allow the reader to reach their own conclusion than to try and condence an arguement that has spanned hundreds of posts over many years into a couple of sentances.

 

[KarinsDad]

If +3.5 points of damage is not overpowering for a feat, why not allow weapon specialization to do it? How about allowing weapon specialization to give +7 points of damage at 20th level? It's not entirely about INA being overly powerful for a monk, because many people say that monk's are underpowered, it's about INA being too powerful as a feat in general when applied to a monk's damage progression. Search this thread for Frank's damage progression list for more details. If you want to improve the monk as a class, use better design than allow INA, which IMO breaks feat balance. Either create a new feat, give monk's good BAB, or something else.

While this sounds good on the surface, I think it is actually illusory and the INA feat balance issue is way overblown.

The Monk with INA does +2.5 points of damage at level 6 and +7 points of damage at level 20.

The Fighter with Power Attack does +2 (one handed) or +4 (two handed) points of damage at level 6 (lowering his BAB to that of the Monk) and +5 or +10 points of damage at level 20. The Fighter also gets to choose to use more or less or none of his Power Attack and can take Power Attack at level one.

Both of these are a single Feat. The Fighter can do slightly less or slightly more damage depending on whether he is using a one handed weapon or a two handed weapon.

Also, if the Monk uses a magical Monk weapon in order to get the same magical advantages that the Fighter gets with a magical weapon (e.g. Vorpal, Flaming, Holy, etc.), he loses his use of INA completely. The Fighter can use Power Attack with any weapon.


Hence, it appears that INA is about as powerful and has a lot less utility than Power Attack. That means that it can be considered in the same ballpark balance-wise as Power Attack and possibly other feats as well. In order to illustrate that INA is overpowered, one must first illustrate that Power Attack (even the one handed weapon use of it) is overpowered.

 

[Asmo]

From Complete Warrior and the Kensai:

p.50 - Signature Weapon (Su):

Most kensai choose either a sword or bow for this weapon,but even a kensai´s natural weapons can be choosen. If the manufactured weapon is a manufactured one, it must be of at least masterwork quality.

p.51 - Imbue Natural Weapons:

The process for imbuing a kensai´s natural weapons (such as his fists) is the same as for a manufactured weapon, except all of the kensai´s natural weapons of one type are imbued at 100% of the cost + 10% per natural weapon.

For example, a human kensai who has Weapon Focus (unarmed Strike) may turn his fists into signature weapons for 120% of the xp cost.

A six-armed kensai with a bite and tail would have to choose between fists, bite and tail and pay either 160% of the cost (for six fists) or 110% of the cost (for the single bite or tail).
A kensai who imbues a particular type of natural weapon must imbue all his natural weapons of that type (so a human kensai with two fists must imbue both fists).

Losing natural Weapons:

If a kensai loses his natural weapons (such as his fists) he may have them regrown by using Regeneration or a similar spell.



Is it safe to say that the designers of the class beleives that human fists counts as natural weapons and not just only for the purpose of spells and effects that improve or enhance natural weapons

Asmo

 

[Infiniti2000]

While this sounds good on the surface, I think it is actually illusory and the INA feat balance issue is way overblown.

You need to compare apples with apples. I'm saying that the feat itself, by itself, is overpowered. Don't apply it to a purportedly weak class and compare that as applied to a strong class.

The Fighter with Power Attack does +2 (one handed) or +4 (two handed) points of damage at level 6 (lowering his BAB to that of the Monk) and +5 or +10 points of damage at level 20. The Fighter also gets to choose to use more or less or none of his Power Attack and can take Power Attack at level one.

This analysis is completely irrelevant from my comment.

 

[KuKu]

If +3.5 points of damage is not overpowering for a feat, why not allow weapon specialization to do it? How about allowing weapon specialization to give +7 points of damage at 20th level? It's not entirely about INA being overly powerful for a monk, because many people say that monk's are underpowered, it's about INA being too powerful as a feat in general when applied to a monk's damage progression. Search this thread for Frank's damage progression list for more details. If you want to improve the monk as a class, use better design than allow INA, which IMO breaks feat balance. Either create a new feat, give monk's good BAB, or something else.

Perhaps it is because weapon specialization is not a very good feat to begin with? Perhaps it is because weapons are much easier and cheaper to enhance? Perhaps you are comparing it to a set of assumptions that others would consider wrong? This feat looks good for a monk who is focused on damage dealing but poor for certain other types. Monks do not get many feats to begin with so all must be geared towards what he wishes to do. They are also highly multiple attribute dependent so a monk who is geared towards offense is likely to have some problems in other areas such as armor class.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Perhaps it is because weapon specialization is not a very good feat to begin with? Perhaps it is because weapons are much easier and cheaper to enhance? Perhaps you are comparing it to a set of assumptions that others would consider wrong?

I don't know how to reasonably reply to this. Let me rephrase your comment such that you understand what I infer: All of the feats in the book are underpowered so therefore it's okay to make INA this powerful.

This feat looks good for a monk who is focused on damage dealing but poor for certain other types. Monks do not get many feats to begin with so all must be geared towards what he wishes to do. They are also highly multiple attribute dependent so a monk who is geared towards offense is likely to have some problems in other areas such as armor class.

Once again, this is just an example of bad design. Fix the problem, don't hack a solution. If INA works for you, then by all means go for it, but there will likely be much better ways to deal with the problems you perceive.