Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[RigaMortus2]

The whole concept is very simple for me...

I have no doubt that by the reading of the MM and PHB, Monk's are allowed to take INA. However, if I had any doubt, the "Official" 3.5 Edition FAQ, presented as Official, by the Publisher of the game, clarifies any existing ambiguity by making it very clear that Monks are able to take INA.

Beyond that, I am really unconcerned with semantics, balance or original intent.

They do clarify some of the rules. Other rules, they just make up or change.

FWIW, now that I have had some time to think about and re-re-re-read the FAQ, I beleive that the FAQ is clarifying that feats have effects, but are not (in and of themselves) effects. I agree with others that "effects" is not clearly defined in the Core rules, that the FAQ is meant to clarify these ambiguities, and in the FAQ entry regarding INA they essentially clarified that feats have effects...

However, that doesn't mean (or convince me) that the Prerequisites of feats are effects. I still beleive you have to first qualify for the feat (via it's prerequisites) BEFORE you can take it's benefits.

To me, it is like using the 1st level benefit of a Prestige class in order to get into that presitge class (which is expressly forbidden, first you must meet the prereqs, THEN enter the class). If you need 8 ranks in a skill, you can't have 7 ranks in the skill and then take the prestige class and get the 8th rank by virtue of the prestige class (if that makes any sense). Anyway, it's just an analogy...

 

[BryonD]

The whole concept is very simple for me...

I have no doubt that by the reading of the MM and PHB, Monk's are allowed to take INA. However, if I had any doubt, the "Official" 3.5 Edition FAQ, presented as Official, by the Publisher of the game, clarifies any existing ambiguity by making it very clear that Monks are able to take INA.

Beyond that, I am really unconcerned with semantics, balance or original intent.

 

[BryonD]

With that kind of attitude this whole debate would be pointless.

God No!!!!
Then we'd actually have to PLAY the game for fun...

 

[Artoomis]

...To me, it is like using the 1st level benefit of a Prestige class in order to get into that presitge class (which is expressly forbidden, first you must meet the prereqs, THEN enter the class). If you need 8 ranks in a skill, you can't have 7 ranks in the skill and then take the prestige class and get the 8th rank by virtue of the prestige class (if that makes any sense). Anyway, it's just an analogy...

So what if I said humans are considered elves for the purposes of the (fictional) "elven bow master" prestige class which has a prerequisite of being an elf. Note I did NOT say they are considered elves for quaifying for that class.

Could they take the class or not?

 

[KarinsDad]

It's only reasonable if you do not require additional parameters to affect the outcome. That is, by definition, a straw man. In comparing INA to PA, you can reference a parameters of a different class as 'proof' that PA is stronger. You're confounding variables in an effort to support your desired outcome.

I did not do that to illustrate that PA is stronger.

I used it to illustrate that the Monk with INA had fewer options and did less extra damage than the Fighter with Power Attack. And at the same time, the Fighter can use Special Abilities of a weapon and still use Power Attack whereas the Monk cannot use INA if using Special Abilities of a weapon.

Not true at all. You are not going with the initial premise that "INA is needed to help balance the already-known-underpowered monk class." If this premise doesn't work for you, then you have the same problem I do.

I noticed that you totally avoided the Monk + INA + Amulet versus Monk + Magic Weapon analysis completely.

The fact that Monk + core Magic + Questionable Feat does slightly more damage and sometimes does the same or less than Monk + core Magic is indicative that there is no serious balance issue here.


Be serious. We are talking DND where 200 extra points of melee damage can be done with broken builds. A few points of damage per attack is nothing and is FAR from unbalanced.

 

[Cedric]

They do clarify some of the rules. Other rules, they just make up or change.

I guess I fail to see where that is a problem, but I understand that several people do have problems with it.

To my thinking, if they want to revise a rule in the FAQ...well, it's their rulebook, their FAQ. Go for it.

I don't buy that rules alterations or revisions should be handled only with errata. Errata is used to correct "mistakes." A revision to make a rule function more effectively or with less conflict is not the correction of a mistake. Saying "Elf" when you meant "Half-Elf" is a mistake.

Said revision can happily exist in an FAQ. Branding the FAQ "Official", providing version history and labeling it with all appropriate publication legalise, just provides the legitimacy I need to take the FAQ as a valid source document.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So what if I said humans are considered elves for the purposes of the (fictional) "elven bow master" prestige class which has a prerequisite of being an elf. Note I did NOT say they are considered elves for quaifying for that class.

Could they take the class or not?

For purposes of the PrC? Certainly. The requirements are an element of the PrC.

If you said "humans are considered elves for the purposes of the class features of the Elven Bow Master PrC", though, then a human who somehow took levels in the class could benefit from elf-specific features... but he would need to find a way to satisfy the requirement before taking the first level. Requirements are not Class Features, so the "considered elves" clause doesn't help.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

...FWIW, now that I have had some time to think about and re-re-re-read the FAQ, I beleive that the FAQ is clarifying that feats have effects, but are not (in and of themselves) effects. I agree with others that "effects" is not clearly defined in the Core rules, that the FAQ is meant to clarify these ambiguities, and in the FAQ entry regarding INA they essentially clarified that feats have effects...

And yet...:

Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack (Monster Manual, page 304) to improve his unarmed strike?

Yes. As stated on page 41 of the Player’s Handbook, a monk’s unarmed strike “is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either” which includes feats such as Improved Natural Attack.

It's obvious that the FAQ ruling is that monks can take INA because either:

1. Feats are effects (and if you are considered to have a natural weapons for the feat you automatically also are considered to meet teh prerequisite of having a natural weapon.)

or

2. Feats have effects and if you are considered to have a natural weapons for the feat's effects you automatically also are considered to meet the prerequisite of having a natural weapon.

I don't see that it makes any difference whether it is (1) or (2). Either way monks can take INA per the FAQ.

Now if you want to say that it is so obvious than monks CANNOT take INA that the FAQ entry is coimpletely in error and should not have been issued, that's fine. I think that an odd approach given that most folks disagree with that - with 50% thinking the FAQ entry was not neeed because it is so obvious tha monks CAN take INA - which makes certainty on any poistion very much in doubt and the calrifaction of the FAQ entry required..

 

[KarinsDad]

An increase in speed and the ability to take Improved Natural Attack are two of the effects of taking levels in the monk class.

What does this have to do with Causes (which is what DG was responding to)?

 

[Hypersmurf]

1. Feats are effects (and if you are considered to have a natural weapons for the feat you automatically also are considered to meet teh prerequisite of having a natural weapon.)

or

2. Feats have effects and if you are considered to have a natural weapons for the feat's effects you automatically also are considered to meet the prerequisite of having a natural weapon.

2 is what RM is using the PrC analogy to illustrate; if taking a PrC would allow you to qualify for that PrC, but you do not already qualify for the PrC, you cannot take the PrC.

Just because you're eligible for a benefit if you take a feat, does not mean you automatically qualify for the feat.

I reject 2 as simply wrong.

1, on the other hand, is perfectly logical, as long as one accepts that feats are effects. But I don't, so I reject 1, not because it evinces no logic (like 2), but because I disagree with its basic premise.

-Hyp.