Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[Cedric]

Ok, I can see now why people feel the FAQ has mistakes in it (and I would agree). However, finding mistakes in a document does not (as much as we would like it too) provide grounds for dismissing the document whole cloth.

There is a process to write Cust Serv and request that perceived mistakes in the FAQ be addressed. If you disagree with a statement in the FAQ and have not taken advantage of this service, then you have little reason to complain.

If you have written Cust Serv, then all I can do is, encourage your patience and suggest that you promote the need for your peers to also write and request a correction to the FAQ.

However, none of those things allow the FAQ to be set aside and disregarded. If you could disregard every rule source that contained an error, we'd be out of rules sources.

So until their is a revision to the FAQ, Monks can "Officially" take INA, as approved by the primary, overseeing rules document, the FAQ (in my opinion).

 

[Infiniti2000]

However, none of those things allow the FAQ to be set aside and disregarded. If you could disregard every rule source that contained an error, we'd be out of rules sources.

But then neither can assume that every rule is correct. For you to quote the FAQ as the defining rule on monks and INA, you have to accept the rule about feinting. You don't have a choice if you want to be consistent. The alternate is to merely accept the FAQ as guidance and use the actual rules to disprove/approve the FAQ clarifications. What this all means is that the FAQ is not as important as you think it is because for every answer it provides, you need to concur with that answer. You cannot just take it as is.

 

[Artoomis]

I'm confused by this post. Up to this point he was for improved unarmed attack. Is this serious? Is he being sarcastic? Is he just trying to make a failed attempt at pointing out ambiguity?

Actually, in another post I have noted that I do not have a firm opinion on monks and INA from a game balance perspective.

The quoted post of mine is addressing about game balance only, and has nothing to do with whether monks can take INA per the rules.

 

[Cedric]

But then neither can assume that every rule is correct. For you to quote the FAQ as the defining rule on monks and INA, you have to accept the rule about feinting. You don't have a choice if you want to be consistent. The alternate is to merely accept the FAQ as guidance and use the actual rules to disprove/approve the FAQ clarifications. What this all means is that the FAQ is not as important as you think it is because for every answer it provides, you need to concur with that answer. You cannot just take it as is.

I do accept the rule on feinting, because it's in the FAQ (I think it's wrong, but I accept it). Additionally, I am dispatching an email to WotC to have it reviewed.

 

[Nail]

I do accept the rule on feinting, because it's in the FAQ (I think it's wrong, but I accept it).

Hmm.

The rule for feinting is in the PH. The FAQ is an attempt at clarifying rules found in the PH. When you want to know what the rules are, you read the PH. If you want to play the game 3.5e D&D, you must purchase a PH.....


....are you seeing a pattern here?

Why accept a rule because it's in the FAQ? That's not what a FAQ is for. The rules are in the PH. Period.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The Monk can trip with a normal unarmed strike Flurry or a normal unarmed strike attack or even with Improved Trip, and I think this is what this was attempting to say.

Actually, I disagree... an unarmed strike is not a trip weapon. If you don't have a trip weapon, you trip as an unarmed attack... you're not tripping with your unarmed strike like you would with a sickle or with a flail.

If you're Flurrying, no Trip unless you have a kama.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

Actually, I disagree... an unarmed strike is not a trip weapon. If you don't have a trip weapon, you trip as an unarmed attack... you're not tripping with your unarmed strike like you would with a sickle or with a flail.

If you're Flurrying, no Trip unless you have a kama.

-Hyp.

I understand your POV, but this is not totally clearcut:

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 who makes an unarmed attack on you.

Making a Trip Attack: Make an unarmed melee touch attack against your target. This provokes an attack of opportunity from your target as normal for unarmed attacks.

Is a creature not attacking an opponent while unarmed when it makes a Trip attack?

From this, an unarmed strike is not just hitting your opponent. It is any unarmed attack.

 

[Hypersmurf]

From this, an unarmed strike is not just hitting your opponent. It is any unarmed attack.

I would say, rather, that the benefit of the Improved Unarmed Strike feat applies to any unarmed attack, whether or not it is made with your unarmed strike.

Just like the Deflect Arrows feat lets you deflect a projectile whether or not it is an arrow; the name of the feat does not limit the benefit.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

I would say, rather, that the benefit of the Improved Unarmed Strike feat applies to any unarmed attack, whether or not it is made with your unarmed strike.

Just like the Deflect Arrows feat lets you deflect a projectile whether or not it is an arrow; the name of the feat does not limit the benefit.

-Hyp.

Unarmed Srikes are simply another word for Unarmed Attacks. Nothing in the rules suggests or implies you cannot trip with an unarmed strike.

"Armed" Unarmed Attacks
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...

Unarmed Strike Damage
An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character’s unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of damage, while a Large character’s unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on). ...

Dealing Lethal Damage
You can specify that your unarmed strike will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you take a -4 penalty on your attack roll. If you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike without taking a penalty on the attack roll.

Light, One-Handed, and Two-Handed Melee Weapons
This designation is a measure of how much effort it takes to wield a weapon in combat. It indicates whether a melee weapon, when wielded by a character of the weapon’s size category, is considered a light weapon, a one-handed weapon, or a two-handed weapon.

Light
A light weapon is easier to use in one’s off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and it can be used while grappling. A light weapon is used in one hand. Add the wielder’s Strength bonus (if any) to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it’s used in the primary hand, or one-half the wielder’s Strength bonus if it’s used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder’s primary hand only.

An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon.

And there are other examples, too. Unarmed Attack = Unarmed Strike. There is no distinction.

An unarmed strike MIGHT be considered on of the options you can make with an unarmed attack. Even still, when making an unarmed strike you ARE making an unarmed attack, and therefore you could choose to trip instead of doing damage.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Unarmed Srikes are simply another word for Unarmed Attacks. Nothing in the rules suggests or implies you cannot trip with an unarmed strike.

All the weapons you can trip with note in their description "This weapon can be used to make trip attacks". Unarmed Strike's description says nothing of the sort.

And there are other examples, too. Unarmed Attack = Unarmed Strike. There is no distinction.

That example shows that unarmed strikes are unarmed attacks; it does not show that all unarmed attacks are unarmed strikes.

Even still, when making an unarmed strike you ARE making an unarmed attack, and therefore you could choose to trip instead of doing damage.

You're making an unarmed attack with an unarmed strike, whose description does not include the ability to trip... unlike every weapon which can be used to trip.

-Hyp.