Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[Artoomis]

...EDIT: I'm assuming that you are not using 'valid' in the plain English sense rather than the technical argument theory sense. Technically, you could describe the 'Yes' argument as valid but based on a (IMO) incorrect premise, but I don't think you were making that distinction and I'm not sure where you draw the line between an argument and premises anyway.
glass.

Thanks for chiming in.

Actually, I am using "valid" in the techincal argument theory sense. If the other side (which ever side you happened to be on) presents an argument that has any merit whatsoever than you should concede that the point is debatable and therefore a FAQ entry to clear it up is warranted.

On the other hand, if you feel that the other side has absolutely no merit whatsoever to their arguments (that is, they have been smoking those funny cigarettes again), then the FAQ entry is really unjustified and all those with an opposing view are somehow 100% completely and utterly wrong without question or doubt. What you would be saying than is that the matter is so clear that it is not even debatable.

I certainly don't think this one fits the latter category. Things that would fit into the not-even-debatable category would be things like a "natural 1" always misses and a "natural 20" always hits for normal attack rolls.

Note that saying it is debatable is FAR different form saying you are right or wrong.

In this case, I would personally say it is debatable but those saying a monk does NOT qualify for INA per the core rules are wrong because they are looking at the rules the wrong way and drawing the wrong conclusions - starting form the wrong premise, if you will.

My opinion of being right in no way lessons the fact that this is debatable, though.

I think this may be the most hotly contested topic in this forum, plus this may be the most responded-to poll, but I cannot be certain.

What fun, eh?

 

[Deset Gled]

BTW, I agree with you,. This set of rules simply does not have the level of precision that Hyp (and others) would like to put on it. Attempting to put a precise defintion on "effects" is a great exemple of this; it's an ill-defined game term and we have little evidence (from the PHB/DMG/MM) that indicates whether the intent here was for "effects" to include feats or not.

Every time you say that the rules are imprecise in regards to a RAW discussion, I get the feeling that you are having a different discussion than the one I'm having. The words of the rules themselves are very precise. They are always written in the same form, spelled the same way, and are completely, 100% repeatable. The meaning behind the words, including interpretation and intent, is what's imprecise. But that imprecision is on the part of the readers and writers, not the rules. Discussing that imprecision is perfectly fine (and well within the purpose of this board), but I would consider that to be the Spirit of the Rules, not the Letter of the Rules. To be honest, I don't even like the term Rules as Written, as the act of writing implies intent to begin with, but the terminology has become so commonplace here that I often find myself using it.

 

[Artoomis]

Every time you say that the rules are imprecise in regards to a RAW discussion, I get the feeling that you are having a different discussion than the one I'm having. The words of the rules themselves are very precise. They are always written in the same form, spelled the same way, and are completely, 100% repeatable. The meaning behind the words, including interpretation and intent, is what's imprecise. But that imprecision is on the part of the readers and writers, not the rules. Discussing that imprecision is perfectly fine (and well within the purpose of this board), but I would consider that to be the Spirit of the Rules, not the Letter of the Rules. To be honest, I don't even like the term Rules as Written, as the act of writing implies intent to begin with, but the terminology has become so commonplace here that I often find myself using it.

What, precisely, does "effects" mean in the Monk description? That is the imprecision of which I write - for example.

If "effects" was defined clearly in the glossary to indicate what it ALWAYS did and did not inlcude, then it would be "precise."

 

[KarinsDad]

There is nothing (that I have found) in the PHB, DMG, MM or errata that states a feat is considered an effect, the benefit of a feat is an effect, or the prerequisite of a feat is an effect. Until that is defined within those Core products, I think assuming a feat (or a part of a feat) is an effect is just speculation.

Actions in Combat Table. Both SRD and PHB:

8 The description of a feat defines its effect.

Course, this has semantic problems of its own, but there you go.

 

[Artoomis]

There is nothing (that I have found) in the PHB, DMG, MM or errata that states a feat is considered an effect, the benefit of a feat is an effect, or the prerequisite of a feat is an effect. Until that is defined within those Core products, I think assuming a feat (or a part of a feat) is an effect is just speculation.

In addition to what KarinsDad pointed out, which at least lays the foundation for a legitimate counter-argument, we do not know whether "effects" was meant to be read narrowly or broadly.

Narrowly read has many problems because of the lack of a clear definition of "effects." At a minimum, it requires a lengthy argument on "effects" and how that applies to feats and, potenially, prerequisites for feats.

On the other hand, a broad reading is simplicity itself. Pretty much, if it enhances or improves natural weapons than a monk's unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon. No tough argument, no worrying about picky word defintions.

Finally, since there are these two views and both are firmly grounded in the rules, there is legitimate debate and legitimate need for a FAQ entry.

I continue to be astounded that there is even debate that a FAQ entry in this is value-added and appropriate - though, of couse, anyone might think the FAQ chose the wrong answer. The point is, though, that the FAQ stepped up and chose ONE answer, settling the matter - "officially," at least.

 

[KarinsDad]

Narrowly read has many problems because of the lack of a clear definition of "effects." At a minimum, it requires a lengthy argument on "effects" and how that applies to feats and, potenially, prerequisites for feats.

On the other hand, a broad reading is simplicity itself. Pretty much, if it enhances or improves natural weapons than a monk's unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon. No tough argument, no worrying about picky word defintions.

The narrow reading is one based off of the usage of the word "effect" used throughout the books. There is no general usage of feats being or having effects (i.e. something external that affects a creature, object, or other effect), although there are a few obscure exceptions.

The broad reading would mean that BAB is an effect, base saves are effects, alignment is an effect, etc. Once we open up Pandora's box on definition this way, there is no way to close it and other issues could arise.

 

[Artoomis]

The narrow reading is one based off of the usage of the word "effect" used throughout the books. There is no general usage of feats being or having effects (i.e. something external that affects a creature, object, or other effect), although there are a few obscure exceptions.

The broad reading would mean that BAB is an effect, base saves are effects, alignment is an effect, etc. Once we open up Pandora's box on definition this way, there is no way to close it and other issues could arise.

What you point out is why a FAQ entry was really needed. Your second paragraph is really not such an issue though, for example, does BAB improve or enhance natural weapons? I don't think so - not except by a really, really strained interpretation

 

[Falling Icicle]

Half way down the page, under "Full Attack"

"A creature’s primary attack damage includes its full Strength modifier (1-1/2 times its Strength bonus if the attack is with the creature’s sole natural weapon)..."

An unarmed strike is not a Humanoid's sole natural weapon. Last I checked, most people are equipped with two arms and two legs.

 

[Plane Sailing]

This is a VERY big surprise to me. I assumed (wrongly) that most folks would see some validity, however small, to the opposing view. The fact that so many are 100% certain of opposite view does itself indicate some ambiguity, hoever small an amount, and yet 74% of the responders don't see that. Amazing.

Perhaps this reflects people who reject the premise upon which the other side is making their argument. In this kind of situation, person A thinks that the premise of person B is flawed, so the validity of their argument is irrelevant because it is based on a flawed premise.

I wouldn't be surprised if that was behind some of the results here.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Actions in Combat Table. Both SRD and PHB:

8 The description of a feat defines its effect.

Note the possessive. The description defines "its effect". The effect of the feat.

'The feat has an effect', not 'the feat is an effect'.

Ah, but that's the thing. An unarmed strike is not a Humanoid's sole natural weapon. Last I checked, most people are equipped with two arms and two legs.

But only one unarmed strike.

Or would you allow a 1st level fighter to attack with his longsword, and then once with his left hand, once with his right foot, and once with his left foot, per the rules for mixing manufactured and natural weapons? What about elbows, knees, head butt?

The weapon is 'unarmed strike'; it happens that that weapon might at any given time be delivered by one arm, or one leg, or your forehead... but it's all the same weapon.

Given that any creature can make an unarmed strike (with the possible exception of a locathah), doesn't defining unarmed strike as a natural weapon mean that no creature will ever qualify for the "sole natural weapon" benefit?

"This hyena only has a bite attack, so it adds 1.5x St... oops, no, it has an unarmed strike as well."

-Hyp.