Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[Cedric]

Right, but is qualifying for a feat a 'spell or effect'?

Irrelevant, since I have established, by my own understanding of the rules cited with example, that I feel that a Monk's Unarmed Strike fits within the subsection of "Natural Weapon".

However, even if I did not feel that way, nothing about the reading of "spells and effects" leads me to believe that I should exclude things based on that terminology, rather it seems very clearly worded to allow more things. So, I'm allowing more things, in this case, INA.

 

[Sejs]

Thanks, I've missed that for a long time.

Glad to be of assistance.

However, it doesn't apply here since an Unarmed Strike is also considered a light weapon and light weapons cannot deal 1-1/2 strength damage.

At the risk of being hoist by my own petard again, I think they fall in a gray area. They're light, but you can power attack with them. Similar in function to how many natural weapons are used with weapon finesse.

 

[Cedric]

Okay, those who are voting 100% certainty either way - I suspect something less than 100%.

Do you guys REALLY feel there is ABSOLUTELY NO validity to the opposing argument. If so I am truly amazed at the number of folks who feel that way - on both sides.

I can understand why and how someone would read the rule in such a manner as to disallow INA for Monk's. At the same time that I can understand it though, I absolutely believe they are wrong.

 

[Cedric]

At the risk of being hoist by my own petard again, I think they fall in a gray area. They're light, but you can power attack with them. Similar in function to how many natural weapons are used with weapon finesse.

I will agree 100% that they fall into a grey area. However, I do not feel that the same grey area should be used to disallow something when the wording of the attack pays specific attention to intentionally "allowing" extra things (spells, feats, effects, enhancements, combat abilities, special attacks, etc., etc.).

 

[Vurt]

Do you guys REALLY feel there is ABSOLUTELY NO validity to the opposing argument. If so I am truly amazed at the number of folks who feel that way - on both sides.

Did everyone miss "By 100% certain I really mean it - no room whatsoever for an opposing view."

Or are folks really that entrenched into their own positions? I am very surprised.

I've always understood the bit about "spells and effects" to refer to spells and other sundry things similar to them that hadn't been explicitly enumerated yet, such as spell-like abilities, psionic powers, invocations, auras, etc. In short, temporary magical buffs.

At the time of the original printing, I don't think the authors really thought about whether or not monks should qualify for the feat.

Cheers,
Vurt

 

[Artoomis]

I guess folks realy do feel 100% certain of their positions are the only ones that can be correct. Wow! What a surprise. Truly.

I personally think they are allowed, but I see it as the much, much stronger of two arguments, the other being a real stretch that requires assigning a precise definition to "effects" - a rather imprecise term, especially in this context.

I am amazed that folks cannot see ANY validity to the opposing argument.

 

[boolean]

But I firmly believe the FAQ is not supposed to make up new rules like this, only the errata can.

It seems that WotC does not share this belief.

 

[Artoomis]

No; only for the purpose of spell and effects that improve or enhance natural weapons.

-Hyp.

Hyp - you're cheating. Chiming in but not voting.

Do you see zero validity to the opposing argument?

 

[Hypersmurf]

However, it doesn't apply here since an Unarmed Strike is also considered a light weapon and light weapons cannot deal 1-1/2 strength damage.

All natural weapons are considered light weapons.

From the text of Weapon Finesse: "Natural weapons are always considered light weapons."
From the text of Power Attack: "You can’t add the bonus from Power Attack to the damage dealt with a light weapon (except with unarmed strikes or natural weapon attacks)..."

-Hyp.

 

[seans23]

Perhaps you missed the point of the question? Maybe the OP didn't empahsize the word "only" enough?

I suppose I did, but there was no "This debate is pointless" option and I didn't want to be left out of the fun