Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[Legildur]

So the fact that INA appears in a sample build of a monk in the official WotC product PHBII doesn't sway anyone? OK, they buggered up the BAB requirement, but it still signifies an official thumbs up from WOTC to me...

Well, they gave the half-orc monk too many feats and he didn't meet the prerequisites of either feat. So it begs the question as too whether the person that actually put the package together even read the rules in other than a cursory way. If you want to take that particularly example as support for the argument, then you would have to accept that Weapon Focus doesn't actually require a BAB +1 as a prerequisite (need a 3rd level monk to achieve that) and that INA doesn't have a BAB +4 prerequisite (need a 6th level monk to achieve that).

 

[RigaMortus2]

Well, they gave the half-orc monk too many feats and he didn't meet the prerequisites of either feat. So it begs the question as too whether the person that actually put the package together even read the rules in other than a cursory way. If you want to take that particularly example as support for the argument, then you would have to accept that Weapon Focus doesn't actually require a BAB +1 as a prerequisite (need a 3rd level monk to achieve that) and that INA doesn't have a BAB +4 prerequisite (need a 6th level monk to achieve that).

Yup... They might as well have given the sample Monk the Extra Turning or Extra Wildshape feats. It makes about as much sense since they wouldn't qualify for those either...

 

[BryonD]

Which side is not using reasoned interpretation?

I think that forcing a specific defintion of effect (such as: Feats have effects feats are not effects) is an artificial constraint.
Perhaps "reasoned" wasn't the best possible word. But the stress was supposed to be on the word "interpretation" meaning that the word effect is being used in the general english language rather than as a D&D term.

The reader should use their reasoning to interpret the word within context. I see saying that the word "effect" is automatically constrained to a precise D&D defintion as an example of not using reasoned interpretation.

I think this sentence uses the word effects in the same way as the Monk Unarmed Strike section:
Gaining an increase in speed and being allowed to take the Improved Natural Attack feat are two effects of taking a level in the monk class.

It is just a simple expression in the English language.

Insisting that general useage of language is not allowed is, IMO, a break in reasoned interpretation. There may be lots of good reasoning before and after this point. But the chain is broken right there.

I also believe that a 1st level wizard can produce a fireball. He just tosses a lit torch in a vat of alchemist's fire. The fact that the term "fireball" most often means a 3rd level spell requiring a 5th level wizard is not relevant because the word fireball is not constrained to a precise D&D defintion.

 

[BryonD]

I'd disagree- it IS evidence of a position that WotC considers the Monk's unarmed strike as a valid target since it follows a FAQ statement of the same position.

However, it is ALSO evidence of a lack of quality of proofreading (beyond software spellcheckers) in RPG publications- something I've been complaining about since 2Ed.

I agree with this assessment.
It is evidence that the intent is absolutely there.

However, I also must agree that it is so full of errors that you are never going to get past red herrings like comparing it to "Extra Wildshape".

 

[KarinsDad]

I think that forcing a specific defintion of effect (such as: Feats have effects feats are not effects) is an artificial constraint.
Perhaps "reasoned" wasn't the best possible word. But the stress was supposed to be on the word "interpretation" meaning that the word effect is being used in the general english language rather than as a D&D term.

The reader should use their reasoning to interpret the word within context. I see saying that the word "effect" is automatically constrained to a precise D&D defintion as an example of not using reasoned interpretation.

I see the opposite.

There are literally dozens and dozens of examples of the word Effect in the game. The usage of the word in all of those cases is that of an external Effect that affects a creature, object, or other effect.

Additionally, that term is not used in the general part of the Feat section at all.

It seems strained to think that WotC uses the word "effect" to mean something specific (and consistent) throughout the entire game system and then suddenly uses it to mean the English language equivalent in this one location.

I think this sentence uses the word effects in the same way as the Monk Unarmed Strike section:
Gaining an increase in speed and being allowed to take the Improved Natural Attack feat are two effects of taking a level in the monk class.

It is just a simple expression in the English language.

Insisting that general useage of language is not allowed is, IMO, a break in reasoned interpretation. There may be lots of good reasoning before and after this point. But the chain is broken right there.

I also believe that a 1st level wizard can produce a fireball. He just tosses a lit torch in a vat of alchemist's fire. The fact that the term "fireball" most often means a 3rd level spell requiring a 5th level wizard is not relevant because the word fireball is not constrained to a precise D&D defintion.

Yes, but in this case, WotC should explicitly state that they mean a fireball created in this manner as opposed to the standard usage of the term.


An assumption that the standard usage (i.e. the usage used throughout the entire game system) is not the one meant is extremely suspect.

 

[BryonD]

I see the opposite.

There are literally dozens and dozens of examples of the word Effect in the game. The usage of the word in all of those cases is that of an external Effect that affects a creature, object, or other effect.

Additionally, that term is not used in the general part of the Feat section at all.

It seems strained to think that WotC uses the word "effect" to mean something specific (and consistent) throughout the entire game system and then suddenly uses it to mean the English language equivalent in this one location.

And it simply boggles me to think that common language useage is suddenly verbotten.

Even moreso if one considers the multiple inconsistencies and errors commited by WotC often referenced in defense of the "no" position. To admit that WotC can get it wrong and give weapon focus to a BAB+0 character and then turn around and flatly deny the possibility that they could simply find themselves expressing a point in a simple common language useage manner is an extreme double standard.

That is even more true if one considers that to do so requires ignoring WotC statement's that support the "yes" answer.

Yes, but in this case, WotC should explicitly state that they mean a fireball created in this manner as opposed to the standard usage of the term.

An assumption that the standard usage (i.e. the usage used throughout the entire game system) is not the one meant is extremely suspect.

Then you think that the 1st level monk COULD take Focus and they were clairfying this in the PHBII? I greatly doubt that. Much more rational is to simply conclude the obvious that all claims of "should" aside, WotC did what they did and that is to simply use the term in common form. It is much more easy to make a trivally minor case of unclear language than it is to flat out break a basic rule on one of the most common feats in the game. And yet you accept the extreme case as simple occurance while denying the slightest chance of the vastly more likely occurance.

This is particularly rational when one recalls that the word effect does not even have a proscribed D&D definition.

 

[BryonD]

It seems strained to think that WotC uses the word "effect" to mean something specific (and consistent) throughout the entire game system and then suddenly uses it to mean the English language equivalent in this one location.

Can you prove this claim? This "one" location is the only general use of the word effect in all WotC 3X products?

 

[KarinsDad]

Can you prove this claim? This "one" location is the only general use of the word effect in all WotC 3X products?

I do not have to prove it.

You are the one making the claim that this is a general English use of the word as opposed to the standard DND usage. The burden of proof is on your shoulders.

A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

This sounds specific to me. It is not BAB or saves or alignment or anything else that affects the game, just Spells and Effects.


But, let's look at another example. If Feats (or Feat Benefits) are effects, then there are some screwy game elements where this is not clearly defined. For example"

Timeless Body
Psychoportation
Level: Psion/wilder 9
Display: Material
Manifesting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: 1 round
Power Points: 17

Your body ignores all harmful (and helpful) effects, beginning when you finish manifesting this power and ending at the end of your next turn. While timeless body is in effect, you are invulnerable to all attacks and powers.

According to the "Feats are Effects" interpretation, your PC could not use many (if not all) of his own Feats that affect him while using Timeless Body. Yet, this is not explicitly called out. The standard interpretation is that of an Effect that is the result of a power, the result of a spell, an external element like Acid, etc.

DM: "Sorry, you cannot use your Dodge Feat with Timeless Body because it is a helpful effect. You cannot dodge your opponent."

Could you use your Prestige Class Abilities when using Timeless Body? Are those effects? For all we know, you cannot use your BAB or saves either. Are those not helpful? Do they not affect the game?

It is inconsistent to use an interpretation that does not make sense throughout the entire game system and does not take the standard usage of the word Effects.

 

[BryonD]

I do not have to prove it.

You are the one making the claim that this is a general English use of the word as opposed to the standard DND usage. The burden of proof is on your shoulders.

That is nuts. You made a claim of a specific exception to the default use of language.
If the default is not the case then this must be stated and the burden of THAT proof is squarely on YOUR shoulders.

Above and beyond that YOU said this was the "one location". You proclaimed a statment of fact. Is it really a fact? Can you prove it?

This sounds specific to me. It is not BAB or saves or alignment or anything else that affects the game, just Spells and Effects.

Gaining an increase in speed and being allowed to take the Improved Natural Attack feat are two effects of taking a level in the monk class.

Also note that the capitalization has been added by you, for some reason.

But, let's look at another example. If Feats (or Feat Benefits) are effects, then there are some screwy game elements where this is not clearly defined. For example"

According to the "Feats are Effects" interpretation ...

I never claimed that feat are effects, so your entire ergument here goes down in flames.

The argument that feats are not effects therefore a monk can not take INA is based on the unsubstantiated presumption that effect is a proscribed D&D term with limited definition.

Feats are not effects, but monks can still take INA.

Gaining a new feat is an effect of gaining a class level. The monk's unarmed strike ability description clearly states that for the purposes of effects the monk's unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon. So, I've gained a new level and now I'm trying to decide how to manage the effects of this new level.

A feat is not an effect. Getting to choose a new feat IS an effect.

Arguments based on "feats are not effects" do not work because they do not need to be according to common language.

 

[KarinsDad]

Gaining an increase in speed and being allowed to take the Improved Natural Attack feat are two effects of taking a level in the monk class.

They are not effects.

The increase in speed is a class feature. When discussing rules, you really should be specific and use game specific terms.

The argument that feats are not effects therefore a monk can not take INA is based on the unsubstantiated presumption that effect is a proscribed D&D term with limited definition.

Feats are not effects, but monks can still take INA.

If Feats are not effects, then Monks definitely cannot take INA. At least not according to RAW.