Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[Zimri]

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

Ummmm read what you quoted you wouldn't have to dodge timeless body makes you immune to all attacks

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

While that is true, KD has a point- if a feat has an effect, its nullified by timeless body.

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.

The problem with THAT is that this happens all the time in D&D. For instance, the very definition of natural weapon from the PHB is:

Natural Weapon
A creature's body part that deals damage in combat. Natural weapons include teeth, claws horns tails and other appendages.

Humans have teeth. Humans have fists that can do damage in combat and are definitely body parts. Fists are explicitly called "natural weapons" in other parts of the PHB and other WotC products (and importantly, in text that was ADDED in the 3.5 revision of the rules). Yet, mystifyingly, Humans are considered not to have any natural weapons- (I specifically asked WotC CustServ about that, and that was their opinion). Instead, they have "unarmed strikes"- a term that is a distinction without a difference.

Unarmed Strike
A successful blow, typically dealing non-lethal damage, from a character attacking without weapons. A monk can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike, but other sdeal non-lethal damage.

If a PC is attacking without weapons, what is he attacking with? Hmm...body parts like fists, knees, etc..."body parts dealing damage."

My personal view is that Humans and other PC races do have natural weapons- they're just crappy ones- and that what the oft-discussed section in the Monk class adds is the treatment of their natural weapons/unarmed strikes as manufactured weapons in addition to natural weapons. Thus, IMC, INA is open to anyone.

To clarify my position further, though, INA does NOT:

1) Change non-lethal damage to lethal damage. Thus, while a natural weapon that does non-lethal damage may do MORE damage after INA is taken, it is still non-lethal damage.

2) Allow continuous scaling of natural weapon damage. That is a Monk's exclusive ability... (also permitted to the 3.5 revision of the OA Shaman.)

 

[KarinsDad]

The problem with THAT is that this happens all the time in D&D. For instance, the very definition of natural weapon from the PHB is:



Humans have teeth. Humans have fists that can do damage in combat and are definitely body parts. Fists are explicitly called "natural weapons" in other parts of the PHB and other WotC products (and importantly, in text that was ADDED in the 3.5 revision of the rules). Yet, mystifyingly, Humans are considered not to have any natural weapons- (I specifically asked WotC CustServ about that, and that was their opinion). Instead, they have "unarmed strikes"- a term that is a distinction without a difference.

Although there could be a definition (like natural attack) and there could still be an exception to the general rule.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Except that the exception subsumes nearly every Core and Complete race...

Not helpful, as definitions go, and the example still points out that the game doesn't use its definitions coherently as things stand currently.

 

[Zimri]

That is it I've had enough! Time to ask WOTC what part of a human (oid) body that hits something else is not natural or a weapon. I'll let you know what they have to say.

Here is what I sent in

Human (oid) natural attacks and improved natural attack

There is a great amount of debate in my gaming circle regarding the existence of a natural attack for human (oids). The debate seems to coalesce into two camps. One being humans (dwarves elves gnomes et al) do, in fact, have a (or multiple, as anyone ever in a fight in real life can attest to the fact that humans at least can have a claw claw bite) natural attack which could thus be improved by "improved natural attack". The other group chimes in with "No way, standard humanoids get 1 "unarmed strike" and have no "natural weapons"

The debate usually breaks down long about the time one group starts using it's "natural" claw, claw, bite, kick, knee, headbutt routine against the other groups 1 unarmed strike. Invariably we attract the attention of a monk who due to her iterative attacks and increase to damage dice because of "improved unarmed strike" settles us all down while we await paramedics.

The trips to the emergency room and the local jail are getting expensive and attracting the wrong kind of attention to our gaming group so please for the love of Ilmater the broken can we get a rundown on human (oids) and Improved Natural Atttack. Also we would really love to stick it to the monk and tell her she can't use Improved Natural Attack to improve her already Improved Unarmed Strike.

Please Help

 

[BryonD]

They are not effects.

The increase in speed is a class feature.

It is a class feature.
Gaining this class feature is an EFFECT of taking a level in the class.
As my sentence correctly states, using standard english.

When discussing rules, you really should be specific and use game specific terms.

And when using the terms as written in the text I should use them the same way as they are written. Which I am doing. The problem is that you are arbitrarily trying to force a non-existent "game specific term" onto a common english word.

And that is a point I've already made and you seem to be ignoring.

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

As I've already explained, nowhere does the RAW state anything remotely requiring that the feat BE an effect.
Simply stating your position fails to make it true.

Can you point me to the part of the RAW that states the official game defintion of "effect"?

 

[BryonD]

Except that the exception subsumes nearly every Core and Complete race...

Not helpful, as definitions go, and the example still points out that the game doesn't use its definitions coherently as things stand currently.

yep

 

[BryonD]

Although there could be a definition (like natural attack) and there could still be an exception to the general rule.

Such as with the defintion of the word "effect"?

 

[grimjack2600]

This is (mostly) a no go using the sources available.

- The Monk gains iterative attacks with it's unarmed strike. Natural weapons do not gain iterative attacks.

From the description of Natural Weapons in the SRD:

"Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons."

If your statisfied with the above, stop now. Seriouosly the stuff before is for the people who want to understand the "mostly" comment above.

If you limited the character to a single attack, then sure, they could apply the feat. However, the player would have to select which appendage or type (kick, claw, punch, bite, headbutt, etc) to apply the feat toward. The monk's improved unarmed strike can be accomplished with any limb, however, that is not what the INA feat is designed to handle. INA is for improving a single aspect of a monsters attack. Monster attacks are broken down into a list of attacks and frequency: one bite attack, one attack per claw or tentacle, one gore attack, one sting attack, or one slam attack.

The forum so far seems to have concluded that if a monks IUS attack is a Natural Weapon, then it is a slam attack.

Based on that assessment, the most important thing to note is that slam attacks occur at the rate of one per round. They are not iterative, no matter how many class levels your earth elemental has.

 

[Mistwell]

And when using the terms as written in the text I should use them the same way as they are written. Which I am doing. The problem is that you are arbitrarily trying to force a non-existent "game specific term" onto a common english word.

And that is a point I've already made and you seem to be ignoring.

I gotta agree. When I read KarinsDad's last reply, it did in fact seem like he either ignored what you just said, or didn't read it, or didn't understand what you meant by it.

If gaining a feat is an effect of gaining a new level, as that word "effect" is used in normal english language usage, then it doesn't matter if all feats are themselves effects, all that matters is the thing that grants the feat is itself the effect.

I don't happen to agree with your interpretation BryonD, but I find it interesting. Personally, I think feats are effects, for the purposes of the specific rules we are discussing.