Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[BryonD]

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 inrepretation BryonD, but I find it interesting. Personally, I think feats are effects, for the purposes of the specific rules we are discussing.

Heh.
I think we're just looking at the same thing from a different angle.
I'm trying to balance the unofficial "strict D&D meaning" of "effect" with the contextually obvious meaning of the word in the unarmed strike section.
If you (reasonably) throw out the artificial constraint then my reasoning becomes unneeded.
That leaves you with the much more simple bottom line of: they just used the most simple plain english way to say what they meant. And I'll accept that.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Personally I think the burden of proof that "effect" is a game-specific term that specifically rules out feats is on that team's shoulders.

There's an unspoken (and doesn't need to be spoken) assumption at work that, unless defined elsewhere, all words within the document are used as-per Standard American English. To assume otherwise makes the game unplayable. You might as well decide that all forms of "to be" within the document need to be defined in game-specific terms. If you can take any word in any line and demand it be used externally from SAE, nobody gets to play the game. Nothing works. Every verb, every noun becomes instantly suspect.

The assumption always is that UNLESS SPECIFIED, any word is used with SAE intent. That "Effect" is not defined anywhere, including the FAQ or Errata ... that "Effect" is furthermore never defined to EXCLUDE feats or qualification for feats ... means that to argue it should be interpreted otherwise is a straw man, pure and simple.

Time and again WOTC has shown, in the FAQ in new products, that not only is the general intent of the monk unarmed strike rules meant to allow this ... they SPECIFICALLY wish to allow it.

Every ... single ... argument to the contrary has been a straw man attack concentrating on things beyond the point of the argument.

The position that the feat cannot be used thusly is, IMO, entirely untenable. But, I suspect, beyond various religious figures stepping forward and making pronouncements and signed affidavidts to the point, nobody is ever going to agree.

Personally, "I don't like it that way" is fine enough argument that anybody can not let it in their games. Seriously. If somebody brougth me a broken monk build that depended on stacking feats and such, I'm always comfortably within my rights disallowing any of it. I don't think shakey and fallacious arguments should be held up for it, though. Opinion is strong enough.

--fje

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

...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.

Welcome to the boards.. and thanks for the best reasoning I have seen on this subject yet

Let me make sure I am following tho..

If a monk has a Natural Attack to apply INA to, he cannot use iterative attacks when using the higher damage from INA.....


Just for the record, I voted that both sides have merit and personally allow INA to be used by Monks, and anyone else who takes Improved Unarmed Strike, even with iteratives

 

[Zimri]

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.

I tend to agree. Sure a monk CAN take INA. But INA and IUS shouldn't stack. If I recall correctly it is IUS that makes a monk 1) armed when using unarmed strikes/natural attacks, 2) Improves the natural attacks damage dice, and 3) Gives her iterative strikes. If INA and IUS don't stack, I fail to see a compelling reason to take INA.

 

[Thurbane]

Note to self: if I ever need a legal document scrutinized, don't hire a lawyer, just post it here on the boards. Seriously, the most ruthless corporate lawyers out there could learn a thing or two about interpreting "letter of the law" from some of the members here.

 

[Thurbane]

I really don't understand how this debate continues.

Player's Handbook. Page 141. Bottom right hand corner. "The description of a feat defines it's effect".

SRD: "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."

What's vague about that?

I'm amazed no one has responded to this post - it seems to settle the debate pretty much once and for all.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'm amazed no one has responded to this post - it seems to settle the debate pretty much once and for all.

How so?

I read p141 to show that a feat has an effect, which I've agreed with all along, and why I'd allow a monk who qualified for INA to apply that effect to his unarmed strike.

I just don't agree that most monks qualify for INA, which is the first step towards benefiting from the effect for which the monk's unarmed strike is considered a natural weapon.

-Hyp.

 

[Thurbane]

How so?

I read p141 to show that a feat has an effect, which I've agreed with all along, and why I'd allow a monk who qualified for INA to apply that effect to his unarmed strike.

I just don't agree that most monks qualify for INA, which is the first step towards benefiting from the effect for which the monk's unarmed strike is considered a natural weapon.

-Hyp.

Sorry, I thought the major sticking point in the debate was what consitutes an effect.

 

[Mistwell]

Note to self: if I ever need a legal document scrutinized, don't hire a lawyer, just post it here on the boards. Seriously, the most ruthless corporate lawyers out there could learn a thing or two about interpreting "letter of the law" from some of the members here.

Hey, I *AM* a ruthless corporate lawyer

 

[Mistwell]

Sorry, I thought the major sticking point in the debate was what consitutes an effect.

It is. HS is being a bit obtuse