Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[Artoomis]

Okay, no argument then, but only if my 1st level half-orc monk can take the PHBII starting package and have Improved Grapple, Improved Natural Attack and Weapon Focus (unarmed strike) as his/her starting feats, as published. Oh, and if we are including the FAQ rulings, I'll put some ranks in Bluff skill and be able to feint as a move action.

You might have some issues with when you get INA as a monk, but not whether. Correct? (When assuming a valid FAQ, etc.)

You might have other issues not related to INA, but that's outside the scope of my summary.

 

[Artoomis]

I disagree with Dannyalcatraz that "unarmed strikes are a chimaera":...

Well, I don't know about a "chimaera," but certainly it could have been much, much better done.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

An unarmed strike is not a natural weapon - a person does not threaten with an unarmed strike and it deals non-lethal damage, unless the appropriate feat is taken.

A 'natural weapon' is a subset of 'armed unarmed attack', which is a subset of 'unarmed attacks', and, eventually, of 'melee attacks'. I don't see how INA is applied to an unarmed strike - it applies to a natural attack.

True as to the "threatening" part, but by the definition of Natural Weapon, an Unarmed Strike can ONLY be performed with a Natural Weapon.

Natural Weapon: A creature's body part that deals damage in combat.

Strike, Unarmed: A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike, which may be a punch, kick, head butt, or other type of attack.

A "punch" is a strike with a fist- a natural weapon. If it is done with a gauntlet or other mechanical enhancement, its a gauntlet strike, and thus armed. Enhancing your "kick" with equipment is probably using something like an armor spike, and is thus armed. Etc.

And as pointed out before, a "fist" is a Natural Weapon- not just by the PHB definition, but also in the text of certain PHB spells (as well as other, non-core sources).

The mechanics are at odds with the overlapping definitions.

That unarmed strikes do non-lethal damage and Natural Weapons do lethal damage is not dispositive of the issue either. There are manufactured weapons that do non-lethal damage only and they don't get tossed into their own special category- they're all manufactured weapons.

 

[KarinsDad]

First, I disagree with the second clause of your second sentence under 5b.

5b only has one sentence.

 

[Hypersmurf]

5b only has one sentence. You really shouldn't inhale and type at the same time.

KarinsDad, steer clear of getting personal...

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[KarinsDad]

"Effect" is not a game term - it is undefined for D&D 3.5. Further, WotC is very sloppy with the term "effect" in the core rules In at least one instance (Keen Edge spell, "effect" is used to refer to both a spell and a feat. There is no indication within the Monk description on how to read the word "effect.

It could, with equal validity, mean both the "effect" and whatever caused that effect (a feat, for INA) or it could mean some undefined game term, "effect." The latter seems unlikely but even if one assumes the latter, one must still conceded that the meaning in unclear at best.

This argument has not be refuted.

This refute points (2), (3) and (4).

How is this different from 4B? Because you put the word cause in your paragraph? How exactly are cause and effect the same thing?

Before this argument refutes anything, you had better explain how in English, cause and effect are the same. And, you had better explain how an unclear term (by your own admission here) defaults to one interpretation over the other.

You also missed:

The MM feats argument is based upon what anounts to flavor text and has no merit. The only actual rule is that anyone may take a [General] feat if one meets the prerequisites.

One could say that DM permission is needed to use the MM feats, but, of course, that also applies to players using ANY source other than the PHB for ANY reason, but that has no bearing whatsoever on whether monks qualify to take INA, only on whetehr a DM allows it.

That refutes point (5).

And how did you come to the conclusion that this was flavor text? Because it is the first sentence in Chapter 6 of the Monster Manual?

If the word "typically" were to be dropped from that sentence and the sentence were then much stronger with regard to "only", would it still be flavor text?

Point (1) does not matter as the refutations of point (2), (3) and (4) render point (1) irrelevant.

Actually, the point of the list was to show both points of view. As far as I know, neither side has actually refuted much of anything from the other side, regardless of claims to the contrary.

 

[Artoomis]

... I already showed that, using the example of "Keen Edge" where WotC mushes "effect " together with the thing that generates the effect. My point is that WotC is sloppy with the English leaving us no basis on which to use "effect" in a neat, clean way...

I still have not seen anything approaching a counter to this argument. Any takers?

 

[Deset Gled]

That about sums it up, I think.

Honestly, I think that summary is about as biased to your side of the arguement as possible. Since this is the second time you posted it, I am going to assume that you are not interested/willing to change it. Just please do not assume that it is in any way an accurate representation of my (and, as this poll and other threads lead me to believe, a significant percentage of others) opinions on the matter.

 

[Artoomis]

Honestly, I think that summary is about as biased to your side of the arguement as possible. Since this is the second time you posted it, I am going to assume that you are not interested/willing to change it. Just please do not assume that it is in any way an accurate representation of my (and, as this poll and other threads lead me to believe, a significant percentage of others) opinions on the matter.

Feel free to edit it to make it more neutral. I did change it a couple times already with that goal in mind.

I'd really not mind it if you did. It would be nice to have a decent short summary for new folks to get a general idea of the issues without all the details.

I don't really see that much bias. I suppose some is unavoidable, though.

 

[KarinsDad]

Actually then it would be a disaster as you'd have a ine of text in direct contradiction to the rules. These are "General" feats with no "Monster" restriction in them. If the text stated these were ONLY for monsters that would be a rule contradiction.

Disaster?

You are overreacting here.


There are a lot of General Feats that the vast majority of PCs cannot take.

If Monster Feats do not allow most PCs to take them, they would still allow Monster PCs to take them.