Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[Artoomis]

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.

Well, disaster from the point of view of having contradictory rules, not world-altering events.

If it is a General Feat, then ANY PC may take it if they meet the prerequisites. That's the definition of a general feat.

Being a "monster" is NOT a prerequisite for the feats in the MM.

 

[Deset Gled]

Feel free to edit it to make it more neutral.

Well, here's a revised version of the summary I came up with before. I believe this covers all standpoints people have stated in the past couple of threads (in no particular order). Points can be mixed and matched freely:

1. Monks can take INA. Their unarmed strike counts as a natural weapons for spells and effects, and feats are effects.

2. Monks cannot take INA. Their unarmed strike counts as a natural weapons for spells and effects, and feats are not effects. (Many secondary sources are incorrect per the Primary Source rule.)

3. Monks cannot take INA. Their unarmed strike counts as a natural weapons for spells and effects. Feats are effects, but their prerequisites are not. (Many secondary sources are incorrect per the Primary Source rule.)

4. Monks can take INA. The primary source is ambiguous, and other sources clarify that they can.

5. Monks can take INA. The monk is underpowered, and this feat helps balance them.

6. Monks cannot take INA. INA is too powerful of a feat.

7. Monks cannot take INA. INA was intended for monsters only. (Many secondary sources were written by authors that did not follow the original intent.)

8. Monks can take INA. INA was intended to improve attacks without weapons.

9. Monks can take INA. INA was originally intended only for monsters, but WotC has changed their minds and ruled that it is OK for monks.

10. Monks can take INA. Unarmed strikes are actually natural weapons.

11. Monks can take INA. However, INA does not stack with the increased damage from the monk class, so it becomes worthless after a few levels.

Personally, I stand by #3, but also agree with #5 and #6. I really cannot see any basis for points 10 and 11, but include them here for the sake of completeness.

 

[Mistwell]

I never agreed to any such thing. I do think that WotC later on made the decision to allow INA for Monks in non-core. That doesn't change how it is written for core.

And anyone who opines that WotC made the core rules up in order to keep them strictly core is creating a straw man.

Additionally, I noticed you cut off the rest of my post which did discuss core. Hmmm. That too is straw man debating.

I think you don't know what a strawman is, if that is your conclusion. Not discussing a second point you made (which was not directly related to the first) isn't a strawman. I made a response to one of your points. You've made a dozen points in this thread, and I responded to one of them, and it was fully in context, and did not mischaracterize your position.

Nor did I ever claim that WOTC "made the core rules up in order to keep them strictly core". In fact, that sentence of yours had no meaning as written. I assume you meant something else, but I have no idea what it might be.

We were discussing core. You brought up a portion of the SRD which is not core. SRD /= core. If we are discussing non-core items, then your non-core SRD quote is no more or less valid than someone else's non-core non-SRD quote. SRD is a designation made based on a legal decision of WOTC's regarding what they want to allow in 3rd party products. It's not something that relates directly to what they deem is core. In fact, not all the core is even in the SRD, intentionally.

 

[KarinsDad]

Well, disaster from the point of view of having contradictory rules, not world-altering events.

If it is a General Feat, then ANY PC may take it if they meet the prerequisites. That's the definition of a general feat.

Being a "monster" is NOT a prerequisite for the feats in the MM.

Are you sure this is true for all of the feats in the MM?

Let's take the first feat in the Monster Manual.

Ability Focus:
Prerequisite: Special Attack

Not a single core PHB race has a Special Attack with a DC. A player has to have a Monster PC in order to take this feat.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think you don't know what a strawman is, if that is your conclusion. Not discussing a second point you made (which was not directly related to the first) isn't a strawman.

Taking a list of points and countering one of them is fine.

Using that to infer the other debater is purposely not following an earlier agreement (which was never actually made) and creating a moving target is a strawman. Knocking down one point does not mean that any others are invalid or that the debater is creating a moving target. It means that one point is inapplicable. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Showing that one point is not part of core is fine. But, using that to infer ulterior motive is not fine.

We were discussing core. You brought up a portion of the SRD which is not core. SRD /= core. If we are discussing non-core items, then your non-core SRD quote is no more or less valid than someone else's non-core non-SRD quote. SRD is a designation made based on a legal decision of WOTC's regarding what they want to allow in 3rd party products. It's not something that relates directly to what they deem is core. In fact, not all the core is even in the SRD, intentionally.

I was showing a trend of dismisal. He did not limit his question to core when he asked the question which he assumed had no examples in the game, so I gave a non-core answer. He then limited it to core since the non-core example existed. Hyp then gave him two core examples. He then complained that it was only two examples.

That's a trend of dismisal.

 

[FireLance]

Are you sure this is true for all of the feats in the MM?

Let's take the first feat in the Monster Manual.

Ability Focus:
Prerequisite: Special Attack

Not a single core PHB race has a Special Attack with a DC. A player has to have a Monster PC in order to take this feat.

Unfortunately, "special attack" is poorly defined. The SRD entry on the Statistics Block (in Monsters, Intro) states:

Special Attacks and Special Qualities
Many creatures have unusual abilities. A monster entry breaks these abilities into special attacks and special qualities. The latter category includes defenses, vulnerabilities, and other special abilities that are not modes of attack. A special ability is either extraordinary (Ex), spell-like (Sp), or supernatural (Su). Additional information (when needed) is provided in the creature's descriptive text.
When a special ability allows a saving throw, the kind of save and the save DC is noted in the descriptive text. Most saving throws against special abilities have DCs calculated as follows: 10 + 1/2 the attacker's racial Hit Dice + the relevant ability modifier.
The save DC is given in the creature’s description along with the ability on which the DC is based.

Based on this, a "special attack" is a special ability that is a mode of attack (if it is not a mode of attack, it is a "special quality"). While special attacks can arise from racial abilities, the SRD also makes clear that class abilities also qualify as "special attacks". The aboleth mage lists "spells" (from wizard levels) as a special attack, the hound archon hero lists "smite evil" (from paladin levels) as a special attack, and the celestial charger (unicorn) lists "turn undead" (from cleric levels) as a special attack. Extrapolating from this, a monk's quivering palm class ability is also a "special attack", and a 15th-level monk could take Ability Focus (quivering palm).

Right?

Incidentally, whether or not the special attack has a DC is irrelevant. A creature could take Ability Focus (smite evil), even though it would be about as useful as Weapon Specialization (net).

 

[Legildur]

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

Incorrect. I don't see how you can so easily separate the two issues.

From my point of view, if you are willing to quote the PHBII as a source of validation or rules for your side of the argument that monks can take the INA feat, then I contend that a monk can take the INA feat (and weapon focus) at 1st level. If you disregard one portion, why is it that you can't disregard the whole?

What I'm stating (again) is that the starting package in the PHBII is severely flawed and cannot be relied upon as an authoritive source of rules by anyone and remain credible (at least in my eyes).

 

[KarinsDad]

Unfortunately, "special attack" is poorly defined. The SRD entry on the Statistics Block (in Monsters, Intro) states:
Based on this, a "special attack" is a special ability that is a mode of attack (if it is not a mode of attack, it is a "special quality"). While special attacks can arise from racial abilities, the SRD also makes clear that class abilities also qualify as "special attacks". The aboleth mage lists "spells" (from wizard levels) as a special attack, the hound archon hero lists "smite evil" (from paladin levels) as a special attack, and the celestial charger (unicorn) lists "turn undead" (from cleric levels) as a special attack. Extrapolating from this, a monk's quivering palm class ability is also a "special attack", and a 15th-level monk could take Ability Focus (quivering palm).

Right?

Extrapolating from what?

The SRD quote you gave does not discuss class abilities at all. Hence, how can you extrapolate class abilities from text that discusses racial abilities?

Nor will you find a legitimate for this feat "special attack" for any of the core PCs. You will find that they put "racial traits" under "special attacks" (e.g. for a Dwarf), but they also put those under special qualities. That was just to be thorough though. For example, the Dwarve's +1 to attack Orcs is considered a special attack. But, it does not have a DC.

Incidentally, whether or not the special attack has a DC is irrelevant. A creature could take Ability Focus (smite evil), even though it would be about as useful as Weapon Specialization (net).

Actually, none of the core races get Smite Evil as a racial ability, so no, they cannot take it for that.

And the fact that a Dwarf could literally take it for +1 Attacks against Orcs (regardless of the fact that it would not in fact give an actual benefit) is merely because the author was lazy when he stated the prerequisite.

Then again, Dwarves are monsters.

 

[Artoomis]

Incorrect. I don't see how you can so easily separate the two issues.

From my point of view, if you are willing to quote the PHBII as a source of validation or rules for your side of the argument that monks can take the INA feat, then I contend that a monk can take the INA feat (and weapon focus) at 1st level. If you disregard one portion, why is it that you can't disregard the whole?

What I'm stating (again) is that the starting package in the PHBII is severely flawed and cannot be relied upon as an authoritive source of rules by anyone and remain credible (at least in my eyes).

Ah, but I was saying that IF YOU ACCEPT THESE SOURCES AS VALID, then a monk can take INA.

Even if you toss out PHB II, there is stil the FAQ which is very clear.

 

[Artoomis]

Are you sure this is true for all of the feats in the MM?

Let's take the first feat in the Monster Manual.

Ability Focus:
Prerequisite: Special Attack

Not a single core PHB race has a Special Attack with a DC. A player has to have a Monster PC in order to take this feat.

Yes, I am quite sure, if a PC meets the prerequisites, they qualify. Without getting into whether or not any PC has a "Special Attack," the requirement is a "Special Attack" NOT being a monster. It matters not whether only monsters have "Special Attackks" or not.