Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[Artoomis]

For reference:

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

A straw man "argument" is a bogus, distorted or deliberately flawed interpretation of an otherwise valid position that has been altered so it can be more easily attacked, delegitimized and disassembled (hence the straw man metaphor) before the eyes and ears of an otherwise impartial audience unfamiliar with the facts and history of an issue or case.

 

[Legildur]

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 still the FAQ which is very clear.

I see where you are coming from, but I find it hard to accept that the PHBII is valid on this point because of the very closely associated glaring errors.

And in my view, the FAQ is no more than helpful guidelines written by different people over time. It has, however, on many occasions been in direct conflict with the core rules (as an example, being able to feint as a move action instead of a standard action is still there after all these months on the bottom of page 12). This undermines its credibility as valid source.

 

[Artoomis]

I see where you are coming from, but I find it hard to accept that the PHBII is valid on this point because of the very closely associated glaring errors.

And in my view, the FAQ is no more than helpful guidelines written by different people over time. It has, however, on many occasions been in direct conflict with the core rules (as an example, being able to feint as a move action instead of a standard action is still there after all these months on the bottom of page 12). This undermines its credibility as valid source.

Then my point about conclusions IF YOU FIND ACCEPT THESE SOUCRES AS VALID does not apply to you. Fair enough.

 

[Artoomis]

From a previous post:

"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 countered.

Any takers?

 

[Kem]

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?

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/archon.htm#houndArchon

Look at the Hero. Read His Special Attacks. Then read the rest of his post he provides 3 examples of monsters with class abilities granted by class levels being listed under special attacks.

 

[Artoomis]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/archon.htm#houndArchon

Look at the Hero. Read His Special Attacks. Then read the rest of his post he provides 3 examples of monsters with class abilities granted by class levels being listed under special attacks.

While I agree with you, I do not think it pertinent to this debate. Whether or not any PC actually qualifies as having a "Special Attack" has no bearing on whether PCs qualify for MM feats if they meet the prerequisites.

 

[SteveC]

3. Game balance. Two views here. Whether one prohibits this on game balance grounds depends on things like whether one thinks it too strong to allow monks to boost up their attacks like this at the cost of only one feat. Note that a "splat book" feat (Superior Unarmed Strike from Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords ) has a very similar effect for a monk and if one allows that feat, and, assuming no stacking of the two feats, then this becomes moot since one would simply take that feat instead of INA. So far I have not heard anyone think that these two feats should stack together to advance the monk TWO categories for damage.

I just wanted to address this point here, since I'm generally in the camp that says INA is approved for a monk. INA works a little differently than the other feats you mention. Superior Unarmed Strike (and the monk's belt) add levels to the monk's character level for damage purposes. That isn't nearly as useful in the long run because a monk's unarmed damage tops out at level 20.

So if we take a 6th level monk with a monk's belt and Superior Unarmed Strike, he does 3D6 damage with an unarmed strike. Base damage is 2d6 since he is striking as a 14th level monk. INA improves that to 3d6. 3d6 damage for a level six character isn't out of line in my book, especially since he's spent 2 feats and a magic item in the belt slot on it.

--Steve

 

[Artoomis]

I just wanted to address this point here, since I'm generally in the camp that says INA is approved for a monk. INA works a little differently than the other feats you mention. Superior Unarmed Strike (and the monk's belt) add levels to the monk's character level for damage purposes. That isn't nearly as useful in the long run because a monk's unarmed damage tops out at level 20.

So if we take a 6th level monk with a monk's belt and Superior Unarmed Strike, he does 3D6 damage with an unarmed strike. Base damage is 2d6 since he is striking as a 14th level monk. INA improves that to 3d6. 3d6 damage for a level six character isn't out of line in my book, especially since he's spent 2 feats and a magic item in the belt slot on it.

--Steve

Okay, I'll guess I'll edit it since I now HAVE heard of someone who thinks it is okay to stack those two feats together.

 

[Artoomis]

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:...

My summary serves a different purpose. It is designed to take the three basic view points (Core RAW, Core RAW plus FAQ (at. al) and Game Balance) and provide, as briefly as possible, the general basis for coming to one opinion or the other. After reading my summary you should be able to better understand the arguments on both sides.

That's the intent.

 

[SteveC]

Okay, I'll guess I'll edit it since I now HAVE heard of someone who thinks it is okay to stack those two feats together.

No problem...I'm just wondering: do you think it would be overpowering to do so? I can see how the monk's belt and the Tome of Battle feat might not stack since they basically do the same thing, but even with that, I just don't see the 3d6 damage as being a big deal. Heck even if you throw in enlarge, that's only up to 4d6...

I haven't really seen a power monk build that's on the level with any of the other extreme builds out there. Monk power build ?

--Steve