Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[Cedric]

Comparing it to Weapon Specialization to determine if it's balanced doesn't really work.

Based Dmg on a Dagger (Size Medium) is 1d4. If I take Weapon Specialization with that, I'm adding +50% of the weapon's base damage.

If I take Weapon Specialization for Greataxe (Size Medium), the base damage is 1d12, so I'm adding +16.7% of the weapon's base damage.

My only point with this is that saying INA adds +2.5 dmg, which makes it overpowered because Weapon Specialization only adds +2 dmg...is an invalid comparison. I can see the logic, it seems like you're comparing equitable items, but you're really not.

 

[KuKu]

I don't know how to reasonably reply to this. Let me rephrase your comment such that you understand what I infer: All of the feats in the book are underpowered so therefore it's okay to make INA this powerful.

Once again, this is just an example of bad design. Fix the problem, don't hack a solution. If INA works for you, then by all means go for it, but there will likely be much better ways to deal with the problems you perceive.

If you feel that all of the feats in the book are underpowered then why are you here talking about it? If you feel that it is bad design and the only proof you have is that you feel a couple of damage is too much then I would assume that you feel most of the characters in the book are badly designed. Karisndad went through one type of rebutal of your claim and it is a good one, in a way weapon focus is a better feat than weapon specialization as well and I dont think many people are calling weapon focus overpowered. It takes four levels in a somewhat substandard class to get a fairly substandard feat so the comparison with improved natural attack starts off on shakey ground to begin with. Especially once we add on how hard it is to get weapon enhancements for the monks attacks. From what I can tell the solution to being able to get rid of it would be changing the cost of enhancements for the monks attacks and cutting down a little on their multiple attribute dependency somehow, but working with just the system as is improved natural attack seems fine balance wise when compared with the rest of the system.

 

[Infiniti2000]

If you feel that all of the feats in the book are underpowered then why are you here talking about it?

I don't. Apparently you do if you find my assumption that most if not all the other feats are balanced. You said that you find my assumptions wrong, do you not? If this isn't true, then what assumption did I make that you find wrong? Please be clear about it.

If you feel that it is bad design and the only proof you have is that you feel a couple of damage is too much then I would assume that you feel most of the characters in the book are badly designed.

You assume too much and with a great misunderstanding. Let me restate my point on this to avoid further misunderstanding: For someone who feels that the monk class (without INA) is weak, then allowing INA for monks purely to offset this weakness is bad design. Note that my comment here is in direct response to the idea that one should allow INA because monks are weak (stated by someone else, so this is not an assumption but their opinion).

Karisndad went through one type of rebutal of your claim and it is a good one, in a way weapon focus is a better feat than weapon specialization as well and I dont think many people are calling weapon focus overpowered.

No, it's a bad one. It requires the comparison of one feat with one class vs. another feat with another class. The reason for this whole comparison is that the other class is weak. So, how can it be reasonable to compare it to a strong class? The proper comparison, as I've mentioned before, would be to all a form of Improved Manufactured Weapon for fighters. Is that broken? Is there ANY fighter who wouldn't take it?

 

[Artoomis]

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=3084848&postcount=230

Your example of Keen Edge in no way sways my position on this. A spell itself could be considered an effect of a casting. There is no reasonable definition of "effect" that makes it the same as a "cause" (or, more importantly "prerequisite"), unless you're going to be reading the words so loosly that you could just as easily prove black is white. And that is an interpretation I will not agree with.....

Okay, then...

So I understand that you will not consider "effects" to be used more broadly, but you cannot show me, from the rules themselves, how "effects" was meant to be used in some narrow, technical sense. Can you?

Let me start with this - do you agree that WotC was very sloppy in the way they used "effects" in the core rules?

From the core rule themselves only, there is no defintion of the term "effects." It's not in the glossary. Our only guidance for how WotC meant to use the term is by looking through the core rules to see how it is used. Are we agreed with that much, at least?

Regrettably, WotC was not consistent in the use of the term "effects" in the rules. In at least one case they referred to a feat in the context of being an "effect."

Now of course I know a feat is not an "effect" - feats have "effects." However, that does not mean that WotC does not misuse the term "effect" to include both a feat's effects and the feat itself.

Given that, how can we be 100% certain that the use of "effects" in the monk class description is meant to exclude feats?

I am absoutley NOT trying to convince you that "effects" MUST be read broadly. I wouldn't dream of such a thing.

I am trying to say that "effects" is used so poorly in the rules that we could use it just about any way we want in the Monk class description and be justified by the core rules.

On other words, it's use is ambiguous and in need of further clarification than is aviodable with the core rule set alone.

I fail to see how, in the light of this material, you could be 100% certain that monks may not take INA per the core rules? How can you be 100% certain that reading effcts narrowly is correct? How can you be 100% certain that WotC did not use it broadly here, just as they did in the "Keen Edge" spell?

 

[Artoomis]

Just to be clear

It may seem like I'm vacillating on some issues in this discussion, so here are some of my positions on key points:

1. Monks may take INA per core primarily because the word "effects" was meant to be taken broadly. This seems pretty clear to me.

2. There is sufficient doubt, confusion and disagreement around point number 1 that a clarifying statement from WotC (a FAQ entry) was entirely appropriate. I continue to be amazed and astounded that there is not general agreement on this.

3. MM feats are generally available to PCs - the argument over this is an archetypical red herring. Not even worthy of discussion (I hope this absolute language does not put anyone off - it's just my opinion).

4. I do not really know if allowing it is a game balance issue. I have been swayed both ways from time to time and I take no firm stance on this one. I keep vacillating on whether or not there is a serious game balance issue here.

 

[KarinsDad]

You need to compare apples with apples. I'm saying that the feat itself, by itself, is overpowered. Don't apply it to a purportedly weak class and compare that as applied to a strong class.

I am comparing two combatant feats. That is apples and apples. Just like when you talked about Weapon Specialization in your post.

If INA is allowed for Unarmed Strikes, only Monks (out of core classes) can get it. Hence, it has to be compared with Monks. Since it is a combat related feat, comparing it to another combat related feat (like Power Attack) is reasonable.

Balance discussions need to address the game system as whole, not some artificial "you cannot compare a weak class with a strong class". The entire point of the balance discussion in this case is that only the weak class can get this feat (if at all) and that weak class can do less damage with this feat than other combatant classes will do with Power Attack, then it is not unbalancing.

This analysis is completely irrelevant from my comment.

Nonsense.

Power Attack can be used with any melee attack and any melee weapon. INA cannot.

Power Attack can be used by any class. INA (assuming it can be used with Unarmed Strike as per the balance comparison) can only be used by Monks.

Power Attack can be adjusted to do varying amounts of extra damage. INA cannot.

Power Attack can be taken at first level by some classes and third level for a Monk. INA cannot be taken until sixth level for a Monk.

Power Attack can do a lot more damage such as "near sure hit" situations (e.g. opponent helpless). INA cannot.

INA does not take a minus to the "to hit" rolls. Power Attack does.

There are a lot more Pros on the Power Attack side than on the INA side.


This is a case of you being unable to accept the fact that balance wise, INA is comparable to another feat called Power Attack. Once I illustrated that, the balance part of the damage part of the discussion is what is irrelevant. You did not post significant counter reasoning that INA is more powerful or has more utility than Power Attack, you just were unable to accept that the analysis illustrates your balance point irrelevant.


You want a different more "apples to apples" comparison. Fine.

Monk with INA versus Monk with Magical Weapon. Does the addition of the feat greatly increase the amount of damage the Monk can do over what the Monk can ALREADY do using core rules?

Monk with INA cannot use it for a Magical Monk Weapon. Hence, he loses the damage for Holy or Bane and special abilities such as Vorpal or Wounding at 20th level in order to gain +7 points of damage with an Unarmed Strike. This does not sound especially unbalanced.

Plus, in order to have the same to hit as with a magical weapon, a Monk needs to have an Amulet of Mighty Fists (unless he has a Druid friend). How does damage work out at these various levels of INA plus Amulet versus Magical Weapon assuming 25% of wealth by level for this (and remember, the Magical Weapon side does not require a feat, hence, it SHOULD average less damage):

6 2D6 (cannot yet afford amulet) vs D6 +1 (+1 kama), 2.5 damage less, but +1 to hit
8 2D8 + 1 (+1 amulet) vs D6 +1 (+1 kama cannot yet afford better), 4.5 damage less
12 3D6 + 1 (+1 amulet cannot yet afford +2) vs D6 + 1 + 2D6 (+1 Holy kama), same
16 3D8 + 3 (+3 amulet) vs D6 + 3 + 2D6 (+3 Holy kama), 3 damage less
20 4D8 + 5 (+5 amulet) vs D6 + 5 + 2D6 + ~10 (+5 Holy Wounding kama), 1.5 damage more

Granted, Holy and Wounding do not work against all opponents, but they work against the vast majority of them. And even when they do not work, the Monk could always fall back on his normal Unarmed Strike attacks to do more damage. You'll also note that the Amulet cost more than the Kama at every level except level 8.

All in all, this is not a real lot more damage like Frank and you indicated. We are talking about a range of -1.5 to +4.5 (level and items depending) damage with regard to what the Monk can already typically do WITHOUT taking the INA feat.

This is not as unbalanced as you claim. In fact, it is white noise for the most part compared to what the Monk can already do with a magical weapon and without a feat. And, it is definitely white noise compared to what other combatant classes can do.

The damage balance part of this discussion is mostly a red herring and irrelevant.

 

[KuKu]

I don't. Apparently you do if you find my assumption that most if not all the other feats are balanced. You said that you find my assumptions wrong, do you not? If this isn't true, then what assumption did I make that you find wrong? Please be clear about it.

You assume too much and with a great misunderstanding. Let me restate my point on this to avoid further misunderstanding: For someone who feels that the monk class (without INA) is weak, then allowing INA for monks purely to offset this weakness is bad design. Note that my comment here is in direct response to the idea that one should allow INA because monks are weak (stated by someone else, so this is not an assumption but their opinion).

No, it's a bad one. It requires the comparison of one feat with one class vs. another feat with another class. The reason for this whole comparison is that the other class is weak. So, how can it be reasonable to compare it to a strong class? The proper comparison, as I've mentioned before, would be to all a form of Improved Manufactured Weapon for fighters. Is that broken? Is there ANY fighter who wouldn't take it?

If you were confused on my point why did you not just explain where you were getting lost and ask for further explination? Why did you have to be rude about it? As for people believing that monks need it because they are weak your post that I was quoting has a quote which does not say what you are saying in the quote I am giving here nor does your other post lead one to believe that. If you had actually meant it in the way you are trying to say now then you will need a better quote to reference from and reword your post in a very different manner. As it stands it does not say what you are apparently trying to make it say. It does not matter if the class itself is weak or not, it matters if the choice is too powerful or not. Your points do not show one way or the other, they only show that different choices for different classes have different results. The fact that they are different is not helpful. Knowing about the damages might be helpful but you discount any other damage comparisons made so far and only allow in one choice which is for a weapon that is by default easier to improve than the monks unarmed strikes and so there are problems in the comparison, too many variables and a questionable set of conditions to get a result that proves nothing either way. If you like you could also look at things like oversized weapon fighting, two weapon fighting, size increasing effects, polymorph, exotic weapon proficiency, and everything else that could potentially increase damage for certain character builds. Some people will feel are more relevant than others of course.

 

[Artoomis]

...Why did you have to be rude about it?...

In the interests of keeping this thread open may I ask:

If you spot any apparently rude behavior (by anyone, including me) either:

1. Ignore it and move on.

or

2. Report it using the exclamation with the triangle at the lower left of the post (the "report this post" link), but do not mention it in the thread and move on.

It's too easy to get personal and the board rules do not allow it. Moderators shut down whole discussions over just a couple of comments sometimes.

Thanks, everyone.

 

[Deset Gled]

So I understand that you will not consider "effects" to be used more broadly, but you cannot show me, from the rules themselves, how "effects" was meant to be used in some narrow, technical sense. Can you??

I hardly think that claiming "effects" are not the same thing as "causes" (or "prerequisites") is a narrow, technical definition. And of that very broad definition of "effects", I am 100% certain.

I fail to see how, in the light of this material, you could be 100% certain that monks may not take INA per the core rules?

I find it odd that you will argue to the end of the earth with people that are 100% certain that the RAW state that monks cannot take INA, but have not argued (or argued very little, so much so I cannot remember a case of it) against anyone who claimed that they are 100% certain that monks can take INA per the RAW. If your point is really to say that the clarification was necessary, shouldn't you also be argueing against the 50% of people with that standpoint as well?

 

[Artoomis]

...If your point is really to say that the clarification was necessary, shouldn't you also be argueing against the 75% of people with that standpoint as well?

Yep. I have done so, and my argument applies equally to both sides. Have I not said that "effects" is poorly defined and therefore we cannot be CERTAIN of its meaning in the monk class description. That means we cannot be 100% certain EITHER WAY.

BTW: It's roughly 50% "100% certain" that's it's allowed and 25% "100% certain" it is not allowed. The other roughly 25% already acknowledge there is at least some[b/] level of uncertainty to both sides of the argument.