Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[Artoomis]

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....

So you are 100% certain that "effects" can ONLY mean the "effects" of the feat and not the feat itself (or its prerequisite)?

That what about the "Keen Edge" spell? If, as I assume is your position, the spell description is in error, then how can we possibly be 100% certain they are not committing the same error in the monk's class description and they really mean the feat as well as its effect?

I had more, but I'll stop there. Can you answer that question?

 

[Infiniti2000]

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.

It's only reasonable if you do not require additional parameters to affect the outcome. That is, by definition, a straw man. In comparing INA to PA, you can reference a parameters of a different class as 'proof' that PA is stronger. You're confounding variables in an effort to support your desired outcome.

Let me come up with another straw man before you do: empower spell. Sure, this feat can create +5d6 damage, which is much more than INA does for a monk. Is it comparable though? It's as comparable as your analogy with a fighter + PA. I'd like you to respond to my choice for a comparison, though (re: fighter with IMW).

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.

Not true at all. You are not going with the initial premise that "INA is needed to help balance the already-known-underpowered monk class." If this premise doesn't work for you, then you have the same problem I do.

 

[BryonD]

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.

An increase in speed and the ability to take Improved Natural Attack are two of the effects of taking levels in the monk class.

 

[BryonD]

If this premise doesn't work for you, then you have the same problem I do.

I agree that trying to justify this arguement either way based on balance does not accomplish anything.
I agree that INA is on the high end of feats.
IMO, a monk taking INA does not throw the game out of whack.
Neither of these points have any bearing on the RAW ruling.
Both of these points support my personal assessment that I'd play with a DM who ruled either way for his own game.
YMMV on all of that.

 

[Infiniti2000]

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?

For both questions: right back atchya. I did not intend to be rude, however. I was as un-rude as I thought I could be.

...then you will need a better quote to reference from and reword your post in a very different manner...

My initial response on this topic quotes it properly. It's not my fault that's it was not continually referenced by others. There are many subplots to this thread, so I don't fault you for missing it. That's why I restated my point.

So, let me ask you a question that sums up this point. If you were in the "unsure" (or even "no") camp and trying to decide whether to allow INA, would you think it a good idea to allow INA for monks solely on the basis that monks are a weak class? Note that you'll first have to agree that monks are a weak class (without INA).

 

[Artoomis]

It's only reasonable ...

Actually the game balance argument is very complex if one wanted to be complete.

First one has to acknowledge that some feats are stronger than others, so a direct comparison for power is not a trivial excerise or even necessarily appropriate.

Second, one needs to do extensive anaylsis on the monk class vs. other classes to determine how it stacks up next to the other classes and the relative value of the monk using up one precious feat for INA.

Third - heck, I don't know. The list is very long and WAY more than I am willing to tackle.

Personally, I think the monk is a bit underpowered for melee combat, but that this is no accident - they have other strengths to make up for that.

Intuitively, I feel this feat does not make a monk overpowered compared to a fighter or paladin, and that's the real test, isn't it?

I don't know - just some thoughts.

 

[Cedric]

The whole concept is very simple for me...

I have no doubt that by the reading of the MM and PHB, Monk's are allowed to take INA. However, if I had any doubt, the "Official" 3.5 Edition FAQ, presented as Official, by the Publisher of the game, clarifies any existing ambiguity by making it very clear that Monks are able to take INA.

Beyond that, I am really unconcerned with semantics, balance or original intent.

 

[Artoomis]

The whole concept is very simple for me...

I have no doubt that by the reading of the MM and PHB, Monk's are allowed to take INA. However, if I had any doubt, the "Official" 3.5 Edition FAQ, presented as Official, by the Publisher of the game, clarifies any existing ambiguity by making it very clear that Monks are able to take INA.

Beyond that, I am really unconcerned with semantics, balance or original intent.

That's incredibly reasonable, but what fun is that?

With that kind of attitude this whole debate would be pointless.

In truth, that's the way I feel for my game, but the debate is fun and only really has value as intellectual exercise, but that's enough to keep me in it.

Maybe I'm just nuts.

 

[Cedric]

Maybe I'm just nuts.

9 pages later I'm still replying, so they can get me a padded room next to yours...

 

[Deset Gled]

That what about the "Keen Edge" spell? If, as I assume is your position, the spell description is in error, then how can we possibly be 100% certain they are not committing the same error in the monk's class description and they really mean the feat as well as its effect?

...

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.