Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[Cedric]

If your Bluff check result exceeds this special Sense Motive check result, your target is denied its Dexterity bonus to AC (if any) for the next melee attack you make against it. This attack must be made on or before your next turn.

From the text I bolded, it seems to me it was meant to be a move action. Or am I missing something?

I'm not above being dense, it happens, so I'm honestly asking for someone to lay it out for me so I can see what I'm missing. I just thought if you bluffed as a standard action, you couldn't also attack (because you can't normally take a standard action and attack in the same round since that's also a standard action). And, if you had to attack (as a result of your feint) on or before your next turn, how would you ever attack before your next turn?

I get how you could attack on your next turn, that's clear to me. But unless it was meant to be a move action how would you attack before your next turn?

I never had a problem with the FAQ clarifying that.

As to ambiguity...there is a big difference between the two statements:

1. I believe the rule is ambiguous.

2. I understand how someone could reasonably think the rule is ambiguous.

Those are NOT the same thing. Just because I have conviction for my reading of the rules, doesn't mean I think other people's opinion lack worth or was ill conceived.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

With around 200 responses, its a pretty good sample. If it gets another 800 or so, you could consider it representative.

 

[Hypersmurf]

From the text I bolded, it seems to me it was meant to be a move action. Or am I missing something?

Despite where it says "A Bluff check made to feint in combat is a standard action", or where the Improved Feint feat says "Normal: Feinting in combat is a standard action", or where Table 8-2 lists "Feint (see page 155)" under "Standard Action"?

I just thought if you bluffed as a standard action, you couldn't also attack (because you can't normally take a standard action and attack in the same round since that's also a standard action). And, if you had to attack (as a result of your feint) on or before your next turn, how would you ever attack before your next turn?

If the person you feinted provokes an AoO, you'd get an attack before your next turn. A Choker (with Quickness [Su]) could feint as a standard action and attack before his next turn. Various ways exist in splatbooks - Snake's Swiftness from Spell Compendium, for example.

Feint is definitely a standard action.

-Hyp.

 

[geosapient]

Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons.

A monk receives additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using unarmed strikes.

A creature’s primary attack damage includes its full Strength modifier (1-1/2 times its Strength bonus if the attack is with the creature’s sole natural weapon).

A monk doesn't add 1-1/2 times his Strength bonus to unarmed strikes.



You missed a bit.

A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons. Not for all purposes.

-Hyp.

I thought this was about monks and not creatures? I think it is clear that since a monk counts his fists, feet, head, etc. as both manufactured and natural weapons that they also be eligible for feats from both categories.

I believe that there is a definite line between monks, creatures and creatures with monk levels.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I thought this was about monks and not creatures?

You don't think monks are creatures?

When Disintegrate, for example, says "Any creature struck by the ray takes 2d6 damage per caster level..." does that not apply to monks?

I think it is clear that since a monk counts his fists, feet, head, etc. as both manufactured and natural weapons that they also be eligible for feats from both categories.

He doesn't count them as both manufactured and natural weapons. He counts them as both manufactured and natural weapons for purposes of spells and effects that improve or enhance manufactured or natural weapons. That's what a sizeable fraction of the last ten pages have been about.

-Hyp.

 

[geosapient]

could someone clarify why a monk would qualify for INA and not, say, every humanoid of whatever class?

Because the monk has seen the potential in using his/her own body as a weapon much like creatures do. They then trained their body to be that weapon (which is likely the reason that they -start- with improved unarmed strike).

If a fighter took improved unarmed strike then I would argue for them also being able to take improved natural attack.

 

[geosapient]

You don't think monks are creatures?

When Disintegrate, for example, says "Any creature struck by the ray takes 2d6 damage per caster level..." does that not apply to monks?



He doesn't count them as both manufactured and natural weapons. He counts them as both manufactured and natural weapons for purposes of spells and effects that improve or enhance manufactured or natural weapons. That's what a sizeable fraction of the last ten pages have been about.

-Hyp.

No. I don't consider monks to be creatures... I consider the race that has monk levels to be the creature. Human would be a creature, elf would be a creature, gnome would be a ...er something, halfling would be a creature.

Monk would be a class, fighter would be a class, wizard would be a class.

And before you start arguing then why humans as creatures don't count their appendages as natural attacks...
Humans are creatures that get more skill points and an extra feat. Elves are creatures that get mental resistances and bonuses to skills.

Monk is a class that just happens to treat unarmed attacks as natural and manufactured weapons for the purposes of effects (whatever that may or may not mean to you and everyone else).

And as far as sizeable fraction of the last ten pages is concerned I'm trying to get through them. If I don't post as I go I might forget what I want to say.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

He counts them as both manufactured and natural weapons for purposes of spells and effects that improve or enhance manufactured or natural weapons. That's what a sizeable fraction of the last ten pages have been about.

IOW- does the phrase in the monk section (or any other portions of the core) allow the monk's strikes qualify as both targets & prereqs for INA.

 

[geosapient]

No. That's just too good to allow, and logic can be applied to prevent that from happening though, strictly rules-speaking, probably yes.

Of course, even at that what really bad things would happen? The monk would use up two very valuable feats to get a two-step increase in damage, right? Hardly game-breaking. It might actually make them more-or-less effective in offensive combat. (ooohhh - scary stuff )

I'm confused by this post. Up to this point he was for improved unarmed attack. Is this serious? Is he being sarcastic? Is he just trying to make a failed attempt at pointing out ambiguity?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

He's still Pro-INA.

He is probably one of the people who believe that the monk is underpowered as a melee combatant, and that INA puts them more in line with other melee classes.