Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Arstimis 03-02-04, 03:01 PM	First, i thank Mo for taking the time to get this set up. now on to the real stuff Question: Is the Monk able to take Improved Natural Attack with his Unarmed Strike? Reasons why Monks should be able to get Improved Natural Attack: 1) Fists are natural weapons All quotes will be from 3.5 SRD Magic Fang Transmutation Level: Drd 1, Rgr 1 Components: V, S, DF Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Target: Living creature touched Duration: 1 min./level Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless) Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless) Magic fang gives one natural weapon of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon. (The spell does not change an unarmed strike’s damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage.) Magic fang can be made permanent with a permanency spell. Ok, so this spell quite clearly says that a fist is a natural weapon, it even refers to an unarmed strike Magic Weapon Magic Weapon Transmutation Level: Clr 1, Pal 1, Sor/Wiz 1, War 1 Components: V, S, DF Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Target: Weapon touched Duration: 1 min./level Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless, object) Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless, object) Magic weapon gives a weapon a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. (An enhancement bonus does not stack with a masterwork weapon’s +1 bonus on attack rolls.) You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang). A monk’s unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell. Oh, wow, that just makes it more clear. This spell couldn't ordinarily be cast on an unarmed strike, because it is a natural weapon. 2) The Monk class description of Unarmed Strike with respect to feat Prereqs. Here is an excerpt from it, that will be referred to a few timesA 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. So, first lets establish this idea. If a Monk's unarmed strike is considered to be one of the kinds of weapons for some kind of thing, then it also must be considered the other type of weapon for an equal thing. I will explain Weapon Focus [General] Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for purposes of this feat. Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, base attack bonus +1. Benefit: You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon. Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon. A fighter may select Weapon Focus as one of his fighter bonus feats. He must have Weapon Focus with a weapon to gain the Weapon Specialization feat for that weapon. Weapon Specialization [General] Choose one type of weapon for which you have already selected the Weapon Focus feat. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple as your weapon for purposes of this feat. You deal extra damage when using this weapon. Prerequisites: Proficiency with selected weapon, Weapon Focus with selected weapon, fighter level 4th. Benefit: You gain a +2 bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon. Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon. Improved Critical [General] Choose one type of weapon. Prerequisite: Proficient with weapon, baseattack bonus +8. Benefit: When using the weapon you selected, your threat range is doubled. Special: You can gain Improved Critical multiple times. The effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon. This effect doesn’t stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon. A fighter may select Improved Critical as one of his fighter bonus feats. Improved Natural Attack [General] Prerequisite: Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4. Benefit: Choose one of the creature’s natural attack forms. The damage for this natural weapon increases by one step, as if the creature’s size had increased by one category: 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6. A weapon or attack that deals 1d10 points of damage increases as follows: 1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8 Explanation: Improved Critical requires a weapon in order to qualify for the prereqs. An unarmed strike regularly doesn't qualify (or else it would be specifically stated, as it is in the first two feats descriptions) . A Monks Unarmed Strike would have to be considered a weapon for the prereqs. of feats in order to take this feat Improved Natural Attack requires a natural weapon. An unarmed strike regularly doesn't qualify . A Monks Unarmed Strike would have to be considered a natural weapon for the prereqs. of feats in order to take this feat. Now, ""a Monk's unarmed strike is considered both a natural and manufactured weapon for purposes of effects that boost either manufactured or natural weapons."" So if a Monk can take Improved Critical, that means that their unarmed strike is considered some type of weapon for the purposes of qualifying for the feat. If it counts as some kind weapon to qualify for a feat prereq, it must also count as a natural weapon for a feat prereq. You cant limit the equality of a monks unarmed stike. It is equally both weapons, not one more so than the other. So if a monk can take Improved Critical (Unarmed Strike) then thier unarmed strike must be considered some kind of weapon when qualifying for feat prereqs. If considered some kind of weapon, it must also, equally, be conisered a natural weapon for feat prereqs. Look at the sample 15th level Monk on p.118 of the DMG - it has Improved Critical (unarmed strike). That is a clear example of how a Monk's unarmed strike is considered some type of weapon for feat prereqs., and then must also be considered a natural weapon for the same type of thing, ie Improved Natural Attack Some arguements that seem to be against a Monk's unarmed strike being considered a Natural Weapon. 1) A Monks unarmed strike doesnt match the definition of Natural Weapon in the Monster Manual Nope, it sure doesnt. One reason is that a Monk's unarmed strike isnt actually a Natural weapon, but it is only considered to be a natural weapon for certain things..like spells, and feat prereqs, as explained above. Second reason is that a monk takes none of the negative aspects for his unarmed strike being a natural weaponA 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. Negative effects are clearly not improvements to a Monks Unarmed Strike 2)The MM entry of humanoids doesn`t list "Fist" as weapon Fist isnt a natural weapon when dealing with the MM, but it is when dealing with the PHB, but the thing is, it doesnt matter. A Monks Unarmed Strike is what is considered as a weapon, not just any fist 3) Fists do not threaten naturally (so how can they be weapons??) See above 4)Monk's unarmed strike is considered a nat/man weapon for purpose of SPELLS AND EFFECTS. I agree, now give me the definition of effects from the MM, PHB, or DMG....there isnt one. So we have to find out what thing encompass effects. As it can clearly be seen from above, the feat prereq's from Improved Critical must be placed into the effects catagory. 5)The feat Improved Unarmed Strike doesnt give you natural weapons. I agree, but the monk's unarmed strike ability doesnt just come from the feat. So a monk's is different, and from the above, its not too hard to see why. 6) The Monster Manual is the primary source for Natural Weapons. The PHB and DMG are secondary sources, so the MM definition takes precedence That is quite correct, but show me the definition for Monk's Unarmed Strike in the MM. Or how about Considered to be Natural Weapons. The monks unarmed strike and its "considered to be natural weapons" is not in the MM Edit: To show how this feat is not nearly as overpowered as it sounds. The earliest a pure monk could take this feat would be 6th level, when a Medium monk's unarmed strike would do 1d8 damage, and a Small monk's unarmed strike would do 1d6 damage. If we use Table 3-11 to recalculate the damage based on the next larger size category, a Medium monk would now do 2d6 damage, and a small monk would do 1d8 damage. This is an inrease in average damage of 2.5 points for a Medium monk and 1.0 points for a Small monk. This is two levels after a Fighter could have taken Weapon Spec to get +2 damage. If you felt there was a need to make it more balanced.. The Monk must specify a natural attack to be so boosted. The natural attack to be boosted is really up to the monk in question: headbutts, fists, legs, elbows, knees, fingertips, etc, and when that chosen natural attack is denied (by manacles, having your hands full, standing in water, etc) the monk cannot enjoy the benefits of the feat. Well, since this has been started 6 of the Senior Mods have voted Tellish_of_Ket- NO Caterane- NO Moherajikuyx - NO Magagumo- NO Jindl- YES LLMadcow- YES MotherBast- YES A new question has been proposed by Cat, "Is Improved Natural Attack balanced if we were to allow it?"
Jindl 03-02-04, 03:07 PM	*** To be clear, this thread is not to debate the actual interpretation of the rules into eternity, rather this conversation should focus on what interpretation of this rather unclear rule will be used in the coliseum. *** As for the vote... yes, we are still waiting on Mag's and Snark's votes before opening up a poll. If the Elder Mods cannot decide by a 5-3 vote or better, then it will go to a poll. -Jindl
Magagumo 03-02-04, 03:13 PM	I gave my response, perhaps not to the right person. In short, I do not believe that monks are able to take this feat without having their own racial forms of natural attacks.
xeno_eleusis 03-02-04, 06:45 PM	Class feature of a Monk is that they increase their "Natural Attack" every 4th Monk levels (starting at level 4) I'm no Mod but if I was asked this question as a DM the answer would be "no" because the "Improved Natural Attack" feat does not follow the normal Monk progression. .Monk progression:....Monster progression: .1..1d6...(avg. 3.5)..1d6..(avg. 3.5) .4..1d8...(avg. 4.5)..1d8..(avg. 4.5) .8..1d10..(avg. 5.5)..2d6..(avg. 7.0) 12..2d6...(avg. 7.0)..3d6..(avg 10.5) 16..2d8...(avg. 9.0)..4d6..(avg 14.0) 20..2d10..(avg 11.0)..6d6..(avg 21.0) Example: 1st level Fighter/4th level Monk (req. BAB +4) he takes "Improved Natural Attack". From the chart his "Unarmed Fist" at 1d8 is now at 2d6. When he becomes an 8th level Monk, would you increase his "Unarmed Fist" to 2d8 (level 16 Monk) or 3d6 (next Monster progression). Either way you have just made your character "un-balanced" and an alternate rule would have to be applied to "balance" this out and that's not the definition of core. Alternate perspective: The other way to increase your attack die is the "Enlarge Person" spell. To use this spell, you get additional benifits but you also incure penalties to AC. To get some of the benifits of the "Enlarge Person" spell but not to incure any penalties is also "un-balanced". Just my opinion, and I'm very new to the boards.
Adyen 03-02-04, 06:58 PM	My question is, how would you progress with the monk's improved unarmed damage? It's basically the same point raised above, but with one difference. Would it be counted as one step higher than the 'base' damage a monk deals? (ie when 1d6 you deal 1d8; 1d8 you deal 2d6; etc.) But clearly there's no improvement for the '2d10' damage. Does that mean the feat becomes useless at that point and you only deal 2d10?
Arstimis 03-02-04, 07:04 PM	Originally posted by xeno_eleusis Class feature of a Monk is that they increase their "Natural Attack" every 4th Monk levels (starting at level 4) I'm no Mod but if I was asked this question as a DM the answer would be "no" because the "Improved Natural Attack" feat does not follow the normal Monk progression. .Monk progression:....Monster progression: .1..1d6...(avg. 3.5)..1d6..(avg. 3.5) .4..1d8...(avg. 4.5)..1d8..(avg. 4.5) .8..1d10..(avg. 5.5)..2d6..(avg. 7.0) 12..2d6...(avg. 7.0)..3d6..(avg 10.5) 16..2d8...(avg. 9.0)..4d6..(avg 14.0) 20..2d10..(avg 11.0)..6d6..(avg 21.0) Example: 1st level Fighter/4th level Monk (req. BAB +4) he takes "Improved Natural Attack". From the chart his "Unarmed Fist" at 1d8 is now at 2d6. When he becomes an 8th level Monk, would you increase his "Unarmed Fist" to 2d8 (level 16 Monk) or 3d6 (next Monster progression). Either way you have just made your character "un-balanced" and an alternate rule would have to be applied to "balance" this out and that's not the definition of core. Class feature of a Monk is that they increase their "Natural Attack" Technically no they dont, they increase thier Unarmed Attack damage, but close enough to the same thing Can you please explain the first underlined part. If i do interpret it correctly, then..You dont increase on a continual progression. With the feat, you would increase each to a size catagory each time a monk's unarmed attack increases This feat is not unbalanced at all...it doesnt not add as much damage as you would think. Anyways, the question is more along the lines of, Can a monk take the feat? is it legal or not?
Arstimis 03-02-04, 07:06 PM	Originally posted by Adyen My question is, how would you progress with the monk's improved unarmed damage? It's basically the same point raised above, but with one difference. Would it be counted as one step higher than the 'base' damage a monk deals? (ie when 1d6 you deal 1d8; 1d8 you deal 2d6; etc.) But clearly there's no improvement for the '2d10' damage. Does that mean the feat becomes useless at that point and you only deal 2d10? They dont list it in the spell description, no. But if they did list all the progression it the spell description that would take to long. You can think of it like its enlarged for the purpose of damage die the answer to your question should be no. If it was yes, then a 20th level monk would not gain any damage from being any bigger than a medium monk. There always has to be some kind of progression
xeno_eleusis 03-02-04, 07:13 PM	Posted by: Arstimis Can you please explain the first underlined part. Posted by: xeno_eleusis I'm no Mod but if I was asked this question as a DM the answer would be "no" because the "Improved Natural Attack" feat does not follow the normal Monk progression.To answer you, I meant to say "Unarmed Strike" progression as shown on page40 in the PHB3.5, that compared to the Progression on page304 DM3.5 pg208 DMG3.5 Unarmed Strike: The damage for a monk's unarmed strike does not increase after 16th levelNOTE: Is this a typo? 16th is 2d8, at 20th (pg40 PHB3.5) Unarmed Strike is 2d10? Just as a guess, to increasing from 2d10, while following the Monks Unarmed Strike Damage progression (again this would be as a house rule and not core)... 3d8..(avg 13.5) this keeps with the +2.5 avg damage increase 4d6..(avg 14.0) this would be +3.0 avg damage also not to bad
xeno_eleusis 03-02-04, 07:44 PM	Posted by: Arstimis This feat is not unbalanced at all...it doesnt not add as much damage as you would think.Lets see: Ftr2/Monk4 BAB +5 Feat: Improved Natural Attack (lvl 6) 2d6 Unarmed Strike (lvl 6) same as a Greatsword. Can't be sundered. Can't be targeted as a spell that affects weapons/items (Grease) Can't be disarmed (unless you removed the monk's arms) When Enlarged you hit for 3d6 You get two attacks with Flurry of Blows at -2 your BAB or +3/+3 but still 3d8 damage. Average damage of 21 but with a -2 on each attack Compared to a Ftr6 with a Greatsword, he gets to be armored, +6/+1 (average +3.5/+3.5), Enlarged dealing an average of 21 damage with a little bit higher to hit. You're right, does not seem that much of an increase but I think that it still is a bit more than allowed for other weapons because the Monk gets so much more abilities without additional penalties. Monk15 BAB +11 Feat: Improved Natural Attack (lvl 15) Unarmed Strike 3d6 Flurry while Enlarged is 4d6 (pg28 DMG3.5 not even on the list) but you get this attack with +11/+11/+6/+1 average damage 56 and average to hit +7.25/+7.25/+7.25/+7.25 Ftr15 BAB +15 He's still got his Greatsword 2d6 Enlarged 3d6 at +15/+10/+5 average damage 31.5 and average to hit +10/+10/+10
Magagumo 03-02-04, 08:00 PM	DOn't forget that monk's will always have more attacks than the fighter, and that they have only a -1 to atatcks by lvl 6, by lvl 9 its gone, and lvl 11 you get two attacks extra for no penalty. Monk's already have a bulit-in class system for upgrading their damage, I'm frankly confused why they need anything more?
JosephKell 03-02-04, 09:15 PM	My guess is that someone wanted to make a Monk that could do 2d6 unarmed damage at level 1?
MotherBast 03-02-04, 09:19 PM	Its not about why a monk "needs" a way to upgrade his damage, its about wether or not he "can", withen the scope of the rules. Personaly, in my games I had always allowed it before, just because I thought it "should" work, even if I couldn't prove it. Arti has made a pretty strong case rules wise as to why it "would" work, withen the structure of the rules, so now it seems to me "should" and "would" finaly meet.
Arstimis 03-02-04, 10:42 PM	MotherBast put it quite nicely...its not about if he needs sto, its about if he can. oh, and can i buy flaming, shock burst, speed, brilliant, or any of the other nice damage adders to a monks fists....nope, it has to get it permanately cast, which is able to be dispeled permanately, unlike magic weapons. So, yes i do think monks would need something extra to keep thier damage on par with the abilities fighters can get onto thier greatsword and you dont know why they need anymore damage....isnt that what the arena if for, to get as much out of a character as you can? anyways, the question still is "Can a monk legally take this feat," not does he need to
Caterane 03-02-04, 10:51 PM	First I want to quote my mail from the senior mod decision: Originally mailed by Caterane: As I already said it isn`t all too difficult to bend words and interpret them in one or another sense of meaning. All your arguments are based on single words interacting with other single words. But what I want to see is a clearly "MONKS FISTS ARE NATURAL WEAPONS!" written in the Monk`s entry and not in some spell descriptions where the designers focused on the spell and hadn`t in mind that this could be used by someone to enable something they didn`t even think of. Spell descriptions are there to describe a spell, not a class ability. There are two very clear main arguments against the theory Monkfist=natural weapon: 1) The MM entry of humanoids doesn`t list "Fist" as weapon 2) Fists do not threaten naturally (so how can they be weapons??) These are clearly written and based on solid ground - unlike the nitpicking of Artismis arguments. Clearly "No". Caterane Another thing: I wanted to create a minotaur some days ago and noticed he has "Minotaurs gain natural weapons" listed in their "Minotaurs as characters" section. So if this stands in the very consiced minotaur entry why should they left it out in the long monk description? Next thing: Minotaur, gore attack. If you check the full attack you`ll notice that the gore attack is in addition to his normal greataxe attacks. Note that he has not the multiattack feat so a monk should then be able to get off additional attacks too while attacking with normal weapons. Next point: Natural weapons are clearly listed. Every entry says which weapon on its body is considered a natural weapon (claw, gore, bite, etc) but the monk does not have such a specification. So which of his body parts are natural weapons now? Fists? Feet? Headbutt? Ellbow? Knee? If Arti's theory is true then every mentioned part is - as a body extension - considered a natural weapon. Take the multiattack feat and attack 10 times at level 1. Natural weapons threaten naturally so if they are natural weapons every beggar would threaten with them, like every minotaur beggar would. Next point: balance. This example convinced me that no sane designer would`ve had the monk in mind when writing the INA feat: 20..2d10..(avg 11.0)..6d6..(avg 21.0) That`s an increase of 10 damage on average!! Even +4 damage would be too much. Monk`s are already better off with fists than using weapons with their various weaknesses (draw, change weapons, grease, sunder, disarm, etc). I saw someone using a permanent +5 Magic fang on his fists. Compare this to a +5 weapon and calculate the price difference! And still the monk would be better off because of mentioned reasons. With Mag voting No too it seems 4:3 against INA. Edit: Monks ARE inferior to other builds but that`s because of the allies, and their lack of option to get one (they cannot afford to take a high Cha for HA/Leadership + no access to animate dead). Allowing INA just to give them a little bonus is the wrong way to fix it. We have to adress the main problem (allies) and not enabling feats not meant to take.
Druid Roxors 03-02-04, 11:02 PM	Originally posted by Caterane 1) The MM entry of humanoids doesn`t list "Fist" as weapon 2) Fists do not threaten naturally (so how can they be weapons??) These are clearly written and based on solid ground - unlike the nitpicking of Artismis arguments. 1) By the same token, "designers focused on the MONSTER ENTRY" and not on the monk class. 2) Fists do not threaten naturally, but we are not talking about natural fists, we are discussing the "improved" fists monks gain.
xeno_eleusis 03-02-04, 11:07 PM	Posted by Cateran: That`s an increase of 10 damage on average!!Sorry to mislead anyone, but the chart was a comparison of progressions (up and down) not a comparison of monk level with the feat (left to right) My fault for not labeling my x-axis (middle school Geometry) Here's a list of the Monk level with the Improved Natural Attack Feat for each level of damage. (notice that the 2d10 is my approximation since it is not on the list.) .Monk progression:....with Improved Natural Attack: .1..1d6...(avg. 3.5)..1d8..(avg. 4.5) .4..1d8...(avg. 4.5)..2d6..(avg. 7.0) .8..1d10..(avg. 5.5)..2d8..(avg. 9.0) 12..2d6...(avg. 7.0)..3d6..(avg 10.5) 16..2d8...(avg. 9.0)..3d8..(avg 13.5) 20..2d10..(avg 11.0)..5d6..(avg 17.5) (this one is not on the list) I'll try to explain my argument again. You cannot add the Improved Natural Attack to a Monk Template because the two seperate progressions are not compatable. To do so would require a "special rule" or "house rule" or "something not core" to make up for the altered progression that a monk normally has. Example. Start with this build Ftr2/Mnk4, Feat (lvl 6), Unarmed Strike 2d6 level this guy four more times in Monk, Ftr2/Mnk8 Normally at Mnk8 you go from 1d8 to 1d10. Do you say, well on the list at Mnk16 he goes from 2d6 to 2d8, so you get 2d8 at Mnk8 instead of normal Mnk16. Keep going, Ftr2/Mnk12, 2d10, but that's not on the progression for the Feat? Maybe Ftr2/Mnk12 3d6. The two progressions are not the same and cannot be mixed. (This is a really difficult point to make, one more build) Ftr5/Mnk1. Feat at lvl 6, Unarmed Strike 1d8 Now, when this build levels to Ftr5/Mnk4 does he get 1d10 with the normal Monk progression Mnk4 (1d8) to Mnk8 (1d10) or does he get 2d6 Mnk8 (1d10) to Mnk12 (2d6)? How can you level this build without creating an exception to the "Core Rules"?
Battousai2005 03-02-04, 11:09 PM	@Cat: True, they dont post fist as a natural weapon, but they do say that others exist besides the one listed. Otherwise, a creatrue with unusual anatomy like a chaos beast would provoke an attack of opportunity every time it attacked Here's the thing. For all intents and purposes, a Monk's fist is a natural weapon. If someone could come up with a solid reason to refute this, kindly state it. Otherwise, there seems to be no real reason why it should not be allowed
Arstimis 03-03-04, 12:12 AM	First off...thank you Cat for joining us, and here goes Originally posted by Caterane First I want to quote my mail from the senior mod decision: Originally mailed by Caterane: As I already said it isn`t all too difficult to bend words and interpret them in one or another sense of meaning. All your arguments are based on single words interacting with other single words. But what I want to see is a clearly "MONKS FISTS ARE NATURAL WEAPONS!" written in the Monk`s entry and not in some spell descriptions where the designers focused on the spell and hadn`t in mind that this could be used by someone to enable something they didn`t even think of. Spell descriptions are there to describe a spell, not a class ability. A clear definition of monk's unarmed strike: "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." No bent words, nothing taken out of context. This whole this is based on a Monk's Unarmed Strike, not his fists, not a human's fists, but a Monk's Unarmed Strike. According to the description of a Monk's US it is treated as a manufactured and natural weapon for effects. Since there is no definition for effects in any of the D&D books, we have to find examples of what effects are. Improved Critical is a great example, as the DMG shows a monk having this feat for his US. How can that not show a monks unarmed strike is considered some type of weapon for feat prereqs. There are two very clear main arguments against the theory Monkfist=natural weapon: 1) The MM entry of humanoids doesn`t list "Fist" as weapon 2) Fists do not threaten naturally (so how can they be weapons??) I took these questions out of your email, and answered them in my first post, no need to say it again, its only a page up. These are clearly written and based on solid ground - unlike the nitpicking of Artismis arguments. Clearly "No". Caterane clearly no based on false pretense Another thing: I wanted to create a minotaur some days ago and noticed he has "Minotaurs gain natural weapons" listed in their "Minotaurs as characters" section. So if this stands in the very consiced minotaur entry why should they left it out in the long monk description? Can you show me monk in the MM? I can show you the monk in the PHB, where it is considered to have natural weapons for certain things Next thing: Minotaur, gore attack. If you check the full attack you`ll notice that the gore attack is in addition to his normal greataxe attacks. Note that he has not the multiattack feat so a monk should then be able to get off additional attacks too while attacking with normal weapons. huh? Next point: Natural weapons are clearly listed. Every entry says which weapon on its body is considered a natural weapon (claw, gore, bite, etc) but the monk does not have such a specification. So which of his body parts are natural weapons now? Fists? Feet? Headbutt? Ellbow? Knee? If Arti's theory is true then every mentioned part is - as a body extension - considered a natural weapon. Take the multiattack feat and attack 10 times at level 1. Unarmed Strike is considered the natural weapon. Nope, no multi attack, as each individual part isnt considered a natural weapon, the whole Unarmed Strike is considered the natural weapon. Kinda like a monster getting attacks for each nail, rather than claws Natural weapons threaten naturally so if they are natural weapons every beggar would threaten with them, like every minotaur beggar would. no, not every begger, just monk beggers, and monster beggers listed with a natural attack Next point: balance. This example convinced me that no sane designer would`ve had the monk in mind when writing the INA feat: "20..2d10..(avg 11.0)..6d6..(avg 21.0)" That`s an increase of 10 damage on average!! Even +4 damage would be too much. first, there must be some bad math, the averages are 10 and 18, respectively. So a monk's fists would get an average of 8 extra damage at that level. This is balanced quite well with that fact a fighter can get Great Weapon Spec, and those many different magic abilites added to his sword. Oh, and since that increase in die is too overpowered, i better get rid of Enlarge, cause it does the exact same thing, so it must be overpowerd Monk`s are already better off with fists than using weapons with their various weaknesses (draw, change weapons, grease, sunder, disarm, etc).yes, cause of course you always have to change melee weapons in the middle of a fight. The only reason you would change weapons is to get range...but a monks fists dont get range, so draw and change weapons dont mean anything. Thats why you grease the ground a monk is on so he cant move. Goodluck sundering and disarming a greatsword. Especially if it is magical. I saw someone using a permanent +5 Magic fang on his fists. Compare this to a +5 weapon and calculate the price difference! And still the monk would be better off because of mentioned reasons. Yep, i bet everyone else can guess who...but oh wiat, a fighter can get +5 Magic Weapon cast on his greatsword for exactly the same price, but of course that would be illogical, as it can be dispelled, but a +5 Greatsword that is fully paid for, cant be dispelled, quite a good mix of balance. No advantages, except for the fact there is no possible way for a monks +5 from Magic Fang to absolutely permanent With Mag voting No too it seems 4:3 against INA. Edit: Monks ARE inferior to other builds but that`s because of the allies. Allowing INA just to give them a little bonus is the wrong way. We have to adress the main problem (allies) and not enabling feats not meant to take. Its not giving them a bonus, its giving them something they should get. Fighters seem to weak, so lets give them a little bonus like Greater Weapon Spec. Oh, and please dont mention anything about sane DM's allowing this, or that, because MotherBast does allow it, he seems quite say. But i would love for you to show me a DM what would allow you to have the allie that Harvester has/had
Arstimis 03-03-04, 12:18 AM	Originally posted by xeno_eleusis Sorry to mislead anyone, but the chart was a comparison of progressions (up and down) not a comparison of monk level with the feat (left to right) My fault for not labeling my x-axis (middle school Geometry) Here's a list of the Monk level with the Improved Natural Attack Feat for each level of damage. (notice that the 2d10 is my approximation since it is not on the list.) .Monk progression:....with Improved Natural Attack: .1..1d6...(avg. 3.5)..1d8..(avg. 4.5) .4..1d8...(avg. 4.5)..2d6..(avg. 7.0) .8..1d10..(avg. 5.5)..2d8..(avg. 9.0) 12..2d6...(avg. 7.0)..3d6..(avg 10.5) 16..2d8...(avg. 9.0)..3d8..(avg 13.5) 20..2d10..(avg 11.0)..5d6..(avg 17.5) (this one is not on the list) I'll try to explain my argument again. You cannot add the Improved Natural Attack to a Monk Template because the two seperate progressions are not compatable. To do so would require a "special rule" or "house rule" or "something not core" to make up for the altered progression that a monk normally has. Example. Start with this build Ftr2/Mnk4, Feat (lvl 6), Unarmed Strike 2d6 level this guy four more times in Monk, Ftr2/Mnk8 Normally at Mnk8 you go from 1d8 to 1d10. Do you say, well on the list at Mnk16 he goes from 2d6 to 2d8, so you get 2d8 at Mnk8 instead of normal Mnk16. Keep going, Ftr2/Mnk12, 2d10, but that's not on the progression for the Feat? Maybe Ftr2/Mnk12 3d6. The two progressions are not the same and cannot be mixed. (This is a really difficult point to make, one more build) Ftr5/Mnk1. Feat at lvl 6, Unarmed Strike 1d8 Now, when this build levels to Ftr5/Mnk4 does he get 1d10 with the normal Monk progression Mnk4 (1d8) to Mnk8 (1d10) or does he get 2d6 Mnk8 (1d10) to Mnk12 (2d6)? How can you level this build without creating an exception to the "Core Rules"? The progression is really quite simple. He gets the same damage, as if he would have been enlarged with that damage. Nothing complex about that at all. If you think Improved Natural Attack makes it too much damage, and is unbalanced, then what say ye about Enlarge....the exact same thing. Its essentially getting the effects of the spell without using the spell, at the cost of a feat, and a strict prereq. of either being a monster with a listed natural weapon, or a 1 in 11 class, the monk Edit: It seems whenever someone has an argument that points to the answer being no, i am able to quote it and point out why it is incorrect. Could anyone in disagreement with my logic please quote it and explain what is incorrect about it
Mustadio[MoF] 03-03-04, 12:33 AM	also, Fighters have a higher HD then monks so they can take more dmg. Monks need to be able to deal more dmg to kill thier foe before they are killed. And once again, the PHP clearly says that a monks unarmed strike is both a natural and manufactured weapon. How can it be put any more clearly?
xeno_eleusis 03-03-04, 01:09 AM	Originally posted by Arstimis The progression is really quite simple. He gets the same damage, as if he would have been enlarged with that damage. Nothing complex about that at all.I am reading this as if you mean he gets normal Monk Unarmed Strike progression but with a constant "Enlarge" on his "Natural Weapons" as a Feat. pg28 DMG has a chart for increasing Medium sized weapons to Large, Huge, and so on. I did not notice that the INA progression was the same as the enlarge weapon damage chart there. Correction for the post above, 20..2d10..(avg 11.0)..4d8..(avg 18) (this one is not on the list on pg304 MM but is on the list on pg28 DMG if you consider that INA is the same as Enlarge with just damage) My argument was that the monk's Unarmed Strike progresses more gradually than a Monster's Natural Attack and so the two are not compatable by theory. What you are suggesting is completely different. Treat the Improved Natural Attack Feat with a prereq BAB +4 as a perminant Enlarge Weapon Damage non-spell constant effect that cannot be dispelled and stacks with the Enlarge spell. That just doesn't seem to fit the theme of the core rules.
Mustadio[MoF] 03-03-04, 01:19 AM	However this is a discusion on whether or not a monk can take it, this is not a discusion on what it does. The question is does a monk full fill the prerequisites for INA. The answer is yes. Because once again a monks unarmed strike is both a natural and manufactured weapon. On a side note, the argument about what is affected (fist, elbow, head, foot), do you have to take weapon focus or somthing else similar for each of those? No, you take it for Unarmed Strike which covers all those at once. Now, can any one tell me how a monk doesn't fullfill INA prereques?
Arstimis 03-03-04, 01:22 AM	Originally posted by xeno_eleusis I am reading this as if you mean he gets normal Monk Unarmed Strike progression but with a constant "Enlarge" on his "Natural Weapons" as a Feat. pg28 DMG has a chart for increasing Medium sized weapons to Large, Huge, and so on. I did not notice that the INA progression was the same as the enlarge weapon damage chart there. Correction for the post above, 20..2d10..(avg 11.0)..4d8..(avg 18) (this one is not on the list on pg304 MM but is on the list on pg28 DMG if you consider that INA is the same as Enlarge with just damage) Ok, the feat Improved Unarmed Strike says, "the damage increases as if the creatures size had increased one size category", quite similar to Enlarge, There should be no difficulty figuring out progression My argument was that the monk's Unarmed Strike progresses more gradually than a Monster's Natural Attack and so the two are not compatable by theory. They are two different things, so you have to treat them differently. I dont see how compatability has to do with the feat What you are suggesting is completely different. Treat the Improved Natural Attack Feat with a prereq BAB +4 as a perminant Enlarge Weapon Damage non-spell constant effect that cannot be dispelled and stacks with the Enlarge spell. I am saying nothing of the sort. I just said that in terms of die increases it is the same as Enlarge, and if you considered this feat unbalances, then because of the fact the enlarge spell does the same thing, you must consider a level 1 spell unbalanced That just doesn't seem to fit the theme of the core rules. Can you please tell me the "theme of the core rules."
Arstimis 03-03-04, 01:24 AM	Originally posted by Mustadio[MoF] However this is a discusion on whether or not a monk can take it, this is not a discusion on what it does. The question is does a monk full fill the prerequisites for INA. The answer is yes. Because once again a monks unarmed strike is both a natural and manufactured weapon. On a side note, the argument about what is affected (fist, elbow, head, foot), do you have to take weapon focus or somthing else similar for each of those? No, you take it for Unarmed Strike which covers all those at once. Now, can any one tell me how a monk doesn't fullfill INA prereques? You might want to stop Mustadio, you are sounding to much like i was......annoyingly persistant with the same question. If they dont answer after the first time, they cant think of it at the moment. If they dont answer after the second time, they have no answer. If you say it a third time it will just annoy them more and they will start to never answer any of your questions :P
xeno_eleusis 03-03-04, 01:43 AM	posted by Arstimis first, there must be some bad math, the averages are 10 and 18, respectively. So a monk's fists would get an average of 8 extra damage at that level.I think I already explained that the chart that is being quoted was misread, partly my fault for not labeling the chart. I also reposted with the Chart that shows the damage increased by the Feat. This was not the intent of my original post but since I'm knee deep into this argument, I thought, "why not post it for clarification", anyway. An interesting point to make is that I did not draw the conclusion that Arstimis drew in saying that "Improved Natural Attack" follows the same damage increase rules as converting a hand held Medium weapons to Large. It is plain to me that there are no Natural Weapons that the authors considered, when writting the Monster Manual that would convert 2d10 to the next level in the INA progression. Following my calculations, I guessed that 2d10 would increase to 5d6 which is +4 average following that the 2d8 to 2d10 is a +2 average and that it would be doubled at the most(plus I neglected to notice that the INA does state that the progression is the same as Enlarging a weapon). If you consider that INA is the same as Enlarge with no respect to Unarmed Strike progression, then you get 4d8 which is an increas of 4.5 on average from the 3d8 not a multiple of the normal monk progression. "the averages are 10 and 18" 1..........1 2..........2 3..........3 4..........4 5..........5 6..........6 7..........7 8..........8 9..........---- 10.........36 ----.......36/8 = 4.5 55 55/10 = 5.5 2d10 is 2 x 5.5 = 11 3d8 is 2 x 4.5 = 18
xeno_eleusis 03-03-04, 02:26 AM	Originally posted by Arstimis Ok, the feat Improved Unarmed Strike says, "the damage increases as if the creatures size had increased one size category", quite similar to Enlarge, There should be no difficulty figuring out progression.You mean Improved Natural Attack. Honestly, after reading these arguments, I would change my mind and allow this in a game that I was DMing. There in lies the problem and the answer to your last question.Can you please tell me the "theme of the core rules."DnD is an interpretive game. The rules are full of errors to top it off. A good DM, will attempt to balance the rules if one can be exploited, or allow "special rules" in his campaign, "house rules" that make the game (most of the time) more fun and entertaining. The theme of the core rules (In my opinion) is that no matter how bad the error in the rules, balance is the most important idea and core also means that it should not be under interpretation. If there is a question about it then the answer is probably "no" When I first posted, my point was that a Monsters "Natural Weapons" have a progression of thier own that does not follow the Monks Unarmed Strike progression. That was it. "The question is does a monk full fill the prerequisites for INA" I think the answer is "no". A Monk does not qualify to select Feats from the Monster Manual. Not because of the wording in the PHB but because of balance. How can you justify that a Monk's hands are as dangerous as if they were one size category larger. For monsters you can say, well the claws are bigger, or sharper, or more deadly because this magical beast is ancient and has slaughtered hundreds of men. Over the years he's learned how to increase the damge of his claws to be as effective as if he had increased in size Text on page 305 MM at the top: "[This chapter lists] feats that are typically used by Monsters" Since the word typically can be interpreted in this sentance, for balance issue I would have to say that it refers to Monsters only, for core, and if you are a nice DM you will allow your PCs to have any monster feat they want or use books that are not core.
Moherajikuyx 03-03-04, 04:19 AM	Originally posted by Arstimis Look at the sample 15th level Monk on p.118 of the DMG - it has Improved Critical (unarmed strike). That is a clear example of how a Monk's unarmed strike is considered some type of weapon for feat prereqs., and then must also be considered a natural weapon for the same type of thing, ie Improved Natural Attack You're basically using this as your only proof, all the rest is repetition of old already countered arguments. But it only shows that there's a rules clash, not surprisingly given the obscure nature of the involved rules. The DMG has the last word about this matter, as the first is the MM - def. of natural weapons - the second the PHB - def. of IUS (and IC can't be used with that, given the difference from the other feats that you pinpointed) and thus the example is obviously wrong. Balance doesn't matter, or we'd prevent Jindl from playing :angel:
Tellish_of_Ket 03-03-04, 07:11 AM	To quote Metallica, "An empty can rattles the most." That's all i see here, is an empty can. Tellish
MotherBast 03-03-04, 07:21 AM	Actually, since the defination of Natraul Attack first appears in the PHB, it would be the "primary" sorce for what a natural attack is. The MM would be the "primary" sorce for determaning what natural attacks a creature has. Since the PHB statse the unarmed strike is a natural attack, and the PHB is without doubt the primary sorce for unarmed strikes, then even if you diesgree with the above, you have to agree that if the PHB defines unarmed strikes as natural attacks, then it simply can not be questioned.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-03-04, 07:33 AM	Originally posted by MotherBast Actually, since the defination of Natraul Attack first appears in the PHB, it would be the "primary" sorce for what a natural attack is. The MM would be the "primary" sorce for determaning what natural attacks a creature has. Since the PHB statse the unarmed strike is a natural attack, and the PHB is without doubt the primary sorce for unarmed strikes, then even if you diesgree with the above, you have to agree that if the PHB defines unarmed strikes as natural attacks, then it simply can not be questioned. See, that's just manipulating what you read, taking a portion and disregarding the rest. It says it's a natural attack for purpose spells and effects. It doesn't say, it IS a natural weapon. I wish ya'll would quit this senseless bickering. Go to dmg and look up dragon disciple. they get NATURAL WEAPONS...very clearly defined. IUS does not give you natural attacks as it's the whole body, and Improved Natural Attack is for ONE...repeat that please?? ONE form of attack. IUS doesn't give you any one specific type of attack. If you want your monk to take the feat, then take levels in DD first. sheesh <klink><klink><klink><klink> -ToK
Arstimis 03-03-04, 10:12 AM	Originally posted by Moherajikuyx You're basically using this as your only proof, all the rest is repetition of old already countered arguments. But it only shows that there's a rules clash, not surprisingly given the obscure nature of the involved rules. The DMG has the last word about this matter, as the first is the MM - def. of natural weapons - the second the PHB - def. of IUS (and IC can't be used with that, given the difference from the other feats that you pinpointed) and thus the example is obviously wrong. as motherbast pointed out, the PHB also has a definition for natural weapons. Basically your trying to counter my point by saying they made a mistake, and what they show must be wrong, so it doesnt apply. That can be a counter arguement for anything. I could say they made a mistake with anything, and say it must be wrong...its not a valid arguement to say they made a mistake.... The other feats are completely different feats, and have no bearing on what IC or INA or any other feats must have as a prereq.It says it's a natural attack for purpose spells and effects. It doesn't say, it IS a natural weapon. I wish ya'll would quit this senseless bickering. Go to dmg and look up dragon disciple. they get NATURAL WEAPONS...very clearly defined. yes, what you say is true, it is a natural weapon only for spells and effects. Can you give me the definition of effects in any of the books. Its not in there, so we have to look for examples what what effects actually mean.<Place my IC arguement here>(this can only be countered by saying they made a mistake in the rules, a very invalid arguement).IUS does not give you natural attacks as it's the whole body, and Improved Natural Attack is for ONE...repeat that please?? ONE form of attack. IUS doesn't give you any one specific type of attack. yep, one form of attack, the Monk's body is this one form of attack. The monks entire body is his weaponHow can you justify that a Monk's hands are as dangerous as if they were one size category larger. One could say a monks body becomes toughened, harder, almost as steel @ToK and any other klinkers- Everyone can insult everyone and say thier argument is empty...but can they actually give any rules to prove this...
Market_Share 03-03-04, 10:21 AM	@ToK - <klink><klink><klink> SPIKE
Caterane 03-03-04, 11:55 AM	With "spells and effects" they surely didn`t mean a feat, no questions asked.
sshuit 03-03-04, 12:49 PM	Having read the arguments I'm in favour of letting monk's get INA. I don't think its particularly unbalancing and I think it is in the spirit of the rules. If not the exact letter... also most people on the CO boards seem to use it.... So there is a sort of consensus... I don't see how this is any more unbalancing than the crazy races/cohorts we've been seeing lately. sshuit
Ethendril 03-03-04, 01:06 PM	It seems to me that the omission of the feat from the list of monk feats would mean the monk is ineligable. Analogy: Suppose the legislature enacts a law, which states that there will be government subsidies for the following qualified people: 1. Homeless men. 2. Pregnant women. Now suppose that a homeless woman wanted to apply for the subsidy. She does not qualify. The reason is that there is no mention of her qualifying in the law. It's only homeless men and pregnant women. If I've made a list and omitted something, the omission itself means I did not intend to include it. That leads to my main problem with allowing the feat, which is: Why in the world didn't they affirmatively list it as a feat a monk can obtain? They list a whole bunch of other feats a monk can get at different levels (Improved Grapple, Stunning Fist, Combat Reflexes, Deflect Arrows, Improved Disarm, Improved Trip). [I know a monk can get other feats every 3 levels.] Every other feat in the monster manual requires pretty unusual circumstances to obtain (Dragon Disciple, etc.), and I think they would have listed it in the player's handbook if monks could qualify. If they had intended for a monk to qualify for the feat, I think it would have been listed affirmatively, rather than omitting it. My 2 gp. -Ethendril
JosephKell 03-03-04, 01:19 PM	Don't forget that most natural attacks don't improve on their own. The Monk's does. The Unarmed Attack is by its name Unarmed it isn't a slam, bite, claw, tail slap, or crush attack. It is a generic "unarmed." The Monster Manual Feats should be limited to monster races and their abilities. Example: A Natural Werewolf (2 HD, +3 ECL) Monk 4 has a Bite attack of 1d6, and a claw of 1d4, and a Monk unarmed of 1d6. The Werewolf could take Improved Natural Attack to boost their claw or bite attacks, but not unarmed (I do believe this was addressed in 3.0, but like other things it was taken out because it made it wordier).
Jindl 03-03-04, 01:27 PM	AFAIK - Improved Natural Attack cannot be taken twice for the same Attack. Also, it has "BAB +4" as a prereq. So, if allowed, a monk couldn't take the feat until 6th level (5th if multiclassed with a full BAB class), and at most the monk could only take it once, giving him the same damage as a Large creature, but without the extra reach, bonus to grapples + trips, etc. Improved Natural Attack really isn't that powerful for a monk. So your damage increases by 3 points on average. Big deal. You could have taken Improved Grapple, Improved Trip, Improved Critical, Run, Deflect Arrows, or a plethera of other feats that would be just as effective if used properly. Personally, I think a feat is an "effect" and therefore covered under the "treat as a natural weapon and a manufactured weapon for spells and effects" phrasing in the Monk's description. -Jindl
Arstimis 03-03-04, 01:49 PM	Originally posted by Caterane With "spells and effects" they surely didn`t mean a feat, no questions asked. Accordong to the DMG and Improved Critical, it most certaintly is. Since there is no definition in the books for ''effects" there are two things to do. 1) find examples of how it is used 2) make your own definition I choose 1
Arstimis 03-03-04, 02:07 PM	Originally posted by Ethendril It seems to me that the omission of the feat from the list of monk feats would mean the monk is ineligable. Analogy: Suppose the legislature enacts a law, which states that there will be government subsidies for the following qualified people: 1. Homeless men. 2. Pregnant women. Now suppose that a homeless woman wanted to apply for the subsidy. She does not qualify. The reason is that there is no mention of her qualifying in the law. It's only homeless men and pregnant women. If I've made a list and omitted something, the omission itself means I did not intend to include it. That leads to my main problem with allowing the feat, which is: Why in the world didn't they affirmatively list it as a feat a monk can obtain? They list a whole bunch of other feats a monk can get at different levels (Improved Grapple, Stunning Fist, Combat Reflexes, Deflect Arrows, Improved Disarm, Improved Trip). [I know a monk can get other feats every 3 levels.] Every other feat in the monster manual requires pretty unusual circumstances to obtain (Dragon Disciple, etc.), and I think they would have listed it in the player's handbook if monks could qualify. If they had intended for a monk to qualify for the feat, I think it would have been listed affirmatively, rather than omitting it. My 2 gp. -Ethendril If they intended for us to a race from the MM they would have put it in the PHB. They have some races in the PHB, but they ommited others that we are indeed allowed to play. But by your logic since they were ommited we shouldn't be able to play as them but that isn't right, so I think that means niether is you logic
Arstimis 03-03-04, 02:23 PM	Originally posted by JosephKell Don't forget that most natural attacks don't improve on their own. The Monk's does. you can stop right there, you have just saida monk has a natural attack. If he has a natural attack he meets the prereqs and he can get the feat. No more to say about that The Unarmed Attack is by its name Unarmed it isn't a slam, bite, claw, tail slap, or crush attack. It is a generic "unarmed." and this has anything to do with what? Other than that, a monks unarmed strike is anything but generic The Monster Manual Feats should be limited to monster races and their abilities. that is just flat out wrong as the description under the feat section says otherwise, and INA is listed as [General] Example: A Natural Werewolf (2 HD, +3 ECL) Monk 4 has a Bite attack of 1d6, and a claw of 1d4, and a Monk unarmed of 1d6. The Werewolf could take Improved Natural Attack to boost their claw or bite attacks, but not unarmed (I do believe this was addressed in 3.0, but like other things it was taken out because it made it wordier). I know you can tell me it shouldn't be allowed, anyone could just say it, but can you show me why using rules, examples in the books, something not of your own opinion?
Ethendril 03-03-04, 02:34 PM	Originally posted by Arstimis If they intended for us to a race from the MM they would have put it in the PHB. They have some races in the PHB, but they ommited others that we are indeed allowed to play. But by your logic since they were ommited we shouldn't be able to play as them but that isn't right, so I think that means niether is you logic They didn't omit the races or say you couldn't play them. They put them in the PHB, and affirmatively stated that you could play those races. That's not an omission.
Arstimis 03-03-04, 03:02 PM	Originally posted by Ethendril They didn't omit the races or say you couldn't play them. They put them in the PHB, and affirmatively stated that you could play those races. That's not an omission. can you tell me the page number in the PHB where kobold, duerger, assimar, tiefling, minotaur, half-celestial, and the other monstrous races that people in the arena have played and can play are listed?
Ethendril 03-03-04, 03:05 PM	Originally posted by Arstimis can you tell me the page number in the PHB where kobold, duerger, assimar, tiefling, minotaur, half-celestial, and the other monstrous races that people in the arena have played and can play are listed? It doesn't say it in the PHB. It's in the DMG, pg. 172, "Monsters as Races," where it affirmatively states that these races are playable. Look, I'm just trying to say that it seems like a glaring omission. It's a cool feat for a monk, and it seems they would have listed it for them if they were intended to have it. But I'm done debating this topic. I don't care what happens. Good luck in getting the feat. -Ethendril
Jindl 03-03-04, 03:06 PM	Originally posted by Ethendril They didn't omit the races or say you couldn't play them. They put them in the PHB, and affirmatively stated that you could play those races. That's not an omission. He meant: The red "the races" to refer to the mounsrous races in the MM and the blue "them" to refer to the standard PHB races. His point was that they didn't omit the monstrous races, rather they affirmed the most common PC races by putting them in the PHB. -Jindl
^Rayne^ 03-03-04, 03:44 PM	I don't think most people care too much about my opinion on this but I think that Arstimis' points are valid enough to allow. They certainly are not unbalancing in the way some allies are being used in the arena. Also I believe the Monster Manual does present valid feats that should be allowed in the arena and not ignored because they are not found in the Player Handbook. I know that I have plans of one day designing a kobold that will be able to take advantage of the Improved Natural Armor feat (which a kobold should most definitely qualify for if they meet the prerequisites). There are races that are playable in these arena battles that can use feats in the MM and also classes that can take advantage of some of the feats in the MM as well and this should be allowed. This is the Core Arena and that means the Monster Manual is a valid book to use for purposes of feats as well as for finding mounts and other useful information.
Arstimis 03-03-04, 04:06 PM	@Ethendril: exactly, if something is not in the PHB it can still be used because in a different core book it says it can. In the MM it says feats can be used by those who qualify, usually monsters. Usually means the majority, meaning there is a minority. If 1 class out of 11 gets it, that is a minority. That and the feat is listed as [General], anyone that qualifies can get it A reason they might not have listed it in the phb, is because mostly monsters get them, not most players, 1 in 11 is not most
MotherBast 03-03-04, 04:07 PM	Tellish, your forgetting that even a non-monk unarmed strike is defined as a natural attack by the PHB. By the letter of the law, even a non-monk character could possibly qualify for the feat, should he meet the rest of the pre-requs, and then apply it to his "normal" unarmed strike. As artie has already pointed out, the PHB states that an unarmed stike is a natural attack. any unarmed stike.
Arstimis 03-03-04, 04:30 PM	I did, but since the nay sayers ignored that simple fact, I showed other ways even if that was ignored
Caterane 03-03-04, 05:08 PM	Ok, I think everyone has said what is to be said. Any additional arguments will just make circles and repeat things already layed out a couple of times. I realize that if we make a Council of Elders vote it doesn`t matter how we decide because one half won`t be satisfied with the result. What if we instead of judging the legalization of the feat focus on wether allowing it as a house rule, no matter if it is right or not because the more important question is: "Is the feat balanced enough to allow a monk to take it?" That way we might find a consensus for this debate.
Arstimis 03-03-04, 05:20 PM	Originally posted by Caterane "Is the feat balanced enough to allow a monk to take it?" Alot of people seem to think the damage increase is the unbalancing factor so let me pose a question to partly answer the this one Is Enlarge Person unbalanced? I hope everyone says no. This feat has the same damage increase as that 1st level spell does, without the increase strength and decreased dex, without the -1 to attacks and ac, without the benifits of being a size category larger (+4 to grapple, and other such things), without reach.
Caterane 03-03-04, 06:14 PM	Yes, but you don`t have to memorize it, don`t have to cast it one round with a chance for being disrupted, enlarge has its drawbacks too and most importantly: it stacks with enlarge. Compare it to weapon specialization.
Arstimis 03-03-04, 06:16 PM	At this level it is not much different that weapon specialization at levels it does in fact make a big difference if the fighter has the same weak greatsword, but by then the fighter should have a weapon with magical properties that are equal to what is gained by this feat
MotherBast 03-03-04, 06:49 PM	If it is a matter of balance, I would say the feat is okay. I have let a monk in my game use it for the last 2 levels, and really haven't seen a difference. Before the fighter was killed by a Bodak gaze and became an undead, the group fighter did much more damage with his Shocking Burst Heavy Flail, which he had specilazation in. The extra d6 damage from the shocking was 3.5, the same as this feat would be for a monk at most levels. And, the flail damage also incresses with enlarge, so both damages would have incressed if the sorc in the party had ever botherd to cast enlarge on either of them, but he never did. After the fighter got undeadafied, the party pally took over the tank role, and even without specialazation, he out damages the monk with his +1 holy human/bane longsword. All the monk has is 3d6 +2 damage. It hardly comapares to the damage delt out by two-handing magic greatswords and such. I would say, since I have tested it in game and seen no ill effects thus far, as far as balance goes, its only slightly better than weapon speicalazation, and nowhere near as good as power attack for a fighter. So no reason not to allow it, would be my vote.
Caterane 03-03-04, 06:52 PM	@Arti: before you post again, let the others speak. We know your points already.
Battousai2005 03-03-04, 09:11 PM	Originally posted by Caterane @Arti: before you post again, let the others speak. We know your points already. This hardly seems fair. You should let him defend his point. I've seen you shoot down lots of people by countering them enough. If there is a point he wishes to make, let him make it. Anyway, could you guys PLEASE stop with the whole "It doesn't list a monks fist as a natural weapon?" It specifiacally says that there ARE other natural weapons not listed. Personally, im neutral on this topic. But if you're gonna tell him to stop repeating himself, i think its only fair that you do the same.
Mustadio[MoF] 03-03-04, 11:08 PM	All I can say is that I support it entirely, and don't see what the problem is. :bounce:
Battousai2005 03-03-04, 11:17 PM	here's a brilliant idea. Instead of waiting around for the senior mods to make up their minds, we go straight to the polls. Either that, or inform the final vote to, well, vote. Its kinda pointless for this debate to be raging while Kiowen gains levels
xeno_eleusis 03-04-04, 12:09 AM	Originally posted by Battousai2005 ...we go straight to the polls.Where are the polls?
Kaigan 03-04-04, 12:14 AM	If an agreement can't be made then i say that we go to the polls. Already has the argument been stated and both sides have said their respective parts. If there is no agreement then let the others decide. From all the evidence i say that it should not matter. The monk should be able to take the feat. It does not make him any better, at that level.
Arstimis 03-04-04, 02:53 AM	Originally posted by xeno_eleusis Where are the polls? At the moment this is merely a hopeful expression, but soon the mods will probably set up a Polls thread @Cat: Sorry for disobeying your orders :P
xeno_eleusis 03-04-04, 03:03 AM	@Arstimis: Thanks for the info. I really don't mind either way about the INA being allowed as a Monk feat. I noticed that people can get really touchy about the rules. I appologize if I rambled on too much. I think that in the future I will attempt to stay out of these debates and only post when I feel strongly about an issue. Really my purpose for being here is to learn more and be a better DM. So what time of the day do the pairings get posted?
Caterane 03-04-04, 08:20 AM	@Battousi: That wasn`t a command. I just thought giving others time to respond would be good. Arti made good points but if he always responds as soon as a post is up, the thread will get long and longer thus unclearer and good arguments will get lost in the mass of posts. We know Arti's points. And I know what he will counter arguments with because I know his way of thinking about INA. What I do not know is the opinion of others who haven`t posted yet, ...perhaps they don`t care, but it could also be that they see the 1000s of posts and give up before they started. It was just a suggestion. You`re free to ignore it, of course.
Battousai2005 03-04-04, 10:12 AM	@Cat: Yah. True. Still, it is possible he could think of somethng new. Even he is capable of something like that, right arti? :)
Voivode 03-05-04, 05:56 AM	I don't know if this has already been mentioned, and it isn't technically core, but: In the description of the Signature Weapon supernatural ability in the Kensai entry in the Complete Warrior (p. 51), it says the following - "The process for imbuing a kensai's natural weapons (such as his fists)..." If you read the rest of the quotation, you should see that it is in no way taken out of context. Just a thought.
Battousai2005 03-05-04, 07:40 PM	Originally posted by Voivode I don't know if this has already been mentioned, and it isn't technically core, but: In the description of the Signature Weapon supernatural ability in the Kensai entry in the Complete Warrior (p. 51), it says the following - "The process for imbuing a kensai's natural weapons (such as his fists)..." If you read the rest of the quotation, you should see that it is in no way taken out of context. Just a thought. Heh. Hey, arti, this is something we didn't think of. Look in a non-core 3.5 book!
Caterane 03-05-04, 07:46 PM	Ok, seems like the debate came to a halt. Time to open a poll. There are two kinds of polls possible. If the first one will be approved the second one is obsolete. 1. Do you think a monk's unarmed strike qualifies for INA? 2. Do you think we should give the monk access to INA (be it a house rule or no)? @Arty: And don`t even think of making a post in the Council of Elders thread!:mad:
Arstimis 03-05-04, 07:57 PM	Originally posted by Battousai2005 Heh. Hey, arti, this is something we didn't think of. Look in a non-core 3.5 book! Actually i did, but i didnt bother putting it on these boards. I did send it in the e-mails to the moderators, but they said not to bother with it, cause it was non-coreOriginally posted by Caterane @Arty: And don`t even think of making a post in the Council of Elders thread! :mad: I wouldnt dream of it Cat.:angel: and the only reason i posted on the other one, is cause Jindl told me to Edit: I'll let you guess my answers to the poll :P
^Rayne^ 03-05-04, 07:59 PM	1. yes 2. yes
Caterane 03-05-04, 08:08 PM	@Rayne: You might get your chance if the polls go 4:4. Anyway, I`m curious on that one. I wouldnt dream of it Cat Nooooo, never would you do it :rolleyes:
Kaigan 03-05-04, 10:36 PM	So when are the elder mods going to actually vote on the matter, so that all can go back to normal now?
Battousai2005 03-05-04, 10:39 PM	Originally posted by Kaigan So when are the elder mods going to actually vote on the matter, so that all can go back to normal now? With the current rate, id say about a year.:rolleyes:
Caterane 03-06-04, 04:51 AM	Hey, it´s already up in the Council! Another question about the topic: if a fighter takes the "Unarmed strike" feat then his body would be considered a natural weapon??? That sounds really strange.
Arstimis 03-06-04, 10:02 AM	Originally posted by Caterane Another question about the topic: if a fighter takes the "Unarmed strike" feat then his body would be considered a natural weapon??? That sounds really strange. That does sound really strange, huh? Thats cause it is not true. The feat Improved Unarmed Strike is much different from the Monk's Unarmed Strike, with respect to wording. Mainly the "considered to be a natural and manufactured weapon" part
Caterane 03-06-04, 11:05 AM	@LLMAd: I just saw your reasoning for your vote in the Council. Magic fang is completely pointless because it is already listed as an exception and explicitely described as such in the Unarmed strike section of the monk entry. Before you base your Voice on a wrong assumption I better summarize and focus the points of both sides: @Elder Mods: PHB, p.41: A monk's unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for purposes of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons (such as the magic fang and magic weapon spells) The question now is wether a feat (like INA) is a "spell or effect". I say no because that`s nonsense to call a feat an effect, or even a spell. That`s where my argument is based upon. Here`s Artys reasoning: Example posted by Arty: Look at the sample 15th level Monk on p.118 of the DMG - it has Improved Critical (unarmed strike). That is a clear example of how a Monk's unarmed strike is considered some type of weapon for feat prereqs., and then must also be considered a natural weapon for the same type of thing, ie Improved Natural Attack. ...and since a feat is definately not a spell, it must be an effect then. Please focus on the core issue of the topic! That are those in this post and nothing else. Edit: Perhaps we should delay the voting. It seems that not everyone has gotten into this.
Arstimis 03-06-04, 11:17 AM	Originally posted by Caterane @LLMAd: I just saw your reasoning for your vote in the Council. Magic fang is completely pointless because it is already listed as an exception. Before you base your Voice on a wrong assumption I better summarize and focus the points of both sides: The question now is wether a feat (like INA) is a "spell or effect". I say no because that`s nonsense to call a feat an effect, or even a spell. That`s where my argument is based upon. Arty bases his arguments on the Improved critical feat which is for weapons only. But since the monk gets the Improved critical feat he should also get the Improved natural attack feat. If I can take one feat then I should be able to take the other feat aswell. That`s where his argument is based upon. Edit: Perhaps we should delay the voting. It seems that not everyone has gotten into this. Thats not how its done Cat. He votes on what he believes...Sound familiar :P (email) Anyways. the magic fang was partof an arguement, but since most dismissed it, i provided other evidence. Please...give me the definition of effect. Since that is pretty hazy, you have to look at examples. My argument is based upon examples for why feats are effects. Also, my arguments were based on more principles than that. Just take a look at post 1 for more inforamtion if your having trouble..its all explained I will explain more when i get back from PT
Caterane 03-06-04, 11:24 AM	Ok, I edited my post above to include your main example. An Elder Mods voice is a mighty thing an if LLMad votes in favor of it based on a completely wrong focus then I have to intervene. Magic fang is a spell or effect. That`s covered in the description. That, and everything else, is just chitchat around the topic. I want to focus the discussion and decissions on these two arguments.
MotherBast 03-06-04, 12:53 PM	I think that since magic fang says that a "fist", ie. any characters unarmed strike, is a natural attack, then all unarmed strikes have to be concidered natural attacks. So any character with a high enough BAB could qualify for this feat. It would only really help monks though. and to argue that magic fang must be in error is not a valid argument. As already pointed out, that argument could be used for anything. Unless some errata is releced, magic fang must be assumed correct as writen. As far as humans, elves and so forth not having any natural attacks listed in the MM, you will also note that no other creature in the MM has "unarmed strike" listed. Yet all creatures able to attack can make an unarmed strike. It is also not listed in any of the humanoid listings. The reason is that all unarmed stike damage is based entirely on the size of the creature, and all unarmed strikes are treated the same. And according the the PHB, all unarmed strikes are natural attacks, no matter what creature makes them.
Caterane 03-06-04, 01:26 PM	all unarmed strikes are natural attacks, no matter what creature makes them and why does the Dragon disciple GAIN natural attacks? Why have several monster Natural attack listed in their entry when they have it anyway? MB, that`s nonsense. "Natural weapon" is a defined term and a creature must have this listed in its entry to have it. A monk has natural weapons listed in his entry for spells and effects only. Period. Magic fang IS a spell and thus unarmed strike qualifies and thus it is listed in the spell description. So that`s no proof that monks have natural weapons. It is a prove that they have natural weapons for spell effects. As I said: the question is: is a feat an effect? Is Power attack an effect? Is quick draw and toughness and skillfocus an effect? :nonono:
MotherBast 03-06-04, 02:41 PM	A DD gains natural attacks because it did not have those natural attacks to begin with. That dosen't mean it didn't have any natural attacks, just not those. Besides, a natural attack isen't nesassary for Improved Natural Attack. Only a natural weapon is. Natural Weapon: A creature's body part that deal damage in combat. Naural weapons include teeth, claws, horns, tails, and other appendages. So, since Improved Natural Attack requires a natural weapon as a prereq, and an unarmed strike IS a natrual weapon, (not only does it fit into the defination of natural weapon, but the Magic Fang spell lists a type of unarmed strike as a natural weapon.) any creature cappable of an unarmed stike can apply this feat to its unarmed strike. The character doesn't need a natural attack, just a natural weapon. Any appendage that can deal damage in melee is a natural weapon. The monks unarmed strike clearly fits this description, and is a natural weapon by defination. No natural attack needed, just the weapon. Monks (and anything else with an unarmed strike) has the weapon, so they qualify for the feat. One could argue that Natural Weapons also threaten, and an unarmed strike dosen't. I can see a case for that that would prohibit the use of this feat for unarmed stikes, with the notable exception that a Monk's unarmed stike does threaten, and so meets that requirement as well. One thing I don't agree with about Artis arguments though. He says effects are undefined. That is not entirely true. An effect is what is left over after a spell is cast. Like mage armor for example. The target of a mage armor spell is only the "target of a spell" for the round it is cast. After that, its not still the target of a spell, it is now the recipent of an "effect." Spells cause effects. Special abilitys can cause effects. Magic items can have permanit effects. A feat is not an effect. Still, your argument that monks can take Improved Critical for his unarmed stike, when it only works on weapons, is still valid. If the monk's unarmed stike qualifies him for that feat, then by default it would also qualify him for INA.
Caterane 03-06-04, 02:58 PM	You want to tell me that every creature has natural weapons??? :looloo: So why does the term exist at all? And why did they list it as prerequisite if everyone qualifies anyway??? This is such a wordbending and rules breaking until ones tongue falls off. And you play a monk too right? Bah. If this rule goes through it is just because half the moderators are biased or didn`t think themselves into the matter any voted absentmindly. And I really can`t believe Jindl`s on your side in this matter. Perhaps he shared a bong with you, too.
Voivode 03-06-04, 03:09 PM	I thought I'd read the main areas of contention in this debate, and having done so, I am confused as to why this is an issue. Everyone seems to have looked closely at the wording of the Monk entry and the Magic Fang spell in the PHB, and the Improved Natural Attack feat in the MM. However, perhaps they have overlooked the Magic Weapon spell entry. To quote: "You can't cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang). A monk's unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell." I realise that the wording of the Magic Fang spell entry, which reads "a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon" is not unequivocal proof as to whether an unarmed strike/fist is a natural weapon, but I think the Magic Weapon entry is. I will now explain, with reference to my emphases above. The underlined section gives an unarmed strike as an example of a natural weapon. This is in the PHB. The most core of the core books, if it is possible to say such a thing. It states in the clearest of terms that an unarmed strike is a natural weapon. If anyone believes they can see a subtle nuance in the English language which would make this statement questionable, please say so. The bold section requires a bit more interpretation, but as far as I can see, it points out that a monk's unarmed strike, in particular, is considered a weapon. The way I read this is as an exceptional circumstance. Essentially, the spell description says that a monk's unarmed strike is an exception to the general rule that unarmed strikes are natural weapons. Can I repeat that? The GENERAL RULE. Perhaps this has all been discussed elsewhere, and people with more knowledge of English than me have shown that the wording is ambiguous, but I can't see how. As far as I can see, there has been a lot of debate over other areas of the PHB and MM, when the answer lies in the description of the Magic Weapon spell.
^Rayne^ 03-06-04, 03:16 PM	Voivode, that was a very compelling arguement and I think it leaves even less question that it was intended that a monk's unarmed strike be considered a natural weapon. I believe the feat should be allowed and this discussion should be ended.
Caterane 03-06-04, 03:32 PM	Blabla If a monk would have natural weapons it would be in his entry. But it isn`t, except for spells and effects. Period.
Voivode 03-06-04, 03:36 PM	Caterane, I feel that your tone is fairly insulting to some of the other people participating in this discussion, which is particularly worrying given that you hold a position of authority on these boards. However, it is not for me to judge, so instead I will give my thoughts on the question you asked. I don't think every creature does have a natural attack, and therefore qualifies for Improved Natural Attack. My reasoning for this is fairly unsubstantiated by solid rules, so if you want to stop reading now, that's your prerogative, but it is as follows: Incorporeal creatures do not have natural attacks. They do have an incorporeal touch attack, but it think that this is not natural. The reason I think this is that creatures that gain the incorporeal type e.g. ghosts lose their natural armor. Now, there is no reason why the word "natural" has to mean the same in terms of attacks and armor, but on the other hand, why shouldn't it. I believe a natural quality of a creature is one that is even more basic than an extraordinary ability (Ex). The main examples of this are natural armor, natural attacks and, I believe, natural movement speeds, which a ghost also looses, in exchange for a fly speed. From this I deduce, despite a lack of definite explanation in the core rules, that an incorporeal creature has no natural qualities, but only supernatural ones. Certainly, its natural armor is replaced with a supernatural deflection bonus. Its land movement speed is replaced with a fly speed which logic states is supernatural (although again, there is nothing definite). Most telling, however, is the line in the description of the spell Antimagic Field, which reads "incorporeal undead wink out if they enter an antimagic field." Incorporeal creatures (or undead, at the very least) are inherently magical i.e. supernatural i.e. not natural, and therefore do not have natural attacks. I appreciate that this discourse is fairly rambling, but that is because it is based on assumptions and what I feel are logical connections, rather than solid facts. I would not claim it is certain. However, if you give it some thought, you may realise that perhaps not all creatures have natural attacks.
Arstimis 03-06-04, 03:40 PM	now that im back from a military workout, let me explain all my arguements, briefly. First i set out to prove that a fist is a natural weapon. That is what the spell magic fang was for. Then people dismissed that, so i try to show how, getting more specific, an unarmed strike was a natural weapon. Since people started to dismiss that as well, i had to prove that the description of only the monk's unarmed strike "....considered nat. weapon for spells and effects...." includes feats as part of it. And since a feat isnt a spell, it is an effect. Then, since people continued to ignore those points, i explained how it wasnt unbalanced at all. All this information was in my first post. It seems some people might not have read it because if its length...but its all there. Edit: Here is some of the definition of effect from dictionary.com ef·fect n. Advantage; avail yep...sounds like a feat to me Something that produces a specific impression or supports a general design or intention. definately describes a feat Sounds pretty convincing to me. I know i left some other definitions out. but i didnt not reword anything. The other definitions just apply to different types of effects. A feat clearly matches 2 of the definitions for effect, so therefore can be considered an effect
Caterane 03-06-04, 03:49 PM	No problem Voivode, we`re all a big family here so there`s no bad thoughts about such "insults". My friends just came over so I have no time to continue now but I want to know why they distinguish between unarmed strike and natural weapon when its the same anyway. Or in a grapple: you can damage your opponoment or attack your opponoment as grapple option. Now a monk deals lethal damage with a grapple check but a natural attack needs to roll an attack (and that at -4) to damage. And some other things. There are too many inconsistencies about the issue. But as said, I join tomorow again. Stay polite :D Cat
Arstimis 03-06-04, 03:54 PM	Originally posted by Caterane Or in a grapple: you can damage your opponoment or attack your opponoment as grapple option. Now a monk deals lethal damage with a grapple check but a natural attack needs to roll an attack (and that at -4) to damage. Cat That is why monks are masters at unarmed combat. Thier unarmed strike is only considered natural weapons for improving effects..this certaintly doesnt improve it
Voivode 03-06-04, 03:57 PM	Arstimis, I don't think there is any need for you to worry about arguments relating to the balance of monks with Improved Natural Attack, or whether a feat is an "effect." Your first point, that an unarmed strike (and by this, I mean any unarmed strike, not just a monk's unarmed strike), is a natural weapon according to the rules seems to have been fairly convincingly proven. The only voice of doubt that still seems to be audible (metaphorically speaking, of course) is that of Caterane. I get that impression that (s)he (would it be Game Mistress for a female? :)) is searching for a definitive answer. Indeed, the first page contains Caterane's own words "what I want to see is a clearly [sic] "MONKS FISTS ARE NATURAL WEAPONS!"" Sadly, no such statement exists, and although Caterane appears willing to let everyone state their opinions, I am not sure we have any chance of changing his/her mind.
MotherBast 03-06-04, 04:05 PM	Cat: after your last few posts I think you might be taking this debate a little to serioulsy. It is a debate, after all, and not an argument. The point is to present differnet perspectives. If other perspectives begin to upset you, perhaps you should take a step back, as you are obvioulsy then slipping into an argument, instead of debating. That said, perhaps its time we all step back from this argument. Personaly, I can see why Cat and others still have reservations. Though I do not agree with the points they present for the most part, it is clear they at least have a foundation that to them, justifies why they wouldn't allow INA for a monk. While personaly I think it should be allowed, for the very reason Viov stated, I can see that these arguments are unmoving for the opposit contengent. Instead of repeating the same arguments over and over, we should simply settle the debate. Right now, the vote is 4-3 in favor of not allowing INA. Snark is the only mod yet to vote. I suggest he be contacted and asked to cast his vote to settle the matter. If he votes no, then the 5-3 majority necessary for a decision is reached. If he votes yes, or abstains, then the 5-3 majority can not be reached, and it will be a matter for the open "polls." Since both sides are mostly unmoving on the matter, it seems we have reached the point where only forcably ending the matter with a vote is practical.
Caterane 03-06-04, 04:16 PM	Well said, MB. We both have our opinions and won`t change our mind. It`s perhaps best to settle the debate once and for all. Though they haven´t posted their vote now I know that Jindl's in favor of allowing it, while Tellish and Moh are against it (I`ll change it back if they later post something else). I contact Snark about the matter. @Viovode: Sorry but my female temperament broke through. My first sentence is still my main point: no entry in the monk description, no gain. One final word from my side: I am not emotionally entangled in this debate - even though it may look...read that way, nor am I upset (MB you had the impression twice already) or trying to insult anyone. And Motherbast's Bong is a major artifact in the CoCo World - and a feared one at that :D ...but you`ll soon read more about that :devil:
Voivode 03-06-04, 04:23 PM	Okay, I need to type shorter messages, because I keep getting overtaken! I do not think that WoTC actually distinguish between unarmed attacks and natural weapons as two mutually exclusive groups. Rather, I think unarmed strikes are a sub-category of natural weapons. Everything (or at least, everything corporeal) has unarmed strikes. A creature with claws or teeth listed as natural weapons could still headbutt, kick or slap an opponent. It would just provoke an attack of opportunity, and be very ineffective. Alternatively - as you can see, this is just my theorising - unarmed strikes may simply be a type of natural weapon. After all, natural weapon is not a singular term. Creatures with natural weapons have claws, bites, slams etc. When they take the Weapon Focus feat, they will take Weapon Focus (Bite) or similar, as is seen many times in the MM. Weapon Focus (Natural Weapons) does not work, any more than Weapon Focus (Swords) would. Arstimis, I do not agree that a monk's unarmed strike is only considered a natural weapon for beneficial effects. I think it is considered a natural weapon at all times, and only considered a manufactured weapon for beneficial effects. Anyway, I agree that it's time to stop talking, and start trying to find votes. Can the moderators change their votes in light of the more recent posts?
MotherBast 03-06-04, 04:28 PM	Speaking of my bong, I would just like to point out that both times I have been accused of smoking it, it was later decided that I was indeed correct in my interprations. The first time was the see invis thing, and while it eventually became apparent that strictly by the rules I was correct, it was declaired a "rules loophole", much like the awaken bit, and not allowed. A decision I agreed with. The second time was with Tasha's Laughter. So, while I wont say I have never actually smoked a bong, I would just point out that if I do, it obviously does lead to enlightnment on my part. :angel: I have sent Snark an e-mail, asking for his vote to be posted, and directed him to this thread if he has not been following the debate. I also left out any reference to who supports what side of the argument, so you need not fear I hid any suggestions in my e-mail. [edit] Yes, a mod could change a vote, but none are likely too. LL and Jindl and myself have all followed this debate, and all support INA. I haven't seen anything that would lead me to belive the opinion might be in error, and I doubt Jindl and LL have either. Meanwhile, MO, Cat, ToK, and Mag all voted against. Mag and Cat I know for sure hold the same opinion. ToK is on a break from the arena at the moment, and isen't likely to return in time to change his argument in the very unlikely event he wanted to. MO is the only one I would say had the slighest posiblity of changing his opinion, but I belive he would have done so already if he were going to.
Arstimis 03-06-04, 04:33 PM	Originally posted by Voivode Arstimis, I do not agree that a monk's unarmed strike is only considered a natural weapon for beneficial effects. I think it is considered a natural weapon at all times, and only considered a manufactured weapon for beneficial effects. This is one of the more clearly defined issues about a monks unarmed strike From 3.5 SRD 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. Clearly only natural and/or manufactured for things that improve or enhance
Voivode 03-06-04, 05:02 PM	Perhaps I didn't express myself very clearly. I agree with you that a monk's unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon and/or a manufactured weapon for the purposes of beneficial effects. However, I also believe it counts as a natural weapon at all other times i.e. if an enemy attempts to disarm him. I don't think a disarm attempt falls within the "spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons" category. It seemed to me that you were suggesting a monk's unarmed strike is a natural weapon for beneficial effects only, and not for any other effects. I may have misunderstood you though.
Arstimis 03-06-04, 05:37 PM	Originally posted by Voivode It seemed to me that you were suggesting a monk's unarmed strike is a natural weapon for beneficial effects only, and not for any other effects. I may have misunderstood you though. Actually nope, im not saying that at all. The PHB says that specifically..i dont know how you can argue agaisnt something that the PHB specifically states
Voivode 03-06-04, 05:55 PM	I'm not arguing against the PHB. Let me put it this way: If a monk's unarmed strike is subjected to something other than "spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons," what does it count as? The example I gave was a disarm attempt. If an opponent makes a disarm attempt on a monk, what does the monk's unarmed strike count as for the purposes of the disarm attempt? Clearly, this situation is not covered by the "spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons" rule. I believe, in this situation, that a monk's unarmed strike would count as a natural weapon i.e. it could not be disarmed.
SnarkHunter 03-06-04, 08:45 PM	I have one question before I post my vote. IT has more to do, I suppose, with the application of the the feat then anything else. But since INA increases the damage dice of an attack, and a monk's damage improves as they level-what happens to the damage of a monk with INA? Would it always be one step ahead? Or would it be frozen at the damage of when they took the feat. Just a curious thing in my opin.
^Rayne^ 03-06-04, 11:01 PM	^I would assume it would stack as they progressed in level. It would seem to be an enhancement to their attacks added to their base as if it were a bonus granted by a magic item (like say gloves in this case). This is only my interpretation of course. If it wasn't this way then I don't think any monk would ever want to take it because for whatever minor gain they made initially, in the long run it would hamper their progression and be more of a curse than a blessing. Feats are not supposed to hurt you, they are supposed to help.
Voivode 03-07-04, 03:35 AM	It would continue to increase. The entry reads: "The damage for this natural weapon increases by one step, as if the creature's size had increased by one category." Therefore, a medium monk with Improved Natural Attack would use the column for large creatures when determining its unarmed damage.
SnarkHunter 03-07-04, 10:32 AM	mmm ok fair enough. I've made my decision.
MotherBast 03-07-04, 10:48 AM	So, with Snarky voting for INA, that makes it a 4-4 tie. I guess then Cat you should create an open poll for this issue, and everyone will get one vote. Note, when the thread does open, just a reminder to only post once, and you need only post YES or NO, as that is not the place for argument.
Caterane 07-18-04, 01:47 PM	Haha! A ghost from ages past. But I am curious... Per open poll (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=197368) we... uh...I mean, some of you have decided that Unarmed strikes are considered Natural Weapons. So, since I can use natural weapons like claws and bite in addition to my regular attacks I should be able to make an extra attack with my "Unarmed Strike natural weapon" per round, right? Make that two with flurry of blows. And since Unarmed strike need not necessarily be a punch but also a kick, headbutt, or elbow check I can always make these extra attacks, right? Cooool. :rolleyes: @Motherbast, Jindl, Snark, and all those who voted yes: Can you please confirm and explain this! Thanks Cat - Holy Liberator against Nonsense Rules ;)
MotherBast 07-18-04, 04:05 PM	Well, you can use an unarmed stike as an "off-hand" attack if you get one. Note that every attack made with an "unarmed stike" takes up one of your attacks in a full attack though, so you can't use it to get an "extra" attack when you aren't entitled to any. For instance, if you have a BAB of 11, then you get 3 attacks. You could use a weapon for all three, and then make an "off-hand" attack with an unarmed stike, but you suffer all the negatives of attacking with two weapons. Remember that unarmed stikes use different rules than natural weapons. For instance, Unarmed stikes can be attempted based off your number of attacks from BAB, but a natural weapon does not recive additional attacks. There are differences between the two. Actually, with the latest ruleing in Dragon that I pointed out about a month ago on the Tavern, Skip ruled that Flurry of Blows could never be used with a Natural Weapon. As I said on the tavern thread, that leads me to belive that INA should NOT be able to be used with a monk's IUS, but everyone ignored me. I think you made a comment about it CAT, but it was more of a "that dosen't change anything" than it was agreement with me. I figured if you didn't think that was enough to change the ruleing, no one else would either so I droped it.
Caterane 07-18-04, 05:57 PM	The Sage said that? Hm, seems like I have to take back some things I said about him. Ok, can now everyone who was so adamant about the INA issue throw himself down in the dirt and beg me for forgiveness for his ignorance in not believing me? :D Well, I suppose that makes the Poll we had back then null and void! No Improved natural attack for monks.
Tellish_of_Ket 07-18-04, 06:52 PM	INA was a garbage house rule in my opinion. I honestly cannot see how anyone with half a brain, no offense to the majority that voted yes I feel most were led astray by so called "rules lawyers", could have voted yes in the first place. The INA issue, is considered Null/Void/Eliminated, and filed under G for garbage-none-sense. -ToK
freemoody 07-18-04, 07:44 PM	And in that same vein. What about Greater Magic Fang on a Monks Unarmed Strike? Wouldn't that be out also.
Caterane 07-18-04, 08:01 PM	No freemoody, Magic fang is ok because it says: "Unarmed strike is considered a natural weapon for spells and effects only." Greater magic fang is a spell so you can use it. Artismis - who led the debate back then - convinced many (including Jindl) that a feat (like Improved natural attack, or Skill focus) is an effect. I'm sure some even thought it's a spell :(
Jindl 07-18-04, 08:24 PM	Originally posted by Caterane Greater magic fang is a spell so you can use it. Artismis - who led the debate back then - convinced many (including Jindl) that a feat (like Improved natural attack) is an effect. I'm sure some even thought it's a spell :( According to the XPHB (and the Psionics section of the SRD), feats are extraordinary abilities, psionic feats being the exception because they are supernatural abilities. As an extraordinary ability, I do still consider a feat to be an effect. IMO, the Sage's ruling about whether "natural attacks" can be used in a flurry is there to describe monks who have specific natural attacks, such as claws or bites (like the Vampire monk which is used as an example). Stating that such natural attacks do not qualify as monk weapons in no way invalidates the statement that a monk's unarmed strike qualifies as an appropriate subject for INA. Personally, I disapprove of the precedent you are trying to set. As GM's we do have the ultimate authority in the CoCo. However, to so flippantly overturn a decision that was made through an open poll is just wrong. I would not disagree with opening another poll, but statements like "they were obviously decieved and thus the results should be thrown out" is certainly going to meet with my disapproval. The potential for abuse is significant and we shouldn't set such precedents. If you and Tellish wish to change the ruling, then you'll need to do so through open poll. I would go further to state that since allowing INA for monks, I have yet to see a monk that was overpowering or unbalancing. Indeed, I haven't seen the feat make much of a difference at all in the relative power of the monk class. Now, since I view the FAQ as official and superceding the SRD, then if the FAQ had stated that the monk's unarmed strike only qualifies for spells and spell-like abilities as a natural weapon, then I would simply make the change. As it is, the FAQ still is unclear about INA and monk's, so such a change in policy should require more than just 2 out of 3 GM's deciding it. On to Cat's original question, which was using a monk's IUS as a secondary natural attack, nothing even hints that this would be possible. The IUS ability describes the attack as qualifying as both a natural weapon and a manufactured weapon. It does NOT say that it works in combat like a natural weapon. Indeed, the use of the attack is stated very clearly, even to the point of discussing its use with non-monk weapons. Cat is just looking for a way to justify his opinion of the armor spikes debate by extending it to this subject. To put it simply, the monk's body as a whole is considered a single weapon that counts as both natural and manufactured. It is not a group of seperate weapons (ie. one for each appendage), it is a single weapon. As for abilities such as flurry of blows, it is simply an extra attack (or two) with this single weapon. Feats like TWF can be used in conjunction with Flurry, as using another weapon does not limit the monk to using his IUS. However, since IUS is a single weapon, it cannot be a secondary natural attack or multiple secondary natural attacks. I think that both the Monk class description and the FAQ do a pretty good job of explaining this. Give some thought to the type of precedent you set when you try to exercise such power as flippantly overturning the results of a community vote without solid Core evidence and without consulting the community who originally made this decision. On an additional note, in the last 2 weeks you have instituted 2 votes in the Elders which have already been decided once before. It will not be our policy to re-vote again and again on topics until you get the decision you want. There should be some clarification or change in the rules, or some general community approval (via poll, etc) before the Elders should revisit old votes. And yes, I am referring specifically to the Ressurrect Allies issue. -Jindl
Tellish_of_Ket 07-18-04, 09:37 PM	I don't think any precedent is being set. I think it's reversing an errant ruling. I do agree that IUS is ONE weapon and agree with Jindl on that one. Feats are not effects however. If so, they can be dispelled. So tell me then what is the effective caster level when dispelling it? Are they even subject to spell resistance? In an anti-magic field you would lose all your feats? C'mon, that doesn't make sense. Feats are extraordinary abilities. Nothing more. I also don't think this is a "power" issue. I don't mind opening a new poll to see if the general populace want's to use the "official" sages ruling as some would put it. I just think it's silly, and it has nothing to do with power or insulting anyone. It's good common sense, nothing more. -ToK
Battousai2005 07-18-04, 10:24 PM	When did this argument resurface? Didn't we put it to vote? *sigh* Well, Arti's out for a while, so anyway, lemme defend for him. Ok, define effect. Well, no where is it defined in DnD terms. 1 something made to happen by a person or thing; result: The effect of the gale was to overturn several boats. 2 the power to produce results; force; validity: This contract is of no effect. 3 influence: The medicine had an immediate effect. 4 an impression produced on the mind or senses, such as the combination of color and form in a picture: Sunshine coming through leaves makes a lovely effect. The view gave the effect of a painting by . 5 something that produces such an impression: The movie used many special effects with sounds and pictures to make the scenes appear real. 6 purport; intent; meaning: She did not openly say she opposed the measure but her speech was to that effect. All the above relate to changes or a status. A feat is a change. Jindl said it. Anyway, this case has been closed. Oh, and Cat, [heavysarcasm]thank you so much for bringing back such a brutal and disruptive argument[/sarcasm] As to why monks are strange, keep in mind, Cat, that Monks fists are Manufacutred as well as natural. Thats the reason that a bear can strike with his claw more than once but a monk can, ahem, flurry the bear to death. If it were not for this rule, monks would have 1 attack per round NORMALY. You know, like a fighter trying to punch someone unarmed. Or the tiger with his one bite attack. I think you see the problem. Ok, so Cat wanted an argument, there it is. Come on, we put this to vote. If we have to, do it again, though its a waste of time and effort. And anyway, I have seen ONE, count, ONE person using IUS. Kiowen has been retired and enjoying the quite life. Not saying it won't happen later, but for now its kinda a dumb argument.
Caterane 07-18-04, 11:51 PM	Originally posted by Jindl: Personally, I disapprove of the precedent you are trying to set. As GM's we do have the ultimate authority in the CoCo. However, to so flippantly overturn a decision that was made through an open poll is just wrong. I would not disagree with opening another poll, but statements like "they were obviously decieved and thus the results should be thrown out" is certainly going to meet with my disapproval. The potential for abuse is significant and we shouldn't set such precedents. If you and Tellish wish to change the ruling, then you'll need to do so through open poll. Jindl, wait a second. My post has nothing to do with being a GM, and in no way did I - nor do I think Tellish - have a GM enforcement in mind. I was just stating the obvious after Motherbast told me that there is an official ruling on the issue, and that our own houserule - which was created through a poll - is wrong. However, I could be the latest newbie here and still state this. So to make that clear: I did NOT "flippantly overturn a decision", nor did I have something like that in mind. On to Cat's original question, which was using a monk's IUS as a secondary natural attack, nothing even hints that this would be possible. The IUS ability describes the attack as qualifying as both a natural weapon and a manufactured weapon. It does NOT say that it works in combat like a natural weapon. Indeed, the use of the attack is stated very clearly, even to the point of discussing its use with non-monk weapons. Cat is just looking for a way to justify his opinion of the armor spikes debate by extending it to this subject. I know that this is not possible. I was just trying to show a weak spot in the ruling that a monks IUS is considered a natural weapon, thus making it obvious that the poll decision was wrong. I wouldn't have used it, of course since I would have to whip myself if doing such a thing. And about the armor spikes, you have to admit that it is really weird that there's a weapon that negates all rules for using 2handed weapons and offhand attacks. On top of that, instead of having some disadvantages to balance it, it gives you additional benefits. MB and I discussed this in another thread and we came to the same conclusion. Give some thought to the type of precedent you set when you try to exercise such power as flippantly overturning the results of a community vote without solid Core evidence and without consulting the community who originally made this decision. Perhaps you should write me a PM next time before accusing me. See above. On an additional note, in the last 2 weeks you have instituted 2 votes in the Elders which have already been decided once before. It will not be our policy to re-vote again and again on topics until you get the decision you want. There should be some clarification or change in the rules, or some general community approval (via poll, etc) before the Elders should revisit old votes. And yes, I am referring specifically to the Ressurrect Allies issue. One moment! This was a discussion held over several pages with all kinds of different opinions. AND: if you want to accuse me that I did this because of the Harvesters, think again! I do not care about paying 500 bugs for a Cauchemare, or doing a monster fight against a hydra. The only reason this vote came up was because I'd like to see BOUGHT COMPANIONS ressurected for free. These are the weakest of all allies, and cost by far the most. I will fully support monster fights and paying for undead if only bought animals would be revived for free. They cost a lot, so they should be refunded. Actually I was planning on splitting the poll into a second one where we vote on ressurecting single ally types, like: 1) Ressurect only bought allies 2) Ressurect no allies 3) Abstain *Leadership and Class allies still ressurected for free. Ever thought about why no one buys a griffon or pegasus for 7000 gold and 45 hp? Because it will be dead in no time. The purpose is to allow non-spellcasters to take to the air without refering to magic (Figurines, Carpets of flying, etc can all be dispelled). And yes, I would have liked to see that enacted in the CoCo ...because of the CoCo.
MotherBast 07-19-04, 07:16 AM	First off, the FAQ I mentioned does not specificaly refrence INA or IUS at all. It does not, in any way, make our vote null and void. I was just pointing out that a ruleling on a completly different issue made me rethink this one. It is still quite possible that INA would work for monks, I was just stating that it was worth thinking about again. I am in no way trying to nullafy an open poll. Second, just to end the "feats can not be effects" argument, the spell description for Antimagic Field specificaly states "suppresses any spell or MAGICAL effect used withen..." Just the fact that is specifies what type of effects it supresses means other types DO exist, or it would suppress ALL effects. It dosen't. It only suppresses magical effects, so a NONMAGICAL effect would still work in an antimagic field. So, if feats are effects, they are nonmagical effects and will work in an antimagic field.
Caterane 07-19-04, 08:06 AM	I have no idea why anyone gets the impression that a feat is an effect. The term effect is nowhere explained, described, listed, NOWHERE, except for the expression "spell effect". So it is clear to me that the designers meant "spell effects" when they wrote "...for spells and effects". You however say that "effect" and "spell effect" are two different shoes though the former one is no where written, then you go even further and say that feats are effects which is nowhere in the books too. What you do is inventing a new expression and assign it without any connection to the feat section, and sell it for a given fact. I really cannot believe that anyone can come up with something so fantastic, and that three quarters of the CoCo agreed on that. Unbelievable!
Battousai2005 07-19-04, 02:45 PM	To be quite honest, this is degrading into personal arguments. Ok, this is what we have now. 1) Feats are (not) effects: Again, we have no game definition for effect. I have heard of non-magical effects, though these were things like extraordinary abilities. So, basically, this is a fools argument and will only stop when one side gives in. 2) Natural attack=1 attack: Weak argument, for reasons I sighted above. Monks fists are Manufactured as well as natural, negating this rule. 3) Stupidity of voters: Yah, well. Humaity in general is filled with idiots. 4) Lack of evidence: Unfortunatly, there is an issue here. Cat, kindly find me somewhere that sights monks CAN NOT take INA. Do this, we drop this argument. Again, this is an impass. Both sides could logically use this argument. Now lets look at logic. Arguments against: Unbalace: Well, this is an issue brought up a lot here. Guess what? Deal. It happens. Casters are a bit better here, fighters here. Found in MM: So that means that a human can't craft a construct? Or a Dragon deciple can't take fly-by attack? Next. No proof: See above Natural attack def: Again, above Arguments for: Monk Natural attack: Solid argument. Still, lets break it down: Is a fist a natural weapon. Gee, I don't know! I think I had to buy mine! Core: I agree. It is core. Lack of definate arguments: Someone give me a good ruling against, and I might listen. WE VOTED!: Well, we did vote. As Cat is implying, we might all be idiots, but hey, majority rules.
Moherajikuyx 07-24-04, 10:03 AM	Lol... I stay away for months... It's lovely to see that something never changes: makes you feel at home when you come back! :cloud9: Speaking of which, let me make my position clearer than before: 1. EFFECT isn't only a magic effect, or it would be stated somewhere. Feats for example have effects, it's written on some feats. But: 2. FEAT = REQUISITE + EFFECTS (which can be Benefits. always present, or Special, sometimes present), some feats have the requisite part implicit (you need a feat slot and nothing else). Feats HAVE effects, of course; but if they WERE effects, it would be like saying that SPELLS were effects too. Now I hope no one's going to tell me that monks can cast Magic Fang :D 3. IUS satisfies EFFECT (and SPELL, but see below) 4. IUS doesn't satisfy REQUISITE, unless it's written anywhere. Thus it's ok with feats like PA, that have no explicit requisites. WF and WS have requisites ("you need a weapon") which are satisfied by IUS ("is considered armed") so you can choose IUS for them. 5. SPELLS: when you quote text from spells, the cautious rules lawyer should consider an implict "with regards to spells": being in a spellbook, it's quite obvious that the authors didn't want to write it everywhere, right? This settles all the examples reported from spells in this thread, and solves the rules clash that I thought to see. No need of looking for a primary source! BTW, I really think they should have it - and IMC I'll allow it (when MC will exist again :weep: :weep: ). But, I don't consider it core.
Sapp 12-02-05, 09:35 PM	I'm surprised how patient Arstimis was with this argument. To be honest, before reading this thread I would have ruled against allowing INA for monks. I never noticed it before but, yes, INA is [General], and allowing feats from the MM I consider more legit than any non-Core supplements (even the Complete Series). Considering I use the Complete Series, I don't see any reason why Monks should be restricted only to the feats listed in the PHB. This thread is one of those cases where losers of an argument start crying about "rules-lawyering" simply because they got beaten by the rules and even go to extents as explicitly insulting their opponents. (A little too emotional aren't we?) Mudslinging is for politicians.
Book5 12-02-05, 10:09 PM	...and this has bearing on what now? This thread is like 80 years old Sappy :D Were you there? Like Battousai2005 - changed your name since this thread's fame?