I think folks get too worked up about exact interpretations of rules, to be honest. If you want monks to be able to do this in your game, by all means go for it! It's not something that I think they should be able to do, though, because I feel that it violates the rules as intended. Monks already have a method by which their unarmed strike damage improves as they level up... if that's not enough, then go ahead and let them take Improved Natural Weapon, I guess. I'm not interested in combing through the rules to "prove" this is right. It's the way I'd call it in my games, and it's the way I'll call it in Pathfinder products, but that doesn't have to be the same as anyone else's game.
A totally reasonable position... when you're DMing a game and not making a system you're selling as a business. Honestly I'm the last guy to try to get on jump street with people that probably know more about stuff than me but this and the recent Psionic b@+@@$!@ is really testing my all ready limited patience. This ruling is kicking a three legged dog down a hill, the Monk sucks enough as is and this just makes it worse. *Prepares for incoming YOU SHOULDN'T CARE ABOUT NUMBERS bull*
The two are not mutually exclusive.
It is possible to roleplay a character and optimize the effectiveness of the character's damage output, true.
But why wouldn't all monks take this feat? Why wouldn't every monk want to hit like a larger monk? Why would anyone want to play a weaker character compared to other characters that take this feat? There's no roleplaying choice in the feat -- it's pure mechanics.
Weapon Specialization is fighter exclusive, true -- but there are a whole chain of fighter-exclusive feats that are essentially class features of the fighter. It's intended for fighters to take these feats to balance them out with the other classes. Is it intended for monks to take INA? According to the 3.5 FAQ, the answer is yes. PF will thankfully leave the feat in the Bestiary where it belongs.
|
...
PF will thankfully leave the feat in the Bestiary where it belongs.
While I respect both sides of the INA debate, I find this particular line of argument maddening. It's like a dog whistle. First, plenty of the humanoids and native outsiders in the Bestiary come with details on playing them. Second, it requires willful blindness towards Appendices 4, 6, and 7. Third, reduced to its logical conclusion, it produces absurd results. For instance, do you restrict summon monster n to NPC casters only, because your Bestiary apparently comes with PLAYERS KEEP OUT in invisible ink?
For instance, do you restrict summon monster n to NPC casters only, because your Bestiary apparently comes with PLAYERS KEEP OUT in invisible ink?
This must come from the poet part of your handle rather than the logic, because all I could think when I read it was, "Wuh?"
Creative Director
|
A totally reasonable position... when you're DMing a game and not making a system you're selling as a business. Honestly I'm the last guy to try to get on jump street with people that probably know more about stuff than me but this and the recent Psionic b%*%%#!! is really testing my all ready limited patience. This ruling is kicking a three legged dog down a hill, the Monk sucks enough as is and this just makes it worse. *Prepares for incoming YOU SHOULDN'T CARE ABOUT NUMBERS bull*
First of all... have you played a Pathfinder monk in a campaign long enough to KNOW that they suck? Or is this a knee-jerk reaction to reading the stats? Monks are not meant to outdo or even MATCH the fighter or barbarian or paladin or ranger in combat. If they were, they'd have d10 HD and a full base attack bonus. They're meant to be more defensive than offensive.
Second of all... I'm not the lead designer of the game. Jason Bulmahn is. My interest and tendency to err on the side of the story or to not need exacting rules when I'm running a game don't make me the best choice to be Paizo's lead designer... Jason's does. When I post on these boards to talk about rules and design decisions, it's to help folks understand the game as best as I am able, to relay to you what Jason was thinking or what his design goals were when I know them or to interpret them when I don't, and so on.
In the case of the monk and this feat, I DID chat with Jason about it, and his reasons for not allowing it made a lot of sense for the reasons I've already mentioned in this thread. Feel free to house rule this ruling, of course.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Monks are not meant to outdo or even MATCH the fighter or barbarian or paladin or ranger in combat. If they were, they'd have d10 HD and a full base attack bonus. They're meant to be more defensive than offensive.Perhaps you could expound on that James?
If the monk's purpose isn't to engage in combat, but something defensive, why would a party even hire them?
I don't know about you, but when I'm looking for crew members I want somebody who's going to pull their weight.
If the monk can't do the job I'm going to go elsewhere.
I don't think James said a monk is not meant to engage in combat, just that they're not supposed to MATCH a fighter or other full BAB class in combat.
Monks excel at being skirmishers and getting to and beating softer targets that aren't full fighters (or paladins, barbarians, etc.) A monk has the speed and abilities to get to the wizard, rogue, cleric, etc. and either grapple or trip, etc. and/or stun, or inflict large amounts of damage. Monks are also great team players with allied rogues, since they can easily set up sneak attack opportunities for them, that less maneuverable fighter types wouldn't be able to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monks excel at being skirmishers and getting to and beating softer targets that aren't full fighters (or paladins, barbarians, etc.) A monk has the speed and abilities to get to the wizard, rogue, cleric, etc. and either grapple or trip, etc. and/or stun, or inflict large amounts of damage. Monks are also great team players with allied rogues, since they can easily set up sneak attack opportunities for them, that less maneuverable fighter types wouldn't be able to.
You sir, totally understand the monk. Anyone that plays a monk as a run head on into the biggest most well armored thing on the battlefield will be sorry more often then not. Simply put that is not what monks are made to do, nor what the class excels at.
Monks excel at being skirmishers and getting to and beating softer targets that aren't full fighters (or paladins, barbarians, etc.) A monk has the speed and abilities to get to the wizard, rogue, cleric, etc. and either grapple or trip, etc. and/or stun, or inflict large amounts of damage. Monks are also great team players with allied rogues, since they can easily set up sneak attack opportunities for them, that less maneuverable fighter types wouldn't be able to.
See, the thing is, in almost all cases the fighter has the speed and abilities to get to the wizard/rogue/cleric and grapple/trip/overrun and inflict a large amount of damage, while having higher hit points and AC.
D&D is typically played in a small tactical space no more than 100' square. Human-sized fighters can charge 60', or more with common magic items (boots of striding and springing), and get more feats than monks do to use for combat maneuvers. There are no common abilities in 3.5 that prevent a character from moving through a threatened space, so the only penalty for doing so is an AOO, which the fighter is about the best-equipped person in the party to handle.
Furthermore, even assuming the monk does insert himself behind enemy "lines" (though such is a misnomer because there really is no such thing in D&D), he cannot withstand the obvious tactic of the enemy once he does: collapse in on the monk and surround him.
While I respect both sides of the INA debate, I find this particular line of argument maddening. It's like a dog whistle. First, plenty of the humanoids and native outsiders in the Bestiary come with details on playing them. Second, it requires willful blindness towards Appendices 4, 6, and 7. Third, reduced to its logical conclusion, it produces absurd results. For instance, do you restrict summon monster n to NPC casters only, because your Bestiary apparently comes with PLAYERS KEEP OUT in invisible ink?...
PF will thankfully leave the feat in the Bestiary where it belongs.
I agree. The idea that the feats in the Monster Manual that PCs can legitimately meet the prereqs for being unavailable for no reason other than the book being called the "Bestiary" rather than the PHB is just silly. Druids, for example, can meet the prereqs for Flyby Attack at 4th level, when they can wild shape. Now, they can only use it while wild shaped and having a fly speed, but saying that it's in the Bestiary, so they don't have access to it is just sort of silly. There are several feats in the Bestiary that PCs may be able to access. The book isn't "DMs only" unless PCs no longer can have familiars (the stats are in the Bestiary), the expanded list of Animal Companions (the stats are in the Bestiary), or access to Summon Monster/Nature's Ally (the stats are in the Bestiary). If they aren't allowed to look at the feats because it's not for PCs, they're not allowed to cast an entire chain of spells or make use of a class feature, either.
corse the druid does take the shape of a beast..does your monk gain claws? Is his teeth very sharp? Does he have horns that gore? hooves mayhap? Just why should he gain it based off word and loophole twisting? It was never ment to work with fists or kicks or your super sharp knee
corse the druid does take the shape of a beast..does your monk gain claws? Is his teeth very sharp? Does he have horns that gore? hooves mayhap? Just why should he gain it based off word and loophole twisting? It was never ment to work with fists or kicks or your super sharp knee
Actually, it was. That'd be why WotC said it was. And why Paizo published a monk with the feat. Seems like it was meant to be available to monks to me.
Honestly, I don't understand why a "slam" is a natural weapon, but my fists aren't. Humans, pre-tools, probably did a fair amount of fighting with our fists. The idea that they aren't natural weapons just seems really odd to me.
That would allow a 13th level fighter to pull off 12d6 per hit unarmed for one. Another thing it unbalances the monk , giving him far more dmage then he was meant to have
allowing this by 17th level your monk now has 7 attacks +15/+15/+10/+10/+5/+5/+0 each and every one doing 12d6
Edit" was thinking ya could take it more then once
your right I was thinking it allowed to be taken more then once. still myself allowing him to jump past what the class was made for seems off to me
if ya take it at 7th level ya get 2d6 at 8th , 3d6 at 12th , 4d6 at 16th and 6d6 at 20th
now back to 17th level thats 7 attacks at 4d6 not counting other feats or magic items when ya normally gain 7 at 2d8
yeah thats fine, but say ya had improved giving up 3 attacks for one good hit. Thats 6d8 damage or 12d6? Does 12d6 sound right to you? It does not to me and I do not think Jason ever intended for it to be used as such
|
I agree. The idea that the feats in the Monster Manual that PCs can legitimately meet the prereqs for being unavailable for no reason other than the book being called the "Bestiary" rather than the PHB is just silly. Druids, for example, can meet the prereqs for Flyby Attack at 4th level, when they can wild shape. Now, they can only use it while wild shaped and having a fly speed, but saying that it's in the Bestiary, so they don't have access to it is just sort of silly. There are several feats in the Bestiary that PCs may be able to access. The book isn't "DMs only" unless PCs no longer can have familiars (the stats are in the Bestiary), the expanded list of Animal Companions (the stats are in the Bestiary), or access to Summon Monster/Nature's Ally (the stats are in the Bestiary). If they aren't allowed to look at the feats because it's not for PCs, they're not allowed to cast an entire chain of spells or make use of a class feature, either.
Yeah, I agree with this, it's an ugly hack to stick this in the FAQ/Errata. And I also don't think Improved Natural Attack is too good, either, in any case.
Also, monks are still paying more for AB bonuses for their unarmed attacks, aren't they?
My interpretation on this matter is it's a non-stacking benefit. That is, the monk's improved unarmed damage feature is identical to this feat, and therefore renders the feat irrelevant.
Another way to interpret it, still on the same line of thinking, is that the monster feat has an unlisted prerequisite which PCs (except possibly monks) are not able to fulfill. But as monks get it as a bonus feat, it's not entirely worth mentioning.
Jason (via James) made it quite clear how the errata will work - although until it is official I will throw my lot in with the variant versions, i.e:
Improved Natural Attack
...
Special: Monks who take this feat instead gain the damage dice of a monk 4 levels higher. This does not stack with Monk Robes.
I have an opinion on this. Here comes:
I have no strong feelings one way or the other! I'd allow it if a player asked for this. I might even take it for my own monk.
It would hardly be a must-have, though. So it increases your damage potential by 1 on average. Later something like 3. Nothing to lose any sleep over. Monks still won't outperform a fighter or paladin or barbarian in the damage department.
Plus, damage output isn't really the monk's strong suit, but this can help you if you want to go with a damage monk. After all, one of PFRPG's goals was to expand the versatility of classes, to expand roles. If the game wants non-caster crafters or fireball-slinging clerics, why not a damage-dealing monk?
does your monk gain claws? Is his teeth very sharp? Does he have horns that gore? hooves mayhap? Just why should he gain it based off word and loophole twisting? It was never ment to work with fists or kicks or your super sharp knee
My fists or kicks? No. A monk's? I'd say yes. One of their schticks is to be a living weapon. They don't just pummel an enemy with fists or feet. They transcend that. I think it makes sense for monks to be able to improve their attacks as natural attacks. They're not just Improved Unarmed Attacks, after all. If they were, they'd just get that feat without a large big class ability attached.
If the monk's purpose isn't to engage in combat, but something defensive, why would a party even hire them?
Parties hire people now? :P
I thought Dungeon Crawl, Inc. was just a web-based comic strip, not the default game model.
Maybe it was a monk following the teachings of Yen Buddhism. They think money is the source of all evil, so they try to get as much money as possible off other people to save their souls.
And maybe such a monk bought a controlling interest in the party?
No, seriously: Not every party "hires" members solely on their combat prowess. In fact, I don't think that many parties "hire" people at all. Often, they choose to go on adventure with people that share their goals, outlooks, or something along the lines.
And I'm so glad for that. I wouldn't want HR to encroach on my hobby. What's next? Periodic performance reviews? Wages based on performance in several predefined categories? Is there job advancement involved? When I show enough management skills, will I get the Leadership feat? Will I have to mentor some low-level character with exceptional stats?
I might be alone with this, but I prefer to limit exposure to stuff like that to the 8+ hours I spend at work 5 days a week. I work in a huge big company, I prefer my roleplaying to be more along the lines of a very small family business.
|
|
Oh MAN Dungeon Crawl, Inc. Totally forgot about that comic.
-goes back to read-
Oh, and my thoughts pretty much mirror Kae Yoss. I'm fine with the feat, and was fine with it in 3.5. Hardly ever saw any monks take it. I think it's a bit silly to errata it so that it's 'banned', but since I hardly saw anyone take it before I doubt it will make a difference in the long run.
Your Avatar of Nethys,
Karui Kage
Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack to increase his unarmed strike damage? Could he take Ability Focus (Stunning Fist, Scorpion Style, or Gorgon's Fist)?Actually...
An unarmed strike is not a natural attack. It's using an appendage to make an attack even though the natural features of that appendage do not make it a viable natural attack in the same way that claws or teeth work.
Unarmed strike is therefore a "weapon" that's listed on the list of weapons in the Core rules.
Improved Natural Attack applies ONLY to natural attacks like bites, claws, slams, tentacles, etc; the list of natural attacks appears on our around page 301 or 302 in the Bestiary. Unarmed strike is NOT on that list.
Mmmm, well, depends on how you read the rules.
1. Improved Natural Attack says it can be applied to any natural attack.
2. The definition of natural attack on page 182 of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook says that a natural attack is any attack made with a natural weapon. Furthermore, page 301 of the Bestiary states that a natural attack is any attack made without a weapon and page 302 lists an "Other" category on the natural attacks chart.
3. The monk's Unarmed Strike class feature states that "a monk's unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for the purpose of effects that enhance or improve natural weapons".
4. Thus, a monk's Unarmed Strike is a natural weapon.
5. Thus, any attack made with a monk's Unarmed Strike is a natural attack.
6. Thus, Improved Natural Attack applies to a monk's Unarmed Strike.
That is true though improved natural attack is a monster feet so it's still the GMs call
I am still trying to figure out how people find a thread this old by accident when there are similar threads that are not as old.
PS:By default the monster feats are ok for PC use. It does not take GM Fiat to allow them. It takes GM fiat to stop them. There are threads on the issue.
Hahahahahahahahahahahhahahah
My point still stands
My point still stands
Was your point that:
A GM must be ok with everything a player does*
or
A player must play "Mother May I with the GM", even if it is a default option?**
*He looks over the character sheet and gives a yes or no.
**The player must specifically ask about the fighters getting two skill points, and having access to martial weapons for the purpose of proficiency as an example, even though the default rules already say yes.
:)
I guess TOZ can join in. :)
I thought TriOmegaZero was the sarcastic one.
We're all just a*@~!%*s.
Where is that monk? I was not done with him.
Wait, who revived this thread all of a sudden?
Anyway, I will choose to ignore the errata, as have my players.