Paizo bans INA for Monks? Too Strong a benefit?!

[Starbuck_II]

I decided to check out Paizo's message boards. See what was going on: sometimes they have decent discussions and good stories, but today...

I found out that there are banning INA.

Jason crunched his numbers and the official errata is this—the Improved Natural Attack feat can not be applied to unarmed strike. We'll be issuing an errata for that feat that adds this sentence to the feat:

"Improved Natural Attack can not be applied to unarmed strikes."

Unarmed strikes ARE still treated as natural weapons for most effects (particularly for the spell magic fang and for amulets of magic fang), but the Improved Natural Attack feat is an exception to that rule.

So! There ya go! Official errata! Sorry it took so long to nail it down.

Apparently, it makes Monks too good... or some jazz like that.

Now I know they made the monk better than 3.5, but I doubt they made them that good.

What do you think? Is this nerf neccsary?

[Quirinus_Obsidian]

I decided to check out Paizo's message boards. See what was going on: sometimes they have decent discussions and good stories, but today...

I found out that there are banning INA.


Apparently, it makes Monks too good... or some jazz like that.

Now I know they made the monk better than 3.5, but I doubt they made them that good.

What do you think? Is this nerf neccsary?

As a person that plays a monk character on a regular basis, I say this is not a good rule. When the DND monk hits, it is supposed to hurt, and hurt bad. There is nothing wrong with increasing the die size to Large. It is truly a negligible increase. Of course, it is up to the DM to use the rule change. In my game, it would be allowed.

[Aron Times]

Another reason to stick to 3.5 or 4E...

The developers have no idea what they're doing. During the Pathfinder beta, some CharOp regulars, myself included, tried to help with the balancing of the game, only to be told by the devs that math wasn't important and that we should be playing instead of theorycrafting.

[Starbuck_II]

Interrstingly, Jason did some thorycrafting with INA and concluded it was too strong my quote said.
So he isn't against all theorycrafting.

[UglyPanda]

I was going to give a long rant, but instead, here's a quick opinion:

Small increases to Melee damage are worthless when your opponents can fly and/or cast illusions. This change is silly.

[The Glyphstone]

Interrstingly, Jason did some thorycrafting with INA and concluded it was too strong my quote said.
So he isn't against all theorycrafting.

Just other people theorycrafting, especially when it conflicts with his theorycrafting? Not exactly stellar game design skills there.

[peacenlove]

I am not exactly an optimizer nor did i read the finished pathfinder rules but what troubles did Improved natural attack cause in a pathfinder game?
A monk player of mine always (ie for 4 years) selected that feat in 3.5 edition for his monk character and i had absolutely no problems. To me it was always equivalent of the weapon specialization feat (for core only, granted with size modifiers it could get nasty, but a dedicated sorcerer could pull off more damage at a greater range)

[pres_man]

Another reason to stick to 3.5 or 4E...

The developers have no idea what they're doing. During the Pathfinder beta, some CharOp regulars, myself included, tried to help with the balancing of the game, only to be told by the devs that math wasn't important and that we should be playing instead of theorycrafting.

Just to point out that there was debate in 3.5 whether INA could be applied to monks' unarmed attacks.

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.

Improved Natural Attack [General]
Prerequisite
Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4.

The argument, if I remember right was something like, "Is a prerequisite considered an effect"? If it is not, then even though INA's benefit would effect a monk's unarmed strike, he couldn't take it because he couldn't meet the prerequisite of having a natural weapon.

As for PF designers and "theorycrafting", I think the term is probably very loosely applied to them. More likely he sat there and thought about if it "felt" too powerful and then made the decision from that. I seriously doubt any real number crunching was done, just based on the previous decisions and statements I've seen made by them.

[Starbuck_II]

True, but the FAQ and many WotC official monks all allowed it. Sage even said Feats are effects.

[Fax Celestis]

Just other people theorycrafting, especially when it conflicts with his theorycrafting? Not exactly stellar game design skills there.

Spoiler

Show

I know, right?

After the ZOMG PSIONIX R BORKEN debacle, I am no longer surprised by any idiocy that comes out of Pathfinder's design team.

Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for them, but they keep making bad, uninformed decisions and incomplete or unnecessary fixes.

[The Glyphstone]

Spoiler

Show

I know, right?

After the ZOMG PSIONIX R BORKEN debacle, I am no longer surprised by any idiocy that comes out of Pathfinder's design team.

Don't get me wrong, I have a lot of respect for them, but they keep making bad, uninformed decisions and incomplete or unnecessary fixes.

It must be extra painful for you, considering all the work you've done making D20Rebirth actually balanced and effective (and free), while they just mash up a big heap of ill-tested houserules and sell it for profit.

[Fax Celestis]

It must be extra painful for you, considering all the work you've done making D20Rebirth actually balanced and effective (and free), while they just mash up a big heap of ill-tested houserules and sell it for profit.

Yeah, it is. The Problem with Pathfinder, for me, is that all I see is wasted potential.

[jmbrown]

I agree with the decision. Unarmed attacks aren't natural weapons. Unarmed strike may allow a monk to treat his attack as a natural weapon, but they're not actual natural weapons. A monk has neither bite, claw or talon, gore, slap or slam, sting or tentacle.

This doesn't prove the incompetence of the writers but rather the incompetence of the class itself (as if we needed further proof).

[Leon]

And are pazio going to come into your house and stop you from playing a monk with INA...?

We play heavily modified D&D 3.x (like everyone sane does right? right? whatever.)

[Kylarra]

I agree with the decision. Unarmed attacks aren't natural weapons. Unarmed strike may allow a monk to treat his attack as a natural weapon, but they're not actual natural weapons. A monk has neither bite, claw or talon, gore, slap or slam, sting or tentacle.

This doesn't prove the incompetence of the writers but rather the incompetence of the class itself (as if we needed further proof).

Well if they'd presented that as rationale rather than pretending that it was number theorycrafting that brought them to the decision, they'd probably get less flak.

[jokey665]

I agree with the decision. Unarmed attacks aren't natural weapons. Unarmed strike may allow a monk to treat his attack as a natural weapon, but they're not actual natural weapons. A monk has neither bite, claw or talon, gore, slap or slam, sting or tentacle.

This doesn't prove the incompetence of the writers but rather the incompetence of the class itself (as if we needed further proof).

Now, I don't know the Pathfinder wording, but I assume it's similar to the standard 3.5 wording.

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.

And natural weapons don't have to be one of the things you listed:

Natural weapons have types just as other weapons do. The most common are summarized below.

It then goes on to list those that you did, note that it says "most common" and not "the only ones ever."

[AstralFire]

Well if they'd presented that as rationale rather than pretending that it was number theorycrafting that brought them to the decision, they'd probably get less flak.

...Which it most likely is, but that would require admitting that they didn't fix the monk.

[Kylarra]

...Which it most likely is, but that would require admitting that they didn't fix the monk.

Could be. Personally, I'd rather admit that I did something wrong, than use false information to make me look stupid.

[Mastikator]

Spoiler

Show

{table]Level|Damage Dice|INADice|Average Damage|Improved Damage Average|Damage Bonus
1|1d6|1d8|3.5|4.5|+1
2|1d6|1d8|3.5|4.5|+1
3|1d6|1d8|3.5|4.5|+1
4|1d8|2d6|4.5|7|+2.5
5|1d8|2d6|4.5|7|+2.5
6|1d8|2d6|4.5|7|+2.5
7|1d8|2d6|4.5|7|+2.5
8|1d10|2d8|5.5|9|+3.5
9|1d10|2d8|5.5|9|+3.5
10|1d10|2d8|5.5|9|+3.5
11|1d10|2d8|5.5|9|+3.5
12|2d6|3d6|7|10.5|+3.5
13|2d6|3d6|7|10.5|+3.5
14|2d6|3d6|7|10.5|+3.5
15|2d6|3d6|7|10.5|+3.5
16|2d6|3d6|7|10.5|+3.5
17|2d8|3d8|9|13.5|+4.5
18|2d8|3d8|9|13.5|+4.5
19|2d8|3d8|9|13.5|+4.5
20|2d10|4d8|11|18|+7[/table]

Doesn't seem like a huge overpowered bonus to me. It's merely a non-wasted feat which might make monks a little more comparable with other classes of their level.
Tack in that you also get magical bonus for gauntlet on top of karate-chop damage and monk is suddenly a feasible class =P

[peacenlove]

I agree with the decision. Unarmed attacks aren't natural weapons. Unarmed strike may allow a monk to treat his attack as a natural weapon, but they're not actual natural weapons. A monk has neither bite, claw or talon, gore, slap or slam, sting or tentacle.

This doesn't prove the incompetence of the writers but rather the incompetence of the class itself (as if we needed further proof).

So? In 3.5 Edition a lot of classes had negative or indifferent feedback (paladin, ranger, warlock, sorcerer comes to mind) and were saved by splatbooks and fixes on the rulings which inspired many homebrewers to test and further fix/enhance the class (i know that is my case with the shadowcaster). Canceling a ruling that benefited a class that is subpar AND problematic while doing nothing to compensate and/or make the class more attractive and competent, is a bad decision for me. Not trying to fix a bad class is also a bad decision for me especially if the class is core.
Also they PROMISED to fix the monk (with the whole 3.5 edition). Pathfinder monk is THEIR product. And if he is incompetent then whoever wrote him is incompetent too.
Really the monk in core is broken with INA?

@Mastikator: That number increases when a monk gains size. However even then 2HW Power attack beats INA in any case (considering the lag at Base Attack Bonus monks have).

[jmbrown]

Now, I don't know the Pathfinder wording, but I assume it's similar to the standard 3.5 wording.



And natural weapons don't have to be one of the things you listed:


It then goes on to list those that you did, note that it says "most common" and not "the only ones ever."

Now we're boiling down to differences in DMs. I don't consider feats an effect. Feats grant effects, but they are in themselves not effects. A monk can enchant his body with magic weapon or magic fang but it's still considered an unarmed strike, not a natural attack.

So? In 3.5 Edition a lot of classes had negative or indifferent feedback (paladin, ranger, warlock, sorcerer comes to mind) and were saved by splatbooks and fixes on the rulings which inspired many homebrewers to test and further fix/enhance the class (i know that is my case with the shadowcaster). Canceling a ruling that benefited a class that is subpar AND problematic while doing nothing to compensate and/or make the class more attractive and competent, is a bad decision for me. Not trying to fix a bad class is also a bad decision for me especially if the class is core.
Also they PROMISED to fix the monk (with the whole 3.5 edition). Pathfinder monk is THEIR product. And if he is incompetent then whoever wrote him is incompetent too.
Really the monk in core is broken with INA?

Never did I say it was broken and neither did I express distaste for improving poor classes. All I'm saying is that, by the rules, I don't consider a monk's unarmed strike to double as a natural attack.

The monk in Pathfinder is still really terrible. That's a problem with the class as written, not an option it can no longer take. No amount of extra feats or abilities compounded can save something with a poor foundation.

[Morty]

I want to like Pathfinder. I really do. Some of the stuff they did for D&D 3.5 really appeals to me and I like their moderate approach too. But once in a while - pretty often, actually - they do something like this.

[peacenlove]

Never did I say it was broken and neither did I express distaste for improving poor classes. All I'm saying is that, by the rules, I don't consider a monk's unarmed strike to double as a natural attack.

The monk in Pathfinder is still really terrible. That's a problem with the class as written, not an option it can no longer take. No amount of extra feats or abilities compounded can save something with a poor foundation.

Sorry, poor english ,that led me misread your post, and my belief (vain as might sound) ,that all classes can be improved, may got me too far. Also bad as it may be there are some players (unfortunately for me ) that still play them and i want to houserule the monk to be as playable as possible.
EDIT 2: Thank you for your opinions i will consider them.

EDIT 1:
@Morty: Since we all have the PSRD handy, you can ignore the bad and take the good. After all (for me) its a tome of house rules and i gauge it as i would any homebrew here.

@Fax Celestis (And spoilered for off topic-ness):

Spoiler

Show

How easy is to convert material from the 3.5 to the d20r system? I am thinking of adopting it in one of my future games (well that might be late ) but i would like to import some stuff i have created

[DragoonWraith]

I think it's preposterous to claim that an unarmed strike is not a natural attack. RAW is ambiguous at best and RAMS dictates that it must be.

[jmbrown]

Sorry, poor english ,that led me misread your post, and my belief (vain as might sound) ,that all classes can be improved, may got me too far.

Oh, the monk can definitely be improved. Anyone whose played a monk longer than a single session can point out all the problems. His hit die keep him away from the front lines, his BAB keeps him from hitting well, and his abilities require high attributes all around to be effective. The monk isn't too bad when you roll for attributes but in a fixed point buy system he's absolute garbage.

Easy fixes? Good BAB, d10 hit dice, let him add intelligence or wisdom to AC or at least wear light armor without losing everything, and allow his alignment to be used by ki attack so good/evil monks deal good/evil damage; as it stands, there are very very very few things with damage reduction overcome purely by law. At that point I'd say he'd be at least on par with a fighter of the same WBL.

I think it's preposterous to claim that an unarmed strike is not a natural attack. RAW is ambiguous at best and RAMS dictates that it must be.

By this logic, anyone's unarmed strike is a natural attack simply by definition that your body is natural, not manufactured. It also means an unarmed strike could be used to make multiple attacks at the -5 penalty because, well, all humanoids have multiple limbs.

No, a natural attack is any extension of a creature's body specifically designed to deal damage. Hooves, fangs, claws, tentacles, and the like. If Wizards wanted to convince me otherwise they would have released errata specifically stating so.

[The Glyphstone]

Oh, the monk can definitely be improved. Anyone whose played a monk longer than a single session can point out all the problems. His hit die keep him away from the front lines, his BAB keeps him from hitting well, and his abilities require high attributes all around to be effective. The monk isn't too bad when you roll for attributes but in a fixed point buy system he's absolute garbage.

Easy fixes? Good BAB, d10 hit dice, let him add intelligence or wisdom to AC or at least wear light armor without losing everything, and allow his alignment to be used by ki attack so good/evil monks deal good/evil damage; as it stands, there are very very very few things with damage reduction overcome purely by law. At that point I'd say he'd be at least on par with a fighter of the same WBL.

My personal monk rewrite was 1) Full BAB, 2) Flurry as a Standard Action, a la Rapid Shot, and an ability to flat-out ignore a number of points of DR equal to his monk level, instead of just bypassing certain types of DR. For the monk player, it's worked out great...he's easily keeping up with the Crusader and the Barbarian in terms of damage, and having a boatload of fun to boot.

[pres_man]

I think it's preposterous to claim that an unarmed strike is not a natural attack. RAW is ambiguous at best and RAMS dictates that it must be.

Well the danger to making it a natural weapon is, you don't get multiple attacks with a natural weapon. Thus a monk couldn't flurry with unarmed strikes if they were natural weapons.

[AstralFire]

Well the danger to making it a natural weapon is, you don't get multiple attacks with a natural weapon. Thus a monk couldn't flurry with unarmed strikes if they were natural weapons.

A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

Not for 'all purposes', but 'spells and effects which enhance'.

[pres_man]

Not for 'all purposes', but 'spells and effects which enhance'.

I was responding to:
"I think it's preposterous to claim that an unarmed strike is not a natural attack."

[jmbrown]

Well the danger to making it a natural weapon is, you don't get multiple attacks with a natural weapon. Thus a monk couldn't flurry with unarmed strikes if they were natural weapons.

The important question is: if unarmed attacks are also considered natural weapons, then what parts of the humanoid body are considered natural for the purpose of multiple attacks? Obviously the arms and legs but there are other... appendages that might come into question.

Spoiler

Show

I am, of course, talking about the tongue.