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.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/FaxCelestis/Motivators/srzlee.jpg
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]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v216/FaxCelestis/Motivators/srzlee.jpg
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]

{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? :smallamused:

@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 :smallannoyed:) 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): 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 :smallredface:) 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.

I am, of course, talking about the tongue.

[The Glyphstone]

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.

I am, of course, talking about the tongue.

My belly-slamming sumo-wrestler monk was one of the coolest ideas I ever had, why you hatin' on the sumo?:smallcool:

[Coidzor]

I believe Mario would have us agree that the butt-stomp can be quite the effective weapon as well.

Also, headbutts.

[DragoonWraith]

You're right, I'd forgotten about that NA rule. But I think it's pretty reasonable to say that the unarmed strike is a combination natural/weapon attack, with a bit of rules from each (this is, after all, true), and therefore INA still seems appropriate for it.

[Gametime]

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.

Exactly how do you visualize a slam attack? Because I always saw it as some sort of punch or shoulder bash. You know, like a monk can do with his unarmed attack.

[taltamir]

they are nerfing monks? thats like kicking a puppy...
the other day they were saying psions should be vanacian because they are "too strong" compared to clerics and wizards... What are they even thinking?

[Frog Dragon]

They weren't.

[Indoran]

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.

Like giving extra abilities to the wizards...

I would hourserule that INA is available to the monks... that's it... no more problem :D

It's just plain silly that they banned it...

[Akal Saris]

Here's the thread (http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderRPG/rules/monksAndMonsterFeats)on the monk for those who wish to participate in the discussion rather than the peanut gallery here.

I think this sums up the Paizo position pretty well, from James Jacobs:

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.

[AstralFire]

A totally reasonable position... when you're DMing a game and not making a system you're selling as a business. :smallconfused:

[Kylarra]

A totally reasonable position... when you're DMing a game and not making a system you're selling as a business. :smallconfused:Yeah, I'm kind of with this. It's perfectly reasonable to say "go ahead and house rule things the way you want", but it kind of is a bit two-faced when you're selling your rules as a fix.


I mean with his position is reasonable sure, but then there's no reason to buy Pathfinder anyway, because you can just houserule the things you want right? :smalltongue:

[Asbestos]

Yeah, the 'official position' only seems to make this decision even more idiotic and poorly thought out.

[Gralamin]

Yeah, the 'official position' only seems to make this decision even more idiotic and poorly thought out.

I'm going to pretend that wasn't the official position, and pretend that we never got an answer. Because surely an official answer cannot be that bad... right? :smalleek:

[jmbrown]

Exactly how do you visualize a slam attack? Because I always saw it as some sort of punch or shoulder bash. You know, like a monk can do with his unarmed attack.

Any strike with a hard, blunt appendage. Human hands were designed to manipulate, not bludgeon. Yes, you can bludgeon something with your fist but human knuckles are too weak and delicate to be used as a natural hunting device. The smart stone aged hunters used rocks and sticks because they realized "Hey, when I punch something with my bare hands it really, really, really hurts."

This is the reason why humanoids have unarmed attacks. Creatures with powerful appendages have slams or natural weapons. Natural weapons also can't deal non-lethal damage. They're for killing only. Because a monk's body can't be specifically designated as a natural weapon (no multiple attacks, can switch between lethal and non-lethal, his damage increases per an unarmed strike table), it can't be used as a prerequisite.

Here's a good question: if a creature with a natural attack took monk, would you consider his natural attack as a monk weapon? The rules say no. If you say yes then you're likely someone who allows monks INA so there's no point in further arguing.

[Milskidasith]

Any strike with a hard, blunt appendage. Human hands were designed to manipulate, not bludgeon. Yes, you can bludgeon something with your fist but human knuckles are too weak and delicate to be used as a natural hunting device. The smart stone aged hunters used rocks and sticks because they realized "Hey, when I punch something with my bare hands it really, really, really hurts."

This is the reason why humanoids have unarmed attacks. Creatures with powerful appendages have slams or natural weapons. Natural weapons also can't deal non-lethal damage. They're for killing only. Because a monk's body can't be specifically designated as a natural weapon (no multiple attacks, can switch between lethal and non-lethal, his damage increases per an unarmed strike table), it can't be used as a prerequisite.

Here's a good question: if a creature with a natural attack took monk, would you consider his natural attack as a monk weapon? The rules say no. If you say yes then you're likely someone who allows monks INA so there's no point in further arguing.

Punching things... eh, you have a decent argument, if killing catgirls to prove a point instead of using the actually written rules can be a decent argument. But what about all the other fun monkish properties of unarmed strikes? I mean, you can knee bash somebody, that's slam like, and it generally hurts somebody else far more than it hurts you. Or you could kick them. Or hit them with your elbow.

[Gralamin]

This is the reason why humanoids have unarmed attacks. Creatures with powerful appendages have slams or natural weapons. Natural weapons also can't deal non-lethal damage. They're for killing only.
Any melee weapon can deal non-lethal. Ranged weapons cannot.

Nonlethal Damage with a Weapon that Deals Lethal Damage
You can use a melee weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage instead, but you take a -4 penalty on your attack roll.


Here's a good question: if a creature with a natural attack took monk, would you consider his natural attack as a monk weapon? The rules say no. If you say yes then you're likely someone who allows monks INA so there's no point in further arguing.
If that natural weapon is not of magical creation (ala totemist), then yes, I'd probably allow it to be treated as a monk weapon.

[jmbrown]

If that natural weapon is not of magical creation (ala totemist), then yes, I'd probably allow it to be treated as a monk weapon.

In that case, you've truly broken the monk... or more accurately you've made monk pretty much the preferred class of any non-humanoid.

Vampire monk with flurry of blows energy drain attack. I shouldn't have to continue.

[Asbestos]

In that case, you've truly broken the monk... or more accurately you've made monk pretty much the preferred class of any non-humanoid.

Vampire monk with flurry of blows energy drain attack. I shouldn't have to continue.

I wonder what 'bludgeoning appendage' a Vampire uses for its slam attacks...

[Milskidasith]

In that case, you've truly broken the monk... or more accurately you've made monk pretty much the preferred class of any non-humanoid.

Vampire monk with flurry of blows energy drain attack. I shouldn't have to continue.

Please read the rules before making incorrect observations.


Energy Drain (Su): Living creatures hit by a vampire’s slam attack (or any other natural weapon the vampire might possess) gain two negative levels. For each negative level bestowed, the vampire gains 5 temporary hit points. A vampire can use its energy drain ability once per round.

[Asbestos]

Now, if one were to rule that 'Energy Drain' counted as an effect that enhances or improves a natural attack (since it works for ANY natural attack the vampire might possess, not just slams) then it should work for monks anyway.

[jmbrown]

I wonder what 'bludgeoning appendage' a Vampire uses for its slam attacks...

Skin stiffened by rigor mortis.


Please read the rules before making incorrect observations.

You're right.

Any creature with a poison, paralyzing, or stunning natural attack. Imagine an imp monk with a furious flurry of barbed stings.

[Asbestos]

Skin stiffened by rigor mortis.



This is a joke right? It must be, its too ridiculous.

[jmbrown]

This is a joke right? It must be, its too ridiculous.

No. Undead muscles and skin have stiffened and are magically bolstered by the negative energy that flows through them. A zombie's backhand does damage because the skin is many times tougher than a living humanoid.

[Myrmex]

Why not just rule that through a monk's training, he gets to treat his unarmed strikes as natural weapons for the purpose of feats, skills, spells, prestige classes and whatever else I'm missing?

Monk seems like the sort of class you take when you're a squishy human and want to hone your body into a weapon.


What the **** are these guys smoking:

James Jacobs wrote:

SO!

After taking a day or so to think it over, reading over the rules, and chatting with Jason, I'm FLIP FLOPPING!

It looks like, yes indeed, a monk can take the Improved Natural Attack feat to boost his unarmed strike damage. This isn't yet OFFICIAL errata; Jason's still got to mull it over in his head a bit and run some numbers or something.

My only real lingering problem with this feat is that it kind of feels the same way that Natural Spell does for druids... only even more so. It's a feat that a monk more or less HAS to take because it's so easy to qualify for and so perfect for a monk. A single-classed monk qualifies for the feat at 6th level... so he'll take it at 7th level and, basically, go from 1d8 damage to 2d6 damage at 7th level, then at 8th level goes up to 2d8 damage... which other monks don't get access to until 16th level. It skews the unarmed damage numbers pretty potently, in other words, sine the damage progression for a monk's unarmed damage does not precisely follow that for the Improved Natural Attack (because it was designed not for monks but for monsters).

So, if your comfortable with an 8th level monk doing unarmed damage that he'd normally have to wait until 16th level to achieve, go for it. I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with that in my games, is all.

Improved Natural Attack is like Natural Spell, but worse!!!
These Paizo guys strike me as totally clueless.

[Asbestos]

No. Undead muscles and skin have stiffened and are magically bolstered by the negative energy that flows through them. A zombie's backhand does damage because the skin is many times tougher than a living humanoid.

Rigor Mortis only applies to muscle, nothing else. Also, rigor is lost relatively quickly, its a transient quality. Beyond that, if vampires/zombies had rigor they wouldn't be able to move because their muscles would be unable to relax; a clenched fist in death would stay a fist, a bent arm would stay bent, etc.

[Fishy]

Why not just give Monks a freakin' slam attack and be done with it? Have it count as a manufactured weapon for spells and a special Monk weapon for Flurries, call it a day.

Also:
I'm not interested in combing through the rules to "prove" this is right.

Bwahahaha.

[Asbestos]

My only real lingering problem with this feat is that it kind of feels the same way that Natural Spell does for druids... only even more so. It's a feat that a monk more or less HAS to take because it's so easy to qualify for and so perfect for a monk.
Wait... is he implying that Druids have a feat choice at 6th level? Is he saying that Natural Spell is a feat that a druid does not have to take because it isn't easy to qualify for and isn't perfect for a druid?

Also, I love how they keep mentioning 'crunching the numbers'. Are they pretending that this is an entirely new question? The numbers were crunched back in 2003, they can just go over to CharOp, post a question, and be done with it after the first post.

[jmbrown]

Rigor Mortis only applies to muscle, nothing else. Also, rigor is lost relatively quickly, its a transient quality. Beyond that, if vampires/zombies had rigor they wouldn't be able to move because their muscles would be unable to relax; a clenched fist in death would stay a fist, a bent arm would stay bent, etc.

Well, I can see that applying to zombies if anything.


Why not just give Monks a freakin' slam attack and be done with it? Have it count as a manufactured weapon for spells and a special Monk weapon for Flurries, call it a day.


or


A monk's unarmed strike counts as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon.

There. Fixed. Unarmed strike is a specific attack so you can't say "I multi-attack with both arms, both legs, my head, my chest, my stomach, etc." and you drop the ambiguous ruling "for the purposes of spells and effects blah blah blah"

[Myrmex]

Wait... is he implying that Druids have a feat choice at 6th level? Is he saying that Natural Spell is a feat that a druid does not have to take because it isn't easy to qualify for and isn't perfect for a druid?

Also, I love how they keep mentioning 'crunching the numbers'. Are they pretending that this is an entirely new question? The numbers were crunched back in 2003, they can just go over to CharOp, post a question, and be done with it after the first post.

No, he's saying that no druid takes anything but natural spell at 6th level. With INA available for monks, the monk would take nothing but that feat as his 6th level bonus feat.

[Asbestos]

No, he's saying that no druid takes anything but natural spell at 6th level. With INA available for monks, the monk would take nothing but that feat as his 6th level bonus feat.
Yes, but how is it 'worse' then? That's what I'm trying to wrap my brain around. Also, if they're aware of how NS is basically a druid requirement, why did they even bother with it when they made Pathfinder?! Just for the feat tax?

[Myrmex]

Yes, but how is it 'worse' then? That's what I'm trying to wrap my brain around. Also, if they're aware of how NS is basically a druid requirement, why did they even bother with it when they made Pathfinder?! Just for the feat tax?

I don't think NS is in Pathfinder, because, as you said, feat tax. And monk is such a bad class, INA is even more of a feat tax.

Rather than fix class issues, they get rid of feats.

Personally, I think all classes should either a) have access to quasi-magical effects or b) people that play fighters just suck it up and accept that all they are is a dude with a pointy stick.

[Asbestos]

I don't think NS is in Pathfinder, because, as you said, feat tax. And monk is such a bad class, INA is even more of a feat tax.

Rather than fix class issues, they get rid of feats.

Personally, I think all classes should either a) have access to quasi-magical effects or b) people that play fighters just suck it up and accept that all they are is a dude with a pointy stick.

Actually...
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/natural-spell---final
Natural Spell does exist in PF.

[jmbrown]

I don't think NS is in Pathfinder, because, as you said, feat tax. And monk is such a bad class, INA is even more of a feat tax.

Rather than fix class issues, they get rid of feats.

Personally, I think all classes should either a) have access to quasi-magical effects or b) people that play fighters just suck it up and accept that all they are is a dude with a pointy stick.

Or C) nerf wizards. In early editions, wizards had 1 spell at 1st level making specialist wizards an attractive choice. There was no concentration to cast defensively or keep on casting if you were hit; if you got hit, your spell went poof. There was no spellcraft as a catch all to do things magic was supposed to do like reading scrolls. A wizard's to-hit was 1 every 4 levels instead of half their level in 3rd ed. Spells also screwed you royally with even beneficial spells having drawbacks like haste adding a year onto your life (even 3.0's haste made you fatigued).

Every class has stayed the same while wizard got stronger? How does that make any sense?

[Wulfram]

Allowing Monks an overpowered feat to compensate for being weak is a poor way to fix things. If they need more damage, give it to them, don't charge a feat tax for it.

[JellyPooga]

{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]

As a DM I wouldn't be averse to seeing Weapon Specialisation scaling in a similar way to the last column in that table...it still wouldn't make it a powerful feat, but at least it's more useful than an (insignificant) flat +2 bonus to damage. Needless to say, I see no problem with a Monk taking INA and to be fair, I don't see a problem with anyone taking it to improve their unarmed strike...it's not like it's going to break the game for a Barbarian with IUS to be dealing 1d4 damage instead of 1d3 (woo-hoohooo! +1 damage, I'm breaking the game!) or a Half-Ogre to be doing 1d6 instead of 1d4. Even taking it multiple times and allowing it to stack isn't going to cause dragons to drop dead from fright of your UBER-PUNCH-OF-DOOM...my theoretical IUS Barbarian, if he invested all his feats post-BAB +4, would still only be doing 3d6 base damage at level 18...so for an investment of 5 feats he's maged to get, as almost his entire character build, an average of +9 damage per hit. Woot :smallannoyed:

[Fenix_of_Doom]

In the above calculation you do seem to forget that with proper optimizing, you get your self enlarged and use powerful build or to get 6d6 damage. If you then get some damage multipliers such as spirited charge, it might actually be worth it, but definitely not overpowered, even as a monk.

[Starbuck_II]

Or C) nerf wizards. In early editions, wizards had 1 spell at 1st level making specialist wizards an attractive choice. There was no concentration to cast defensively or keep on casting if you were hit; if you got hit, your spell went poof. There was no spellcraft as a catch all to do things magic was supposed to do like reading scrolls. A wizard's to-hit was 1 every 4 levels instead of half their level in 3rd ed. Spells also screwed you royally with even beneficial spells having drawbacks like haste adding a year onto your life (even 3.0's haste made you fatigued).

Every class has stayed the same while wizard got stronger? How does that make any sense?

Actually Haste was an attack spell in 2.0: caused System shock giving you a 25% chance of death of enemy. No seriously, haste was a save or die.

[Fishy]

Actually Haste was an attack spell in 2.0: caused System shock giving you a 25% chance of death of enemy. No seriously, haste was a save or die.

And if they saved, they got awesome speed boosts and an extra attack a round?

That's... weirdly compelling.

[Kalirren]

Seriously, what is with the canonistic attitude towards game design these days? I've never understood this mindless focus on the RAW, or the rules as expounded by the designers. People get all gripey about bad decisions but then turn right back around and argue on the basis of them. It's ridiculous.

I can totally agree that Pathfinder's designers shouldn't be in business selling pseudo-fixes as viable fixes. But that's just all the more reason -not- to gripe about the decisions they make becuase they don't actually matter. Given that you know they suck, why would you listen to them or any "official" "errata" they make?

It's not like you have to use any book's ideas the way the author presents them, or the way they intended for them to be used. What makes RPG sourcebooks any different?

[AstralFire]

Seriously, what is with the canonistic attitude towards game design these days? I've never understood this mindless focus on the RAW, or the rules as expounded by the designers. People get all gripey about bad decisions but then turn right back around and argue on the basis of them. It's ridiculous.

Something I can definitely agree with.


I can totally agree that Pathfinder's designers shouldn't be in business selling pseudo-fixes as viable fixes. But that's just all the more reason -not- to gripe about the decisions they make becuase they don't actually matter. Given that you know they suck, why would you listen to them or any "official" "errata" they make?

I don't. I just usually feel bad about ridiculing people. I can feel perfectly fine about ridiculing a company (though when I hear an announcement about them doing something I approve of, for the sake of fairness, I will laud it. Just... no one seems to bring such to my attention.) :D It's cathartic.

[pres_man]

Seriously, what is with the canonistic attitude towards game design these days? I've never understood this mindless focus on the RAW, or the rules as expounded by the designers. People get all gripey about bad decisions but then turn right back around and argue on the basis of them. It's ridiculous.

I can totally agree that Pathfinder's designers shouldn't be in business selling pseudo-fixes as viable fixes. But that's just all the more reason -not- to gripe about the decisions they make becuase they don't actually matter. Given that you know they suck, why would you listen to them or any "official" "errata" they make?

It's not like you have to use any book's ideas the way the author presents them, or the way they intended for them to be used. What makes RPG sourcebooks any different?

That is unless you play in official game play/Pathfinder Society in which case, every poor decision made by the designers is indeed required by the players. Also, one would hope that a company producing products actually is interested "in combing through the rules to "prove" " a rule is right. Otherwise you get a bunch of products that contradict each other, which just adds to the confusion. Of course, wasn't the sage advice produced in dragon under Paizo's care and wasn't it contradicting itself with respect to monks? Seems as if Paizo folks just have a hard time with monks.

[Tiktakkat]

Any strike with a hard, blunt appendage. Human hands were designed to manipulate, not bludgeon. Yes, you can bludgeon something with your fist but human knuckles are too weak and delicate to be used as a natural hunting device. The smart stone aged hunters used rocks and sticks because they realized "Hey, when I punch something with my bare hands it really, really, really hurts."

Human fists are more than adequate to beat the living bejeebies out of the prime competitor we have. They are only less than spectacular when dealing with megafauna who outweigh us significantly, or when dealing with other apex predators who come equipped piercing and slashing weapons.
It is human legs that are significantly inadequate to run down the smaller sized yummy critters in order to be able to pummel them senseless, particularly when they keep trying to run away if not knocked out immediately. Assuming you could keep them from fleeing, it would be quite easy to punch out a chicken or goat or nutria.


That is unless you play in official game play/Pathfinder Society in which case, every poor decision made by the designers is indeed required by the players. Also, one would hope that a company producing products actually is interested "in combing through the rules to "prove" " a rule is right. Otherwise you get a bunch of products that contradict each other, which just adds to the confusion.

/Start Massive RPGA Living Greyhawk Flashback

Staggered for 1d1,000 Rounds

/End Flashback

At least they do not have a customer service line that can give table legal rulings. :smallbiggrin:


Of course, wasn't the sage advice produced in dragon under Paizo's care and wasn't it contradicting itself with respect to monks? Seems as if Paizo folks just have a hard time with monks.

Yes and no?

Sage Advice was done by Skip Williams, who had done the column for Dragon for many years before Paizo got the license to publish the magazines.

While Skip has had "issues" with the rules at times, the Sage Advice entries on monks are, while confusing, actually not contradictory.

[Crow]

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


Living proof of why theorycrafting is not a good method to use when designing a game. :)

[Optimystik]

Living proof of why theorycrafting is not a good method to use when designing a game. :)

When you're awful at it, yes.

[ericgrau]

Living proof of why theorycrafting is not a good method to use when designing a game. :)
Because.... ? (you're gonna prove that INA is balanced compared to other feats now, right?)

It's not a matter of making the monk too strong, it's a matter of making INA too strong. i.e., compared to other feats. This cannot be considered a power boost for monks, because if it was it would be included as a free class feature not an outside feat that screws over new players who don't know about it. After all, they are making their own gaming system here. If they think the monk needs the boost then they can add it directly to the class.

But even outside of Pathfinder, which I am not a fan of, it never ever makes sense to me to allow stupidly overpowered stuff to class X just b/c the class is supposed to be weak. Fine, house rule the class into something stronger if that's so. Or boost every single feat related to the class there is (have fun with that kind of work load). But seeing something stupid is no reason for you to do something else stupid.

[Pharaoh's Fist]

INA too strong as compared to what feats? I'm pretty sure it's still going to be less powerful than metamagic.

[Foryn Gilnith]

If they think the monk needs the boost then they can add it directly to the class.
But they didn't. Using INA as a method to buff monks is worse than actually buffing monks. But removing INA and not buffing monks is worse than either.


Given that you know they suck, why would you listen to them or any "official" "errata" they make?

To convince other people that Pathfinder should not be paid for. Paizo charging for their houserules is an insult to all the upstanding fellows who produce 3.5 fixes for free.

[ericgrau]

INA too strong as compared to what feats? I'm pretty sure it's still going to be less powerful than metamagic.

I would assume it was obvious that it would be compared to the same class' other feat options, unless someone was intentionally trying to be a nay-sayer. Or, like I said, unless you intend on rebalancing all 200 feat options the class has vs. metamagic.


But they didn't. Using INA as a method to buff monks is worse than actually buffing monks. But removing INA and not buffing monks is worse than either.

Like I said in my edit above, I'm not a fan of Pathfinder. Originally I saw them screw up the numbers royally in their "rebalancing". Fortunately they removed all that now, but now there's not much that's changed from core. So what's the point? You're next statement says it well.

[Asbestos]

Human fists are more than adequate to beat the living bejeebies out of the prime competitor we have. They are only less than spectacular when dealing with megafauna who outweigh us significantly, or when dealing with other apex predators who come equipped piercing and slashing weapons.
It is human legs that are significantly inadequate to run down the smaller sized yummy critters in order to be able to pummel them senseless, particularly when they keep trying to run away if not knocked out immediately. Assuming you could keep them from fleeing, it would be quite easy to punch out a chicken or goat or nutria.



Actually our legs (and heat management system) are awesome. We can run down antelopes!
http://alistairpott.com/2009/04/15/persistence-hunting-humans-running-antelope-to-death/
Persistence Hunting, humans can run down anything in the heat of the day.

[Foryn Gilnith]

My point is that there's a scale.

Best

Making a good class
Making a bad class, then fixing it to be a good class
Making a bad class, then adding hidden options to make it a good class
Making a bad class
Making a bad class and claiming it's a good class

Worst


INA is one of those hidden options. Adding INA (on the 3e designers' part) to monks was a bad idea compared to making the monk an actual competent class. But it was a better idea than just leaving the monk a bad class, or trumpeting about how monks are the ultimate mage slayers (note: I'm not saying they did such trumpeting).

[Akal Saris]

Seriously, what is with the canonistic attitude towards game design these days? I've never understood this mindless focus on the RAW, or the rules as expounded by the designers. People get all gripey about bad decisions but then turn right back around and argue on the basis of them. It's ridiculous.

I can totally agree that Pathfinder's designers shouldn't be in business selling pseudo-fixes as viable fixes. But that's just all the more reason -not- to gripe about the decisions they make becuase they don't actually matter. Given that you know they suck, why would you listen to them or any "official" "errata" they make?

It's not like you have to use any book's ideas the way the author presents them, or the way they intended for them to be used. What makes RPG sourcebooks any different?

Frankly, I agree with this. I think anyone who reads the actual thread can see that Paizo was split pretty evenly over how to rule on this feat, and that they came up with the "official" errata only after a ton of players demanding that they do so because those players wanted to play by the "official rules."

Seriously, it was a hard question - should we allow a character to take a feat that was not intended to benefit that character but is in fact very useful to him, and in the process sidesteps the damage progression that the character's class was designed around? It doesn't help that it's for the monk class, which frankly isn't that powerful to begin with, so the feat could serve as a mini-fix even if unintended.

I disagree with the ruling, but I understand the reasoning behind it, and I'm also sure that if a DM were to rule otherwise in a home game, none of the Paizo designers would really give a ****, because as far as they're concerned, you could really rule either way on it, and it's your game in the end. I remember reading a Gygax interview, where he mentioned that he was frustrated at all the D&D players who came to him with rules questions at conventions - just make your own ruling and stick with it was his advice in the interview.

[ericgrau]

My point is that there's a scale.

Best

Making a good class
Making a bad class, then fixing it to be a good class
Making a bad class, then adding hidden options to make it a good class
Making a bad class
Making a bad class and claiming it's a good class

Worst


INA is one of those hidden options. Adding INA (on the 3e designers' part) to monks was a bad idea compared to making the monk an actual competent class. But it was a better idea than just leaving the monk a bad class, or trumpeting about how monks are the ultimate mage slayers (note: I'm not saying they did such trumpeting).

That might be plausible if you've already released a game system and it's easier to patch it than errata it. In such a case the patch should be made an obvious option, not something for another creature entirely where people hold long debates whether or not it's even allowed to apply to a certain ability. But pathfinder is making a game system. There's no reason to patch instead of updating the original rule. And ditto for DM house rules.

[Asbestos]

Because.... ? (you're gonna prove that INA is balanced compared to other feats now, right?)

It's not a matter of making the monk too strong, it's a matter of making INA too strong. i.e., compared to other feats. This cannot be considered a power boost for monks, because if it was it would be included as a free class feature not an outside feat that screws over new players who don't know about it. After all, they are making their own gaming system here. If they think the monk needs the boost then they can add it directly to the class.
.

But.. Natural Spell still exists as a feat! Doesn't having that around as an outside feat screw over new players who don't know about it? Isn't NS (and metamagic feats) stronger than INA? The fact is, the system already has one of the most obvious feat taxes still in it, but no one seems to care. Apparently having a 'must have' feat that makes a great class even better is more appealing than having a 'must have' feat that makes a weak class slightly more on par with its melee brethren.

[ericgrau]

But.. Natural Spell still exists as a feat! Doesn't having that around as an outside feat screw over new players who don't know about it? Isn't NS (and metamagic feats) stronger than INA? The fact is, the system already has one of the most obvious feat taxes still in it, but no one seems to care. Apparently having a 'must have' feat that makes a great class even better is more appealing than having a 'must have' feat that makes a weak class slightly more on par with its melee brethren.

Then that's a problem with natural spell, not anything else. It is common to ban that feat. I'm not sure about banning it myself, but that's more from a lack of examination on my part than any kind of analysis.

[Tiktakkat]

Actually our legs (and heat management system) are awesome. We can run down antelopes!
http://alistairpott.com/2009/04/15/persistence-hunting-humans-running-antelope-to-death/
Persistence Hunting, humans can run down anything in the heat of the day.

Well, he could run down an antelope. :smalltongue:
And Mongo could punch out a horse, and Ahnold-Conan KO a camel. For the rest of us . . .
That is a nice theory, whether it holds up enough remains to be seen. In general though, you cannot run down bunnies, and you cannot punch out a mammoth.

[Asbestos]

Then that's a problem with natural spell, not anything else.

I think its a problem with the system, they did not solve a basic fault like the feat tax. The designer's argument that INA would be a 'must have' feat and is therefor bad to allow monks to have is ludicrous because their system already includes must have feats and illusory options. The argument that it makes the monk too powerful and ignore their damage progression is also absurd. Giving the monk this minor boost (slightly more average damage) doesn't suddenly make the monk a Tier 1 class, its still pretty close to bottom of the barrel but at least it isn't a complete joke.

[Foryn Gilnith]

There's no reason to patch instead of updating the original rule. And ditto for DM house rules.

But they didn't update the original rule - at least, not in a good way. Now instead of being a bad class with a hasty patch-fix, the monk is a bad class (maybe a slightly better class, but still a bad class) with no fix, hasty patch or otherwise.

[ericgrau]

Ok, perhaps. But from their point of view, why would they? If a blind man doesn't see a ditch he's not gonna see a pothole either. Hypothetically, anyway. I'm not gonna get into a debate about what is and isn't screwy, especially around monks. I'll just leave it at "I don't like Pathfinder."

[Random832]

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.

Not touching the 'designed' part, but... seriously? hooves are no more a natural weapon than shoes are a manufactured weapon.

[Tetsubo 57]

Solution:

Divine Attack

Prerequisite

Improved Unarmed Attack, Monk, base attack bonus +4.

Benefit

The damage for the monk's unarmed attack increases by one step, as if the monk’s size had increased by one category: 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6.

An unarmed attack that deals 1d10 points of damage increases as follows: 1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8.

This feat may be taken only once.

[Tetsubo 57]

Not touching the 'designed' part, but... seriously? hooves are no more a natural weapon than shoes are a manufactured weapon.

You obviously have never been kicked by an animal with hooves. Yes, they are in fact a nature weapon.

How about my steel toed boots? I could quite easily kick a person to death.

[lesser_minion]

Why not just rule that through a monk's training, he gets to treat his unarmed strikes as natural weapons for the purpose of feats, skills, spells, prestige classes and whatever else I'm missing?

Monk seems like the sort of class you take when you're a squishy human and want to hone your body into a weapon.


What the **** are these guys smoking:


Improved Natural Attack is like Natural Spell, but worse!!!
These Paizo guys strike me as totally clueless.

Actually, for future reference:

Overpowered options don't become acceptable because they help out an underpowered class. And there are a lot of ways in which they make things worse than if the overpowered option was for a class that was otherwise OK or itself overpowered.

They not only cause problems for newer players, as ericgrau pointed out, but they also limit the scope of any given game, and create unnecessary conflict between game styles (you can either have a character who is interesting because he is powerful, or one who is interesting because he is original. Not necessarily a good way to design a game system).

Oh, and the same options can also mask the underlying weakness of the class.


The designer's argument that INA would be a 'must have' feat and is therefore bad to allow monks to have is ludicrous because their system already includes must have feats and illusory options

Wrong. The designers have made a valid argument which demonstrates INA to be a problem, even though it doesn't break the monk. That argument does not cease to be valid because the same problem exists elsewhere in their work.


The argument that it makes the monk too powerful and ignore their damage progression is also absurd. Giving the monk this minor boost (slightly more average damage) doesn't suddenly make the monk a Tier 1 class, its still pretty close to bottom of the barrel but at least it isn't a complete joke.

Once again, their argument really isn't absurd, and you seem to have misrepresented it.

Nobody seriously believes that a monk can take INA and then walk off and punch out Batman.

What is true is that they think that INA wasn't intended for use by the monk, and from there they have noted that it also adds quite a bit in comparison with the monk's normal unarmed damage progression.

Since the unarmed damage progression was essentially written up before INA, that suggests that INA does make the monk's unarmed strike more damaging than the designers intended it to be.

Even if you disagree on how powerful the monk it should be, that fact alone means that INA makes monks too powerful.

[Random832]

You obviously have never been kicked by an animal with hooves. Yes, they are in fact a nature weapon.

How about my steel toed boots? I could quite easily kick a person to death.

They're not "designed to do damage", though - their _purpose_ is to protect the feet.

[icefractal]

Balancing feats against each-other can actually be worse than nothing if you don't balance classes against each-other first. For instance, consider this hypothetical game:

Class: Futuristic Guy
Options: Jedi, Gene-Spliced Mercenary, Exo-Suit Pilot
These options are all balanced against each-other.

Class: Archaic Guy
Options: Turnip Farmer, Blacksmith, Hero of Destiny
The Hero of Destiny is much better than the other two, and about equal to the Futuristic Guy options, which the other two are massively weaker than.

Now there are a number of ways to fix this:
A) Boost Turnip Farmer and Blacksmith to HoD level.
B) Drop everything else to Turnip Farmer level.
C) Raise/drop everything to a midpoint between Turnip Farmer and Jedi.

But this is not one of them:
D) Drop HoD to Turnip Farmer level. No other changes.

Using Option D, like Pathfinder does in several cases, is actually worse for balance than doing nothing.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Overpowered options don't become acceptable because they help out an underpowered class.

Why not? Overpowered options are better than normal. If "normal" in the context means "worse than everything else", the overpowered options make those that take them "better than worse than everything else". Which, in this case, means on par with everything else.


And there are a lot of ways in which they make things worse than if the overpowered option was for a class that was otherwise OK or itself overpowered.
What are these ways? You have listed, in the post
A) Causes problems for newer players
B) Limits the scope of any given game
C) Creates a choice between power and originality

About A:
If a new player is playing a monk in 3.5, he'll be gimped. The group and the game might alleviate this, but he will fundamentally be weaker than if he had chosen a different option. He will straggle along, possibly irritated by his weakness. Even more than the monk's weakness, his not having Improved Natural Attack gimps him.
If a new player is playing a monk in Pathfinder, he'll be gimped. The group and the game might alleviate this, but he will fundamentally be weaker than if he had chosen a different option. He will straggle along, possibly irritated by his weakness. Even more than the monk's weakness, his not having Improved Natural Attack gimps him.

What's the difference? In 3.5, somebody can point the noob towards INA and raise his power level. In Pathfinder, no comparable opportunity exists.

About B:
How does the existence of a new option limit the scope of a game? If you want a low-powered game, choose not to take INA. If you want a higher-powered game, choose to take INA. If INA is open, it doesn't have to be taken (it can either be taken or ignored); but if it's closed you have to ignore it.

About C:
What does this have to do with INA and monks? You say that being interesting due to power and being interesting due to originality are mutually exclusive. Out of being interesting, powerful, or original, you can choose only two. What does this have to do with INA?
If you want to be interesting and powerful, you benefit from INA because your monk is more powerful (or you don't care since you avoided the monk). If you want to be interesting and original, you don't care, because you don't care about power. If you want to be powerful and original, you benefit from INA because now you can realize original concepts that require unarmed fighting without being gimped. If you want to be all three, you again benefit from INA because it helps you be powerful, meaning you can devote more effort to the others.


The Paizo designers have also pointed out that they don't think the feat was intended for the monk. That actually is a good enough reason to ban it.

That would be a good enough reason to ban it if it were a GM's set of houserules. Pathfinder is more than that. Pathfinder is a product being put out for us to spend our valuable money on, and moreover Pathfinder is ostensibly a "fix" for 3e. If the result isn't worth our money, and it isn't a fix, then it's not justified. If the feat wasn't intended for monks they can make a similar feat that is.

[Arakune]

Any strike with a hard, blunt appendage. Human hands were designed to manipulate, not bludgeon. Yes, you can bludgeon something with your fist but human knuckles are too weak and delicate to be used as a natural hunting device. The smart stone aged hunters used rocks and sticks because they realized "Hey, when I punch something with my bare hands it really, really, really hurts."

This is the reason why humanoids have unarmed attacks. Creatures with powerful appendages have slams or natural weapons. Natural weapons also can't deal non-lethal damage. They're for killing only. Because a monk's body can't be specifically designated as a natural weapon (no multiple attacks, can switch between lethal and non-lethal, his damage increases per an unarmed strike table), it can't be used as a prerequisite.

Here's a good question: if a creature with a natural attack took monk, would you consider his natural attack as a monk weapon? The rules say no. If you say yes then you're likely someone who allows monks INA so there's no point in further arguing.

That's load of bull. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZZpis0jD2g) If in RL you can do that, why a fictional pseudo-mistical martial artist can't do much better?


Actually our legs (and heat management system) are awesome. We can run down antelopes!
http://alistairpott.com/2009/04/15/persistence-hunting-humans-running-antelope-to-death/
Persistence Hunting, humans can run down anything in the heat of the day.

Except wolves. Those persistent bastards :smallannoyed:

[Foryn Gilnith]

Here's a good question: if a creature with a natural attack took monk, would you consider his natural attack as a monk weapon? The rules say no. If you say yes then you're likely someone who allows monks INA so there's no point in further arguing.

Do you believe X? If you do, you're wrong, and you must also believe Y. Because I don't believe Y, there's no point in arguing more.:smallconfused:

If I didn't allow monks INA, would there be a point in arguing? I don't allow it, you don't allow it, so no need for arguing.

[JellyPooga]

Balancing feats against each-other can actually be worse than nothing if you don't balance classes against each-other first. For instance, consider this hypothetical game:

Class: Futuristic Guy
Options: Jedi, Gene-Spliced Mercenary, Exo-Suit Pilot
These options are all balanced against each-other.

Class: Archaic Guy
Options: Turnip Farmer, Blacksmith, Hero of Destiny
The Hero of Destiny is much better than the other two, and about equal to the Futuristic Guy options, which the other two are massively weaker than.

Now there are a number of ways to fix this:
A) Boost Turnip Farmer and Blacksmith to HoD level.
B) Drop everything else to Turnip Farmer level.
C) Raise/drop everything to a midpoint between Turnip Farmer and Jedi.

But this is not one of them:
D) Drop HoD to Turnip Farmer level. No other changes.

Using Option D, like Pathfinder does in several cases, is actually worse for balance than doing nothing.

Hey! What's wrong with Turnip Farmers? That's an awesome class; their Turnip-Chuck ability alone is the equal of any Hero of Destinies Sword of Glory special attack...

[Arakune]

Hey! What's wrong with Turnip Farmers? That's an awesome class; their Turnip-Chuck ability alone is the equal of any Hero of Destinies Sword of Glory special attack...

That, and blacksmiths are very strong at PvP

[lesser_minion]

Balancing feats against each-other can actually be worse than nothing if you don't balance classes against each-other first. For instance, consider this hypothetical game:

Class: Futuristic Guy
Options: Jedi, Gene-Spliced Mercenary, Exo-Suit Pilot
These options are all balanced against each-other.

Class: Archaic Guy
Options: Turnip Farmer, Blacksmith, Hero of Destiny
The Hero of Destiny is much better than the other two, and about equal to the Futuristic Guy options, which the other two are massively weaker than.

Now there are a number of ways to fix this:
A) Boost Turnip Farmer and Blacksmith to HoD level.
B) Drop everything else to Turnip Farmer level.
C) Raise/drop everything to a midpoint between Turnip Farmer and Jedi.

But this is not one of them:
D) Drop HoD to Turnip Farmer level. No other changes.

Using Option D, like Pathfinder does in several cases, is actually worse for balance than doing nothing.

The problem here is that you are misunderstanding how important the different kinds of balance are.

Balance within a class is necessary. Every Archaic Guy of a given amount of experience should be about equal in power and utility. Every Futuristic Guy of a given amount of experience should be roughly equal in power and utility.

Balance between different classes isn't necessary, however. It's merely useful. The Futuristic Guys are completely different people to the Archaic Guys. There is no obvious reason for an Archaic Guy with a given amount of experience to be the equal of a Futuristic Guy with a given amount of experience - if the balance between the classes doesn't exist, that doesn't actually make the game less useful.*

Before trying to force an arbitrary equilibrium between those who are capable of reshaping the universe with their thoughts and those who are not, you need to work out whether or not doing so will serve the goals of your game. If the answer is no, don't do it.

* It is useful to have one scale that can measure everyone described in the game, however - e.g. a scale where a monk 13 is the equal of a wizard 13. In such a system, you might handle issues with monks being weaker than wizards in general by having the two classes available for different level ranges - for a game between levels 4 and 13, allow monks, and between 9 and 17, allow wizards. This also helps designers and narrators who want to have monks adventuring with wizards adapt the game so that their vision is possible. This is really an ideal situation, however, and those aren't all that common. Although some games (coughExalted) don't have much of an excuse.

Basically, ensuring balance within a class is better for useful game balance than ignoring it in the name of balance between classes. Paizo haven't screwed up here, although that could be an accident.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Basically, ensuring balance within a class is better for useful game balance than ignoring it.

This sentence suddenly made me understand your last two posts.

I consider a superior approach than class balance to be role balance. Tank, DPS, Battlefield Control, Buffing, Healing, etc. Within these roles, different options (classes) ought to be balanced. A fighter tank should be comparable to a monk tank, and a ranger DPS should be comparable to a monk DPS. If a player wants to hit things really hard (DPS), he oughtn't to be penalized for wanting kung-fu over axe smashing. If INA is allowed, monk unarmed damage can somewhat somewhat with Krusk Smash. If not, the monk class just becomes (more of) a trap.

[NEO|Phyte]

So, I don't feel like reading back through the entire thread, but I'm wondering where people are getting that Unarmed Strikes aren't Natural Weapons.

From Magic Weapon:
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.
The monk's fancy treat unarmed strike as this and that is so it counts as a MANUFACTURED weapon, not a natural one.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Monk attacks are natural weapons for the purpose of effects. A feat is not an effect; but rather causes an effect. Magic Fang is directly an effect, and so it works on monk attacks. But a feat is not directly an effect, and so monk attacks do not qualify as a prerequisite.

I don't agree with it, but I think that's how it goes.

[Starbuck_II]

Monk attacks are natural weapons for the purpose of effects. A feat is not an effect; but rather causes an effect. Magic Fang is directly an effect, and so it works on monk attacks. But a feat is not directly an effect, and so monk attacks do not qualify as a prerequisite.

I don't agree with it, but I think that's how it goes.

A Feat is an effect by every WotC Authority. Even Paizo agrees, but they just banned INA instead of making a rules reason of why they can't qualify.

[grautry]

Balance between different classes isn't necessary, however. It's merely useful. The Futuristic Guys are completely different people to the Archaic Guys. Monks are completely different people to fighters. There is no obvious reason for a monk with a given amount of experience to be the equal of a wizard with a given amount of experience.*

Yes, there is an obvious reason.

Simply: ease of DM'ing. If every Archaic Guy is equal to every other Archaic guy, but weaker than Futuristic Guy then you're either forced to play with one group only, or to arrive at very contrived solutions.

See, if you wanna play with a group composed of all Archaics or all Futuristics, then you're pretty much fine. You just up the challenges for the Futuristics and lower them for the Archaics.

But what if you want to play with both at the same time? Then, you either accept that Archaics simply won't contribute as much as Futuristics or you need to arrive at contrived situations where Archaics are somehow useful(Eigen Plots, in tropespeak) - but that will become rather obvious soon.

Your level range system - as far as I understand it - is really no different than restricting people to a certain Tier of characters at any given level.

And another reason? To quote you "there is no obvious reason for a monk with a given amount of experience to be the equal of a wizard with a given amount of experience" but just as well there is no obvious reason for a monk not to be equal to the wizard.

[Oslecamo]

Tsk, and people complain Wotc lack of optimization knowledge.

Just ignore this errata.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Implausible if you plan to play at an official Paizo event.

[Oslecamo]

Implausible if you plan to play at an official Paizo event.

If you plan to powergame into an official Paizo event, you surely won't be playing a monk in the first place, with or whitout INA.

[NEO|Phyte]

Monk attacks are natural weapons for the purpose of effects. A feat is not an effect; but rather causes an effect. Magic Fang is directly an effect, and so it works on monk attacks. But a feat is not directly an effect, and so monk attacks do not qualify as a prerequisite.

I don't agree with it, but I think that's how it goes.
No, monk attacks are natural AND manufactured weapons for the purpose of effects. Non-monk attacks are simply natural, according to the text of Magic Weapon, and I've yet to find any other text clarifying the status of unarmed attacks, in the SRD, anyway.

[Yakk]

Balance within a class is necessary. Every Archaic Guy of a given amount of experience should be about equal in power and utility. Every Futuristic Guy of a given amount of experience should be roughly equal in power and utility.
Why should every Archaic Guy of a given amount of experience be about equal in power and utility? I mean, a reason for this that doesn't also imply that Futuristic Guys of the same experience yada yada.

I don't see it.

[Zeful]

Balance between different classes isn't necessary, however. It's merely useful. The Futuristic Guys are completely different people to the Archaic Guys. Monks are completely different people to fighters. There is no obvious reason for a monk with a given amount of experience to be the equal of a wizard with a given amount of experience.*
I disagree, balance between classes is a must in systems where villains have access to the same set of resources as the PCs (in this case classes). This is one of the advantages 4e has of 3.x, since NPC don't use the same resources, there is no need for balance beyond narrative balance (is this class good enough to excel at something other's cannot?).

However in 3.5/Pathfinder, a villain can be a Wizard, or a Sorcerer, or a Druid as well as the PC. And if one option is simply better than others (like the Wizard) then there's a tendency to use that option as a villain, simply because he is more powerful (or with a Wizard in the party, necessary).


* Ideally, this situation should be handled by a system where monks occupy one part of the level range and wizards occupy another part - e.g. allow monks between levels 4 and 13 and wizards between levels 9 and 36. This sort of thing isn't necessary for useful game balance, but it does make the game more internally consistent and easier to play with. It definitely counts as good design, which is why it's so jarring when a game basically admits to not doing so for no good reason (naming no names, *coughExalted*).I find that to be a much much worse design philosophy than anything Wizard of the Coast has come up with.
An apprentice/journeyman wizard is equivalent to a level 9 monk? Short of having a DBZ based level design in which level=power it's bad design. D&D has always had your level be representative of your worldly experiences rather than how much power you command, which is why a wizard took so much longer to level up in 2e (and likely earlier). It's because his skillset was so much more difficult to master than others that he needed more knowledge and experience to learn the more complex maneuvers of spellcasting.

[Asbestos]

If you plan to powergame into an official Paizo event, you surely won't be playing a monk in the first place, with or whitout INA.
So taking INA with a monk is 'powergaming' now? What if I want to be a monk and not be super-gimped? Tough luck for me.

[industrious]

Hmmm...you know, before I went to this forum, I played monk as a fairly strong class. In my group, we ruled that the monk could enchant their unarmed strike just like any other weapon. It was quite humorous to literally have +1 flaming fists of fury.

[Foryn Gilnith]

I find that to be a much much worse design philosophy than anything Wizard of the Coast has come up with.

It's basically a point buy system where spellcasting is given a high point cost. Not so hard to believe.

[Starbuck_II]

So taking INA with a monk is 'powergaming' now? What if I want to be a monk and not be super-gimped? Tough luck for me.

No, he is saying it isn't impossible without changing rules to powergame with a Monk.
So you obviously wouldn't choose one.

[lesser_minion]

See, if you wanna play with a group composed of all Archaics or all Futuristics, then you're pretty much fine. You just up the challenges for the Futuristics and lower them for the Archaics.

Yes, that is exactly how you would use such a game. Now consider what happens when you play all Archaic Guys and they aren't balanced against each other. Broken. Unplayable. Mess.

Which is why balancing the archaic guys against the futuristic guys is a secondary concern to balancing the archaic guys against each other.


But what if you want to play with both at the same time? Then, you either accept that Archaics simply won't contribute as much as Futuristics or you need to arrive at contrived situations where Archaics are somehow useful(Eigen Plots, in tropespeak) - but that will become rather obvious soon.

Which is why, as I pointed out, it is helpful to have a consistent scale where 'level 12' means the same thing for everyone. It isn't as important as making sure that every level 12 monk is consistent in power and utility with every other level 12 monk.


Your level range system - as far as I understand it - is really no different than restricting people to a certain Tier of characters at any given level.

My point was that it is useful for every class to be measured on the same scale - i.e. for level 12 to mean the same across the board, even though it isn't necessary.

The reason, which I omitted, was to allow you to use both at the same time.


And another reason? To quote you "there is no obvious reason for a monk with a given amount of experience to be the equal of a wizard with a given amount of experience" but just as well there is no obvious reason for a monk not to be equal to the wizard.

People are prepared to accept a lot more when they're told "it's magic" than when everything seems to be within the realms of the mundane. Those who can reshape reality with their thoughts should be at least a little better off than those who can't.

If it makes sense in your world, you can deal with the problem by giving the monks magic of their own, and you can also deal with the problem using the Fax Celestis method of letting the narrator worry about things like plausibility, but that kind of thing isn't for everyone.

I'm pretty sure my conclusion was "don't do it unless it is strictly required as part of your specification", which gives a good enough reason on its own - if it's not necessary, it's wasted effort.


I find that to be a much much worse design philosophy than anything Wizard of the Coast has come up with.
An apprentice/journeyman wizard is equivalent to a level 9 monk? Short of having a DBZ based level design in which level=power it's bad design. D&D has always had your level be representative of your worldly experiences rather than how much power you command, which is why a wizard took so much longer to level up in 2e (and likely earlier). It's because his skillset was so much more difficult to master than others that he needed more knowledge and experience to learn the more complex maneuvers of spellcasting.
__________________

Actually, I explained it badly. Older editions actually had some attempt at this (amount of experience gave a rough measure of power).

The point is that it's helpful to have a scale where everyone can be considered equal - and ideally a game designer should try and achieve it - and one way to do so is to design your level range so that it really is a rough measure of how much a character is capable of.

Foryn explained it well.

The system I described was basically a version of ECL that actually worked.


I disagree, balance between classes is a must in systems where villains have access to the same set of resources as the PCs (in this case classes). This is one of the advantages 4e has of 3.x, since NPC don't use the same resources, there is no need for balance beyond narrative balance (is this class good enough to excel at something other's cannot?).

If the classes aren't balanced against each other, you can simply use some classes for PCs and some for NPCs - so you might have four turnip farmers trying to find a way to defeat the Evil Sorcerer in the woods (who can flatten them in a straight-up fight), or you could have a wizard try to deal with Tucker's Kobolds.

Neither of those games requires balance between different character classes - the useful balance, the balance between the players, has already been achieved. They do probably require weaker sorcerers and wizards than exist in the rules (another necessary condition for game balance is "nothing should automatically be a raging Mary Sue". YMMV on whether or not Paizo managed that one").

[Asbestos]

No, he is saying it isn't impossible without changing rules to powergame with a Monk.
So you obviously wouldn't choose one.

Ah, I gotcha. I'm just so used to disagreeing with him from the 4e threads :smallwink:

[ericgrau]

<on hoofs> They're not "designed to do damage", though - their _purpose_ is to protect the feet.
And my hands are for manipulating things, not punching? Whether or not hooves are weapons are an independent fact. It could go either way. As it so happens they are the natural way for horses to fight (IRL too IIRC). D&D even gives horses hoof attacks yet no bite attack. I'm not sure what this tangent was about, though.

[Random832]

Yes, that is exactly how you would use such a game. Now consider what happens when you play all Archaic Guys and they aren't balanced against each other. Broken. Unplayable. Mess.

Which is why balancing the archaic guys against the futuristic guys is a secondary concern to balancing the archaic guys against each other.

Why do you consider a party of all archaic guys more likely than a party of both (keeping in mind that these are stand-ins for e.g. fighter and cleric, and the different archaic guy variants are stand-ins for different feat selections)

[PhoenixRivers]

If the argument is that INA is unduly powerful, then it's unduly powerful whether applying to a monk or a fighter.

When a feat becomes so essential that it is not possible to think of a specific class without thinking of that feat, then the feat needs looking at.

Improved Natural Attack falls into this category (as does Natural Spell).

Basically, when a large part of the class's effectiveness comes from feats, rather than class features, it becomes a question of what defines the class? The class features, or the mandatory feats?

In the instance of Druid and Nat Spell, it does not. The Druid has two powers that define the class features. The feat accents it, but it doesn't majorly alter either. In fact, it creates a bridge between two class features.

In the instance of INA? It alters all the damage tables for the class. If this is a needed change, then disallow the feat and alter the tables. But if not, you're creating a feat which fundamentally shifts up a lot about a primary feature of the monk.

Either marry it in with the class feature, or cut it out entirely. Hybriding the class feature (improved unarmed strike) into the feats section doesn't serve much.

[sentaku]

If the argument is that INA is unduly powerful, then it's unduly powerful whether applying to a monk or a fighter.

When a feat becomes so essential that it is not possible to think of a specific class without thinking of that feat, then the feat needs looking at.

Improved Natural Attack falls into this category (as does Natural Spell).

Basically, when a large part of the class's effectiveness comes from feats, rather than class features, it becomes a question of what defines the class? The class features, or the mandatory feats?

In the instance of Druid and Nat Spell, it does not. The Druid has two powers that define the class features. The feat accents it, but it doesn't majorly alter either. In fact, it creates a bridge between two class features.

In the instance of INA? It alters all the damage tables for the class. If this is a needed change, then disallow the feat and alter the tables. But if not, you're creating a feat which fundamentally shifts up a lot about a primary feature of the monk.

Either marry it in with the class feature, or cut it out entirely. Hybriding the class feature (improved unarmed strike) into the feats section doesn't serve much.

One word

Fighter.

[Fax Celestis]

Balance between different classes isn't necessary, however.You, sir, are a liar and a cheat. The purpose of a level-based game system (which D&D--and therefore Pathfinder--is) is to provide a common basis of power across players and classes. Point-buy based systems (like Exalted and other White Wolf products) cannot feasibly create a cross-character balance point because characters are so modular. I can give one person 300 points to spend and another 50, and the 50 guy can come out on top because he bombed it all into combat stuff, while Mr. 300 spent it all on stuff like Computer Hacking and Knowledges.


Basically, ensuring balance within a class is better for useful game balance than ignoring it in the name of balance between classes. Paizo haven't screwed up here, although that could be an accident.
False: internal balance for a class is (a) a preposterous notion; and (b) completely pointless. You can compare one monk to another monk all you want. Certain options are clearly going to be better--take a look at a wizard, for instance. Many will have common spells (such as fly)--that does not make those spells themselves broken: it makes them worthwhile.

But comparing a monk to a monk and a wizard to a wizard without comparing a monk to a wizard is a horrible way to give your game systemic balance. In fact, you won't have any balance.


If it makes sense in your world, you can deal with the problem by giving the monks magic of their own, and you can also deal with the problem using the Fax Celestis method of letting the narrator worry about things like plausibility, but that kind of thing isn't for everyone.
The what? I have a method? o_O

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

To be fair, 3e's a pretty darned modular class system.

[icefractal]

Yes, that is exactly how you would use such a game. Now consider what happens when you play all Archaic Guys and they aren't balanced against each other. Broken. Unplayable. Mess.

Which is why balancing the archaic guys against the futuristic guys is a secondary concern to balancing the archaic guys against each other.This makes no sense at all. I think you may have been thrown off by the wording of my example, so I'll state it more clearly.

Instead of Futuristic Guy: Transmuter Wizard, Conjurer Wizard
Instead of Archaic Guy: THW Fighter, Sword-n-Board Fighter.

Why would it be more necessary or desirable to have a game with a THW Fighter and Sword-n-Board Fighter in the same group - than to have a Transmuter Wizard and THW Fighter in the same group?

If anything, I would find it less likely to have two of the same class in a group than two different classes. If the PCs are supposed to be balanced against each-other, then that means balance between classes is important. If the PCs don't need to be balanced against each-other, then neither kind of balance is important.


NOTE: I know that even THW Fighter isn't really balanced with Wizard, but it does come closer than other fighting styles.

[PhoenixRivers]

One word

Fighter.

The fighter's class feature is feats.

It's fundamentally different than giving a class a hobbled feature, only unlockable through level-granted feats.

Imagine if the barbarian's rage only granted +2 strength and -2 AC, and no other benefits, but a feat would give an additional +2 str/+4 con.

That's the example type we're looking at. If the feature is so gimped as to only be meaningful with a feat, either include the feat with the feature, or remove it entirely. To split it is unnecesarily hobbling the monk's feat selection.

[Starbuck_II]

Imagine if the barbarian's rage only granted +2 strength and -2 AC, and no other benefits, but a feat would give an additional +2 str/+4 con.

That's the example type we're looking at. If the feature is so gimped as to only be meaningful with a feat, either include the feat with the feature, or remove it entirely. To split it is unnecesarily hobbling the monk's feat selection.
That is a feat...
1) Kyber's Fury (works on Frenzy or Rage) +2 Str, -4 AC
2) Reckless Rage: (only enhances Rage) +2 Str/Con, -2 AC.
3) There are AC boosting Rage feats to counteract penalty.

[lesser_minion]

Why should every Archaic Guy of a given amount of experience be about equal in power and utility? I mean, a reason for this that doesn't also imply that Futuristic Guys of the same experience yada yada.

I don't see it.

OK, if we define a balanced game as one where:

No character can become a raging Mary Sue (a player shouldn't be able to accumulate so much power that the game becomes unplayable or boring) Every character played is roughly balanced against the other characters played.


and a sufficiently balanced ruleset as one which can be used to play a balanced game.

To create a balanced game by these criteria, you don't need every single character possible under a given ruleset to be balanced. You just need some of them to be. As long as at least one subset (in this case, a class) out of all of the playable characters is balanced, you can play a balanced game using characters from that subset.

This is basically the same idea that led to the suggestion that all of the characters in a 3.5 party are within two tiers of each other.

A given tier is more useful the larger it is, because it allows for a wider range of possible characters. So, in icefractal's example, we could define Futuristic Guys as one tier and Archaic Guys as another tier. That would leave the Hero of Destiny, ostensibly one of the Archaic Guys as an outlier.

icefractal argued that the worst thing you could do was to nerf the Hero of Destiny, because that would leave the Archaic Guys unbalanced with the Futuristic Guys.

I felt that nerfing the Hero of Destiny was a reasonable solution because it established two roughly equal-sized character tiers, which would be a lot more useful. The Archaic Guy and Futuristic Guy definitions were also more useful if they referred to different character tiers.

My point was that it is more important to have more characters fit into one of the character tiers than it is to have fewer character tiers. Characters in the middle of nowhere are useless, which is a good reason not to overpower character options intended for a particular character class, even if that character class is far weaker than other character classes (and especially not if there are other character classes that are comparable in terms of power and utility).

In this case, giving monks access to INA doesn't add anything to the game. Making a few other classes of comparable power to the monk would actually be a better fix than anything Paizo have done.

I also pointed out that spending too much effort reducing the number of character tiers could cause problems of its own or conflict with your design goals, so trying to balance every class against every other class should only be done if you are sure that's what you want to do.


If anything, I would find it less likely to have two of the same class in a group than two different classes. If the PCs are supposed to be balanced against each-other, then that means balance between classes is important. If the PCs don't need to be balanced against each-other, then neither kind of balance is important.

Balance between classes - or at least, as they were described in your example - is useful in so far as it allows you to use those classes together.

As long as you have a reasonably large group of playable characters, you don't need every possible character to be on the same level as those characters. Every tier you define should support a few different concepts in order to be useful, but before dropping absolutely everything in the same tier, you should make absolutely sure that that is what you want, because you might be causing more problems than you solve.

It would take some work, but you could probably play a reasonably interesting game with four monks. Offer them an overpowered feat, and you now have a choice between four monks with the feat (boring), four monks without the feat (so what did the feat add, precisely?) or four monks who are on two different power levels.

Is offering them the overpowered feat a good call?


False: internal balance for a class is (a) a preposterous notion; and (b) completely pointless. You can compare one monk to another monk all you want. Certain options are clearly going to be better--take a look at a wizard, for instance. Many will have common spells (such as fly)--that does not make those spells themselves broken: it makes them worthwhile.

Spells aren't really build options for a wizard - they certainly aren't comparable to feats.

Also, any character is going to vary in effectiveness from situation to situation. I usually assume that balance is concerned with keeping the average amount of power at the disposal of a given player consistent, while also avoiding them being either completely powerless or raging mary sues.

I'm pretty sure that is achievable and worthwhile.


But comparing a monk to a monk and a wizard to a wizard without comparing a monk to a wizard is a horrible way to give your game systemic balance. In fact, you won't have any balance.

A monk on its own is probably not enough to really be useful. Give it more options, and maybe four or five different routes, and it would be.

[icefractal]

Ok, I've come to the conclusion I made a mistake with the hypothetical Archaic Guy/Future Guy game. People are taking it way too literally.

Let's be clear here - we are talking about D&D classes, Fighters and Wizards, for instance. All-Fighter or all-Wizard parties are less common than mixed parties. Balancing the game around some kind of hypothetical "either everyone is a spellcaster or non-spellcaster" setup doesn't make sense when that's not how most people play it.



It would take some work, but you could probably play a reasonably interesting game with four monks.How many people play all-Monk games? Is it even close to the number of people who play games with Monk and other classes in the same party? If not, why are we catering to that?

[UglyPanda]

...My point was that it is more important to have more characters fit into one of the character tiers than it is to have fewer character tiers. Characters in the middle of nowhere are useless, which is a good reason not to overpower character options intended for a particular character class, even if that character class is far weaker than other character classes (and especially not if there are other character classes that are comparable in terms of power and utility).

...

As long as you have a reasonably large group of playable characters, you don't need every possible character to be on the same level as those characters. Every tier you define should support a few different concepts in order to be useful, but before dropping absolutely everything in the same tier, you should make absolutely sure that that is what you want, because you might be causing more problems than you solve.You assume that there are a sufficient number of classes in each tier. But in Pathfinder, with considerably less classes, you've got two or three in each tier. Two! You need to cut down the number of tiers to get more variety within tiers. It's not a linear equation here. And hell, why can't I buff a character in a low tier to bring him up to the other tiers? By your logic, it's just as good. I'm adding more variety to a higher tier.


It would take some work, but you could probably play a reasonably interesting game with four monks. Offer them an overpowered feat, and you now have a choice between four monks with the feat (boring), four monks without the feat (so what did the feat add, precisely?) or four monks who are on two different power levels.

Is offering them the overpowered feat a good call?But it's one feat. One feat out of six or seven by the time you're allowed to take it.

The fact that everyone is a monk would a bigger cause of frustration and boredom than the fact that everyone picked the same feat.

[PhoenixRivers]

That is a feat...
1) Kyber's Fury (works on Frenzy or Rage) +2 Str, -4 AC
2) Reckless Rage: (only enhances Rage) +2 Str/Con, -2 AC.
3) There are AC boosting Rage feats to counteract penalty.

Now, tell me... Do any of those require rewriting the entire table for the barbarian class, from level 1 to 20?

And are any of those considered so useful as to be absolutely essential to barbarian?

Or are they optionals that are ACTUALLY optional?

[lesser_minion]

You assume that there are a sufficient number of classes in each tier.

Pathfinder doesn't have enough variety in any given tier (which means that it doesn't have tiers at all, the way I defined them - it's just a broken mess). I didn't disagree - the game should have seen a lot more work before release.


But in Pathfinder, with considerably less classes, you've got two or three in each tier. Two! You need to cut down the number of tiers to get more variety within tiers. It's not a linear equation here.

I think a well designed class should probably have enough variety that 3-4 classes to a tier works, so you wouldn't really need to cut the number of tiers that much - in any event, two or three tiers are probably sufficient to satisfy whatever stopped you paring it down to one, and allowing more would cause problems of its own.

I actually support the idea of cutting down the number of tiers though. Cutting the number of tiers down to one (possibly two) is where things start to get problematic.


And hell, why can't I buff a character in a low tier to bring him up to the other tiers? By your logic, it's just as good. I'm adding more variety to a higher tier.

Where did I say or imply that you couldn't?

An overpowered option for something in a given tier is a problem, because it throws off the tier system and might also leave the class on its own. And if it doesn't cause problems, it's because it's not being used.

You could actually make different versions of the monk ('monk', 'magic monk' and 'more magic monk') to use in different tiers, as long as you're clear about what you are doing.


But it's one feat. One feat out of six or seven by the time you're allowed to take it.

The fact that everyone is a monk would a bigger cause of frustration and boredom than the fact that everyone picked the same feat.

One feat out of three, actually, in the case of INA.



How many people play all-Monk games? Is it even close to the number of people who play games with Monk and other classes in the same party? If not, why are we catering to that?

Not many, I guess. I wouldn't want to be a character class whose sole redeeming feature is not being broken when playing with single-classed groups.

As I said, it could be an interesting game, but it would definitely need work. You should have assumed hypothetical well-written monks that offer enough variety for that to work while still being at the same power level.


Let's be clear here - we are talking about D&D classes, Fighters and Wizards, for instance. All-Fighter or all-Wizard parties are less common than mixed parties. Balancing the game around some kind of hypothetical "either everyone is a spellcaster or non-spellcaster" setup doesn't make sense when that's not how most people play it.

I'm advocating a system where there are two or three character tiers, and each tier is essentially balanced. That is not the same as "everyone is a caster or a noncaster". A higher tier might consist of a wizard, a gish-type class, some kind of superninja, and a couple of classes in between. They would probably all have supernatural abilities, but they wouldn't all be casters.

A lower tier might contain a monk, a fighter, a rogue and a few classes in between those. There might be a caster in there, but it's not guaranteed.

Balance matters as far as it is useful. If it stops being useful, it stops being relevant. Leaving the monk as it was makes it less usefully balanced. INA doesn't move it up a tier, so it doesn't even work as a fix. All it does is leave monks with the feat at a noticeably different power level to ones without. Whether or not the monk is useful to a game is debatable, but a single overpowered option doesn't help the situation.


I can give one person 300 points to spend and another 50, and the 50 guy can come out on top because he bombed it all into combat stuff, while Mr. 300 spent it all on stuff like Computer Hacking and Knowledges.

Power and utility. If you don't have any noncombat encounters, then your 300-point computer hacker is going to be in trouble. If you don't have any combat encounters then the 50-point combat master is going to be feeling pretty stupid.

The real balance issue here is to do with the mix of scenes you use, and how much they favour particular characters. Extreme builds like that would probably break most point-buy games, but you can achieve a fair bit of balance by requiring some sort of commitment from players in terms of how many points they will spend on particular activities.

[UglyPanda]

It's six or seven. Monks get three bonus feats and Pathfinder hands out feats every other level. Sure they only get three or four any-choice feats, but the bonus feats are still an area where you can get variety.

[lesser_minion]

It's six or seven. Monks get three bonus feats and Pathfinder hands out feats every other level. Sure they only get three or four any-choice feats, but the bonus feats are still an area where you can get variety.

It's still a feat tax.

I'll accept that PF should have done more to fill in the void left by things like power attack and INA, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't have fixed them.

[Fax Celestis]

Also, any character is going to vary in effectiveness from situation to situation. I usually assume that balance is concerned with keeping the average amount of power at the disposal of a given player consistent, while also avoiding them being either completely powerless or raging mary sues.

I'm pretty sure that is achievable and worthwhile.I think you misunderstand the idea of "internal balance". A class should be balanced, yes, but the idea of "internal balance"--that is, balancing against other builds of the same class--is both futile and meaningless in the bigger picture. Yes, it is a useful tool to find broken options, but beyond that point it is not a valid measure of power in comparison to other classes.


A monk on its own is probably not enough to really be useful. Give it more options, and maybe four or five different routes, and it would be.This is not what I said. I said that "comparing a monk to a monk and a wizard to a wizard without comparing a monk to a wizard" is not a valid measure of game balance.

Yes, one feat gives the monk seven whole bonus damage at high levels. But when the monk is getting seven damage from that one feat, the wizard is getting (17d6*0.5 from Empower Spell) 8d6 extra damage off a fireball. Or 28 damage. If he hits one creature. Fireballs can hit forty creatures, if used in a high-density situation.

From one feat, the wizard gets four times what the monk gets from one feat, assuming they both hit one target. It only gets worse if the wizard can blast more people.

[PhoenixRivers]

It's still a feat tax.

I'll accept that PF should have done more to fill in the void left by things like power attack and INA, but that doesn't mean that they shouldn't have fixed them.

+1.

4567890

[AstralFire]

Okay.

Everyone who seriously thinks INA is a 'feat tax,' I gotta tell you... INA is not even a particularly good feat for most monk builds (especially ones not built around size shenanigans.) It turns out to be better for monks than it works out for most other wielders, but the feat is pretty low on the totem pole for -any- meleer save a rare few Unarmed Damage Max builds.

It's no more of a 'feat tax' than Weapon Finesse is for rogues - it synergizes well with a certain kind of build and is dispensible for others.

[Gametime]

How many people play all-Monk games? Is it even close to the number of people who play games with Monk and other classes in the same party? If not, why are we catering to that?

People who fondly remember the days of playing through Final Fantasy with all Black Belts just to see if they could? :smallbiggrin:

[Gametime]

From one feat, the wizard gets four times what the monk gets from one feat, assuming they both hit one target. It only gets worse if the wizard can blast more people.

Though the monk can use a full-round action to greatly increase the amount of damage/round from the feat, while the wizard can at best double it with Quicken Spell (leaving aside Factotum, Swiftblade, and Beholder Mage shenanigans).

[Tavar]

Though the monk can use a full-round action to greatly increase the amount of damage/round from the feat, while the wizard can at best double it with Quicken Spell (leaving aside Factotum, Swiftblade, and Beholder Mage shenanigans).
Of course, the fact the Damage is the worst of the Wizard Strategies, and that he can be better/on par with the Monk while doing this doesn't mean anything, either.

[Fax Celestis]

Though the monk can use a full-round action to greatly increase the amount of damage/round from the feat, while the wizard can at best double it with Quicken Spell (leaving aside Factotum, Swiftblade, and Beholder Mage shenanigans).

Okay, so if the monk full attack flurries he gets what, five attacks? Assuming all those hit, he still only outpaces the wizard's one casting of fireball by 7 damage.

If the wizard drops a empowered fireball and a quickened empowered fireball and doesn't nuke the monk, the wizard gets 56 bonus damage. The monk gets 35. So, INA is worse than Empower Spell.

[Myrmex]

Or C) nerf wizards. In early editions, wizards had 1 spell at 1st level making specialist wizards an attractive choice. There was no concentration to cast defensively or keep on casting if you were hit; if you got hit, your spell went poof. There was no spellcraft as a catch all to do things magic was supposed to do like reading scrolls. A wizard's to-hit was 1 every 4 levels instead of half their level in 3rd ed. Spells also screwed you royally with even beneficial spells having drawbacks like haste adding a year onto your life (even 3.0's haste made you fatigued).

Every class has stayed the same while wizard got stronger? How does that make any sense?

None of those have any effects on a wizard past level 9, though. What really needs to happen is you play 4e if you want a neutered magic system. Otherwise, you have to go through every single spell out there and approve them one by one. The wizard class is fine; the spells aren't.


In the above calculation you do seem to forget that with proper optimizing, you get your self enlarged and use powerful build or to get 6d6 damage. If you then get some damage multipliers such as spirited charge, it might actually be worth it, but definitely not overpowered, even as a monk.

Powerful build does nothing for your unarmed strikes.


It is human legs that are significantly inadequate to run down the smaller sized yummy critters in order to be able to pummel them senseless, particularly when they keep trying to run away if not knocked out immediately. Assuming you could keep them from fleeing, it would be quite easy to punch out a chicken or goat or nutria.

Human legs are the best on the planet when it comes to endurance running. The only things that come close are horses & dogs, but both lack the drive to keep moving for days.


Well, he could run down an antelope. :smalltongue:
And Mongo could punch out a horse, and Ahnold-Conan KO a camel. For the rest of us . . .
That is a nice theory, whether it holds up enough remains to be seen. In general though, you cannot run down bunnies, and you cannot punch out a mammoth.

You can't because either a) you haven't trained since childhood or b) your genetic material is weak and you wouldn't have survived, anyway.

The average human in the vast majority of human existence had incredible stamina and speed.


Actually, for future reference:

Overpowered options don't become acceptable because they help out an underpowered class. And there are a lot of ways in which they make things worse than if the overpowered option was for a class that was otherwise OK or itself overpowered.

...

Oh, and the same options can also mask the underlying weakness of the class.

Overpowered options for underpowered classes are fine. Overpowered options for overpowered classes are not fine.

As far as masking the underlying weakness of a class- so what? It's not like Paizo is ever going to admit how badly they messed up with the monk and PF in general, and do anything to fix it. As far as can be told by their recent move, they want to make sure you can see how underpowered the monk is. Relatively weak classes also become much more potent when they have more material support. Some classes are broken from the get go- 3.5 druids have full casting (broken), polymorph abuse built into the class (wildshape), and an extra character worth of actions (animal companion). Other classes aren't broken so much by what they get as a class, but by their options- wizards & clerics that cherry-pick all the incredibly OP spells and abuse metamagic, for instance. Rangers & Paladins are lackluster until you get access to FR feats & SpC spells.


Of course, the fact the Damage is the worst of the Wizard Strategies, and that he can be better/on par with the Monk while doing this doesn't mean anything, either.

Damage can be pretty good if you DM gives the monsters a boost to their saves. When monsters have their saves based on your starting with 15 in your key stat, and you start with 21, you get some problems.

'Course, buff, no-save-debuff, and control are all excellent strategies (far superior to damage), but almost no one has problems with those approaches, since the rest of the party is still required.

SoDs are only a step above damage in useless things a wizard can do. Unless you roofie your DM.

[PhoenixRivers]

Okay, so if the monk full attack flurries he gets what, five attacks? Assuming all those hit, he still only outpaces the wizard's one casting of fireball by 7 damage.

If the wizard drops a empowered fireball and a quickened empowered fireball and doesn't nuke the monk, the wizard gets 56 bonus damage. The monk gets 35. So, INA is worse than Empower Spell.

Correction:

INA is worse than a 5th and 9th level spell slot, with Quicken Spell and Empower Spell.

Attack bonuses scale faster than Save DC's, as well.

[Tavar]

I was actually wasn't thinking about save and dies: I agree that they're too situational.

Plus, isn't it a better idea to compare a melee class to a melee class. Now, just going regular 3.5, THF utterly crushes Unarmed damage due to bigger die sizes, and at higher levels crushes the bigger die sizes with the ability to add tons of modifiers to the rolls: Power Attack, Weapon specialization(yes, it sucks, but combined with greater it effectvely adds +1d6), weapon enhancements, bigger weapons, etc.

[Fax Celestis]

INA is worse than a 5th and 9th level spell slot, with Quicken Spell and Empower Spell.
This does not make it any better for INA.


Attack bonuses scale faster than Save DC's, as well.If we assume the monk can hit with all his iterative attacks (at, what, +5? +7?), we can assume that the wizard's targets will fail their saves out of fairness.

[PhoenixRivers]

This does not make it any better for INA.

If we assume the monk can hit with all his iterative attacks (at, what, +5? +7?), we can assume that the wizard's targets will fail their saves out of fairness.

Actually, it does. When you're using the noted most powerful class feature in the game, using it at the highest levels of its power, and augmenting it with two feats for enhancing?

It shouldn't be a major surprise that the single feat, alone and devoid of optimization synergy, falls behind.

That said, Attack bonus scales faster than Save DC's. If we're arguing that all Save or Lose abilities are successful, then the monk's quivering palm suddenly looks good.

[lesser_minion]

This is not what I said. I said that "comparing a monk to a monk and a wizard to a wizard without comparing a monk to a wizard" is not a valid measure of game balance.

My point was that a monk doesn't necessarily have to be balanced against a wizard - as long as every class shares its balance point with a few other classes/builds (enough to allow for interesting games using characters exclusively from that balance point), the game has balance, as far as it is useful.

There are a few possible reasons why you might want to have more than one balance point for your character classes. There are also a few potential problems that you get from using that approach, and a few potential problems that arise from sticking to one balance point.


Yes, one feat gives the monk seven whole bonus damage at high levels. But when the monk is getting seven damage from that one feat, the wizard is getting (17d6*0.5 from Empower Spell) 8d6 extra damage off a fireball. Or 28 damage. If he hits one creature. Fireballs can hit forty creatures, if used in a high-density situation.

That's a 9th-level spell slot to deal 87 points of damage. A full attack flurry is probably more limited, and does a little less damage (about 72) using INA. Without INA, that's about 44, if I'm doing the maths right.

The 9th-level spell would be usable more often than the flurry, especially if the wizard is going nova, suggesting that the monk's damage output should be higher (save DCs are easy to optimise, and miss chances aren't that uncommon in optimised play, so we can generally assume that the monk's damage output is about half what I suggested. That's 42 damage at 17th level. ZOMG that is teh b0rken!!!!!!!!!!!)

Or, basically, the monk's unarmed damage is either insignificant or almost significant, and the monk doesn't necessarily care about his unarmed damage.

Overall, the feat looks about balanced with empower spell - one feat, about the same boost in damage output.

I think I'm going to have to concede the point though. Even by the monk's standards, Improved Natural Attack is by no means overpowered, and being a feat doesn't cause problems.

Of course, it would still have been better to make a new feat specifically for monks to do the same thing. Just in case someone finds a way to cheese possession of a natural attack.

[Fax Celestis]

Actually, it does. When you're using the noted most powerful class feature in the game, using it at the highest levels of its power, and augmenting it with two feats for enhancing?

It shouldn't be a major surprise that the single feat, alone and devoid of optimization synergy, falls behind.

One fifth-level spell slot with one feat (Empower Spell) deals far more damage than an equally leveled monk over a broader expanse of area.

The Empower Spell feat's bonus damage almost matches INA's bonus damage, assuming the monk gets the opportunity to full-attack, uses Flurry of Blows, and lands all of his attacks--not likely.

The wizard spends a single, standard action. The monk spends a full-round.

Let's compare. A 5th level spell slot means you need to be 9th level. That means his empowered fireball will deal 13d6 damage per affected creature and can do it with a standard action from 760' away. A monk with INA will deal 2d6 per swing and can swing 3 times as a full-round action for 6d6 total and can do it from 5' away.

The Empower Spell feat, in this instance, is adding 4d6 damage for a total average extra damage of 14 damage. INA changes the monk's damage from 1d10 to 2d6 (for a total change of 3d10 to 6d6) for a total average extra damage of 4.5 damage.

[Fax Celestis]

That's a 9th-level spell slot to deal 87 points of damage. A full attack flurry is probably more limited, and does a little less damage (about 72) using INA. Without INA, that's about 44, if I'm doing the maths right.

The 9th-level spell would be usable more often than the flurry, especially if the wizard is going nova, suggesting that the monk's damage output should be higher.

Or, basically, the monk's unarmed damage is either insignificant or barely significant. At the same time, you can build a monk that doesn't mind so much.It's not even a 9th slot. An empowered fireball is a fifth.


OK, that's good enough. I was wrong about the feat, and it isn't overpowered at all.
That's why everyone is facepalming at Paizo right now. This is a completely unnecessary change that does little more than needlessly stomp on the face of one of the weakest classes on the game.

[lesser_minion]

It's not even a 9th slot. An empowered fireball is a fifth.

Actually, a 17d6 fireball starts off at 7th (delayed blast fireball).


That's why everyone is facepalming at Paizo right now. This is a completely unnecessary change that does little more than needlessly stomp on the face of one of the weakest classes on the game.

Paizo's argument wasn't flawed. It just wasn't in any way substantiated by the numbers.

It might have been better to just up the unarmed damage progression instead, but that isn't going to happen.

[Khanderas]

Wonder what other buissesess there are where the goods are immaterial (the rules), where the consumers openly laughs at the producers, patch the flaws themselves as will and STILL pay the producers money to tell them how to play the game.:smallbiggrin:

[Starbuck_II]

Now, tell me... Do any of those require rewriting the entire table for the barbarian class, from level 1 to 20?

And are any of those considered so useful as to be absolutely essential to barbarian?

Or are they optionals that are ACTUALLY optional?

Well, there is one that adds +4 level to Barbarian for Rage, but like Practiced Spellcaster only up to Character level.

[hamishspence]

There is one good reason to ban it- if you have already given monks it for free- which is a common homebrew fix to the monk- and gets around the "feat tax" issue.

I doubt Paizo have done that, though.

[lesser_minion]

Wonder what other buissesess there are where the goods are immaterial (the rules), where the consumers openly laughs at the producers, patch the flaws themselves as will and STILL pay the producers money to tell them how to play the game.:smallbiggrin:

Well, I didn't bother with 3.5 or Pathfinder. I don't actually believe that 3.5 was much of an improvement over 3.0 in any event (there are good changes, but it certainly isn't universally better).

I just look at the system reference documents for those two and use Crystalkeep if I want to find out about anything else.

[bosssmiley]

Wonder what other businesses there are where the goods are immaterial (the rules), where the consumers openly laughs at the producers, patch the flaws themselves as will and STILL pay the producers money to tell them how to play the game. :smallbiggrin:

PC Gaming? It's the closest equivalent I can thing of...

Jason Buhlman in "He's smearing stupid everywhere. Oh god, it's in my eyes!" non-shocker? Must be a Monday. :smallamused:

[Deadmeat.GW]

Well, he could run down an antelope. :smalltongue:
And Mongo could punch out a horse, and Ahnold-Conan KO a camel. For the rest of us . . .
That is a nice theory, whether it holds up enough remains to be seen. In general though, you cannot run down bunnies, and you cannot punch out a mammoth.

Hum...are you seriously saying you cannot run down a bunny?

A bunny?

Unless they dive into a hole where you cannot reach them they tend to run out of steam a lot faster then a rather modestly athletic human.

They have higher top speed and better turning radius then humans but they have a lot less stamina so you can run them down.
Actually...I have run down dogs and kept going after them until they gave up and stopped running. (but to be honest most dogs are in very, very poor condition compared to wild animals as dogs are supposed to be endurance runners and a lot of the current breeds are anything but)

Human hunting for a long time consisted of running something down like a pack of wolves would do.

[chiasaur11]

Hum...are you seriously saying you cannot run down a bunny?

A bunny?

Unless they dive into a hole where you cannot reach them they tend to run out of steam a lot faster then a rather modestly athletic human.

They have higher top speed and better turning radius then humans but they have a lot less stamina so you can run them down.
Actually...I have run down dogs and kept going after them until they gave up and stopped running. (but to be honest most dogs are in very, very poor condition compared to wild animals as dogs are supposed to be endurance runners and a lot of the current breeds are anything but)

Human hunting for a long time consisted of running something down like a pack of wolves would do.

Also worth noting.

There was a guy who punched bulls to death. Regularly. In one punch.

[hamishspence]

Would he be an Assassin with Death Attack and Improved Unarmed Strike? :smallwink:

[Mystic Muse]

Would he be an Assassin with Death Attack and Improved Unarmed Strike? :smallwink:

actually he would be the last guy in this here article. http://www.cracked.com/article_16449_p2.html

[hamishspence]

It was a D&D-centric joke- on how such a feat (one-hit kill) could be replicated. Hence the :smallwink: in my post.

[Zincorium]

I think the clear indication for Paizo would have been that there is any argument on the side of giving it to the monks at all.

Legalizing it for monks means the people who were already doing it have to change nothing, monks get at least a slight upgrade available to them, and some people who are annoyed by monks getting a 'feat tax' are mildly annoyed.

Banning it means that some people have to change their (existing) character sheets for pathfinder society games in a way that actively makes them worse, monks are less useful than before which possibly annoys people who play in the same group as one, and there is a small smugness on someone's part for being utterly pedantic and ruining peope's fun.

As a company that relies on making people happy for it's basic cashflow, it seems silly for them to do this in the absence of it actually breaking the game.

[SlyGuyMcFly]

My point was that a monk doesn't necessarily have to be balanced against a wizard - as long as every class shares its balance point with a few other classes/builds (enough to allow for interesting games using characters exclusively from that balance point), the game has balance, as far as it is useful.


But that means making each class times the number of tiers. If you don't, you find yourself with a situation where a player 1 wants to play a blasty magic guy and player 2 wants to play a knightly fighter. Only Blasty Magic Guy (or a reasonable approximation) can't be found in Knightly Fighter's tier and there's no Knightly Fighters in Blasty Magic Guy's tier.

So you end up with a class list looking like this:

Tier 1: Wizard, Cleric, Überfighter, Superninja
Tier 2: Slightly Weaker Wizard, Gimpy Cleric, Competent Fighter, I Can't Believe It's Not Ninja
Tier 3: The Wizard's Familiar, Altar Boy, Fighter, Ninja in an Orange Jumpsuit
Tier 4: The Wizard's Little Sister, Unusually Pious Child, Drunken Mugger, Naruto Cosplayer.

Etc etc. Why bother? Make 4 classes (Wizard, Fighter, Cleric, Rogue). Balance them against each other. Done. If you want to be able to play at different power levels, choose between playing your game at level 1, or 5 or 37. Simpler, yes?

[lesser_minion]

Etc etc. Why bother? Make 4 classes (Wizard, Fighter, Cleric, Rogue). Balance them against each other. Done. If you want to be able to play at different power levels, choose between playing your game at level 1, or 5 or 37. Simpler, yes?

I explained why that wasn't always an option at least twice, I think. I also pointed out that having everything work on the same scale is still the ideal, if you can manage it.

And yes, if there is not much of a reason why different characters use a different scale, it can be quite jarring.

In a lot of games, the fluff actually forms a big part of the game's concept, which can really limit what you can do with your characters - this isn't the case with D&D, but it is probably a concern in Pathfinder, which is a custom ruleset designed to allow a range of custom setting products to remain on the market.

Ideally, Pathfinder will realise their mistake and come up with a new version of the feat which gives the same benefit and justifies banning the feat in the first place (bear in mind that INA is still a slightly cheesy move, considering that the feat wasn't intended for monks and certainly wasn't intended as a stealth patch).

[Mentok]

One of their motivations for removing INA from the monk was because it's desirability is on par with a druid's NS.

Please note that not only is NS still on the list, but druids can also take INA for when they are in wild shape.

[lesser_minion]

Please note that not only is NS still on the list, but druids can also take INA for when they are in wild shape.

I think that's just the left hand not knowing what the right was doing really.

One guy did the feats, another guy wrote a memo saying "cut natural spell" and the first guy missed it. Twice.

It's pretty bad, but what do you expect? This is the RPG industry. The 4th ed designers are apparently still arguing over what a healing surge should do - the book went to print with two different versions of the rule on the same page, and it still hasn't been errata'd (and no, neither is marked out as a variant rule). 3.5 has at least one character class who has two 3rd-level spells at 6th level, 20 3rd-level spells at 7th level, and 2 3rd-level spells at 8th.

At least one unisystem game managed seven printing errors on the same page (the rule that mistakes like this are acceptable in the RPG industry is actually called the Armageddon Rule)

Slightly dodgy communication between writers is, in all honesty, the least of anyone's problems, even when it ends up with such a nightmare as natural spell's continued existence.

[Sliver]

Huh.. Why when the monk's 2 main features (flurry and mobility) don't work together it is bad, and when the druid's 2 main features (WS and spellcasting) do mix it is still bad? :smalltongue:

[UglyPanda]

Because one makes a bad class worse and the other makes a good class god-like.

[lesser_minion]

Huh.. Why when the monk's 2 main features (flurry and mobility) don't work together it is bad, and when the druid's 2 main features (WS and spellcasting) do mix it is still bad? :smalltongue:

About the sole balancing factor the druid had when it was first written was a lack of synergy between class features. It was basically intentional.

Then someone missed the memo and wrote a feat that removed the last remaining semblance of actual balance the druid had. And then reprinted it in the next rulebook for the game.

Natural Spell is such a heroically bad move that the only possible reason it could have been implemented in the first place was as some kind of planned obsolescence scheme.