Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack? - Official answer

[apesamongus]

If it isnt counting as a prereq then what exactly does the 'counting as ...' text really mean? As I understand it, some people are argueing that the text in question actually has no meaning at all, which I just cant agree with.

Yea, people keep trying to say it's about how you define "spell or effect", when really it's about how you define "for the purpose of". It seems perfectly obvious to me than "to qualify for" should be included in "for the purpose of".

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Duct tape isn't in the equipment list in the Player's Handbook.

But seriously, at most I'd allow someone to use two wands at once, one in each hand. More than that, and the extra wands do not work -- if they're activated anyway, the DM "chooses randomly" how they're targetted, not the player. (Could you fire with two guns or more in the same hand?)

So, if the Sage indeed said that one may activate 17 wands at the same time if they've the same command word, I can agree with that. Why not?

It doesn't really matter how many guns you could use, because wands aren't guns. Targetting a wand (or a spell) is not an action, and so can be done freely no matter how many times a round you need to do it. You could house rule otherwise, but this is now the "official" word on using wands, or any command word-activated item. Just tie together a bundle of wands with the same command word, and wham!

It's dumb. And it's official. And it ignores the RAW, which clearly states that activating an item that activates by command word is a standard action. But who are we to question the Sage? After all, our opinions aren't official...

edit: just to be clear, the only reason you need to tie the wands together is so they don't fall from your hand, as a loose bundle of short rods might. You don't need to point them or wave them, or anything. You just need to be holding them.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

double post

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

This really makes my point. When both sides of an argument see strong support for their position from the RAW, it seems clear that an offical interpretation is called for. That's now happened.

Why is this difficult to accept?

Because the arbiter has a history of making patently wrong calls. We think this is one of those calls.

Why is it hard to accept that the Sage is often wrong, and so cannot be trusted to clarify issues of this type?

 

[Anubis]

How did this debate go seven pages even after the issue was officially addressed in a way to provide official explanation to something that was so obviously already there that a child could understand?

By the letter of the rules, Monks clearly are allowed to take Improved Natural Attack. The Monk's unarmed strike is a natural weapon as per the word of the description, and a natural weapon is the only prerequisite (except for the BAB). So how can anyone with half a brain think otherwise? Are people here really that dense?

Seriously now, get a grip on reality. Errata isn't needed, just a brain and the ability to read plain and simple English. The word of the book, taken as-is, shows that Monks can take the dang feat. As such, I'd say that anyone who disagrees is either a troll or a complete moron. Take your pick.

Just for my information, though, what the flying flip is the RAW? I know the FAQ, the SRD, and Errata, but I'm not familiar with that abbreviation.

 

[Petronius_Ironfist]

Hmm, 3d8 or 4d8

From the new Dragon mag #336, page 94, "Official Answers to your Questions"

Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack (Monster Manual, page 304) to improve his unarmed strike?



Well, there ya have it folks. The official answer. Whether or not you agree with it (I do and have argued this before using the Sage's same logic presented here), it is now official. Hopefully the question will now die its well deserved death.

If in fact the feat treats the monk as one size larger, than by the book wouldn't a 20th level monk have 4d8 worth of damage and the 16th level monk deal 3d8?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

How did this debate go seven pages even after the issue was officially addressed in a way to provide official explanation to something that was so obviously already there that a child could understand? ... So how can anyone with half a brain think otherwise? Are people here really that dense?

Seriously now, get a grip on reality.
...
I'd say that anyone who disagrees is either a troll or a complete moron.

If the debate has gone on for this long, don't you think there might be some kind of reason that people are disagreeing with the Sage's ruling? Perhaps, just maybe, you shouldn't be coming on here and comparing people's intellect unfavourably to that of a child simply because they don't agree with you. People might get the idea that you are a rude person.

*ignored*

 

[Legildur]

<snip>So how can anyone with half a brain think otherwise? Are people here really that dense?

<snip>As such, I'd say that anyone who disagrees is either a troll or a complete moron. Take your pick.

Just for my information, though, what the flying flip is the RAW? I know the FAQ, the SRD, and Errata, but I'm not familiar with that abbreviation.

Gee, which one do I choose??? Let me think..... I know, I choose option 3: that someone who doesn't understand the acronym RAW, whilst insulting people on the Rules forum, doesn't belong in this thread (or indeed forum) and needs to take a chill pill or three, and let the people making an intelligent contribution to the debate get on with it.

Otherwise I'm finding the thread interesting and entertaining and, generally, well mannered.

 

[Anubis]

How about because the Sage shouldn't have even had to address the issue. It's clear as day. The text under the Monk says its unarmed strike is a natural weapon and the feat requires a natural weapon. It's as plain as 2+2=4. THAT is why I look down upon those who disagree; the facts are crystal clear as to the rules.

As for being rude, yes, I'm rude toward complete morons.

Gee, which one do I choose??? Let me think..... I know, I choose option 3: that someone who doesn't understand the acronym RAW, whilst insulting people on the Rules forum, doesn't belong in this thread (or indeed forum) and needs to take a chill pill or three, and let the people making an intelligent contribution to the debate get on with it.

Otherwise I'm finding the thread interesting and entertaining and, generally, well mannered.

Well, let's see, this is the first time I've ever heard that acronym, so it's natural that I don't know what it stands for. Not that the RAW, whatever it is, could have any possible bearing on the issue at hand unless it's either errata changing the Monk's unarmed strike to not be a natural attack or errata changing the Improved Natural Attack feat so Monks can't take it. I doubt it's either, so I stand on my point.

As for your saying I don't belong here, kiss my rear. I've been playing this game longer than you have in all likelihood and was probably playing RPGs in general when you were still in diapers, so you can leave your ignorance at home.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Break out the alchemist's fire. The thread's got a troll.


And it was doing so well for a 7-page thread, too...