Can monks get improved natural attack?

[Deset Gled]

If a place accepts cash I dont think there are many (any?) reasons why they wouldnt accept travelers checks. As far as I know they are exactly the same as cash, just in a different form.

Substitute "vending machine" for "bar".

Again though, if you feel you can summarize BOTH viewpoints in this lengthy discussion in a more effective manner than Artoomis has, then I encourage you to do so and please share.

Well, I'm game. Personally, I think the problem here is that there are many more than 2 points of view on this discussion. As such, the main problem with Artoomis's summary from before is that it simplifies the discussion to a point that some people will undoubtably argue that their standpoint is not represented by it.

The following are the main arguements for allowing or disallowing a monk to take INA. Points can be mixed and matched freely:

1. Monks can take INA. Their unarmed strike counts as a natural weapons for spells and effects, and feats are effects.

2. Monks cannot take INA. Their unarmed strike counts as a natural weapons for spells and effects, and feats are not effects. (Many secondary sources are incorrect per the Primary Source rule.)

3. Monks cannot take INA. Their unarmed strike counts as a natural weapons for spells and effects. Feats are effects, but their prerequisites are not. (Many secondary sources are incorrect per the Primary Source rule.)

4. Monks can take INA. The primary source is ambiguous, and other sources clarify that they can.

5. Monks can take INA. The monk is underpowered, and this feat helps balance them.

6. Monks cannot take INA. INA is too powerful of a feat.

7. Monks cannot take INA. INA was intended for monsters only. (Many secondary sources were written by authors that did not follow the original intent.)

8. Monks can take INA. INA was intended to improve attacks without weapons.

Personally, I stand by #3, but also agree with #5 and #6.

 

[Artoomis]

Exactly. Therefore, by including the item at all, Atroomis was tacetly suggesting that there is ambiguity. Since I contend that there is no ambiguity, the summary was subtly slanted against my position.


glass.

Only insofar as WotC is slanted against your position. By publishing the material in the FAQ, WotC has tacitly suggested either that ambiguity exists and the FAQ entry is for WotC to clear that up by stating the WotC position on the matter, or that it is clear that INA and monks go together by the RAW with no ambiguity and teh FAQ is to clear up the misunderstandings on the lack of ambiguity (I do not think it is the latter).

In any case it should be clear that by the current set of full rules (inlcuding the FAQ), monks can take INA. If YOU choose to ignore the FAQ and take the poisiton that it is in error and YOU decide that for YOU there is no amiguity and for YOU the rule is clear from RAW and for YOU the FAQ entry and any other material saying monks can get INA is in error, than for YOU the anwser is monks cannot take INA.

However, that answer ignores the truly amiguous nature of this rule and the clarity brought forth by the FAQ which makes it clear that, per WotC, the rule is monks may take INA.

It's very, very difficult to see how anyone could read my last post above and not conclude that the rule of what "effects" means for monks is ambiguous as presented in the PHB.

 

[glass]

Only insofar as WotC is slanted against your position. By publishing the material in the FAQ, WotC has tacitly suggested either that ambiguity exists and the FAQ entry is for WotC to clear that up by stating the WotC position on the matter, or that it is clear that INA and monks go together by the RAW with no ambiguity (I do nto think it is the latter).

Yes, but it is my position that WotC are wrong. Therefore, what they say is relevant only to your position and has no place in what claimed to be a NPOV summary.

EDIT: Missed a bit:

In any case it should be clear that by the current set of full rules (inlcuding the FAQ), monks can take INA.

Again, it is quite clear to me that they can't. Restating your position and implying that it is obvious is not a great debating technique!

However, that answer ignores the truly amiguous nature of this rule and the clarity brought forth by the FAQ which makes it clear that, per WotC, the rule is monks may take INA.

Again, you can't just assert that the rules are ambiguous. You have to demontrate it, and I doubt you'll have any more luck this time than the previous ten or so.


glass.

 

[Artoomis]

Yes, but it is my position that WotC are wrong. Therefore, what they say is relevant only to your position and has no place in what claimed to be a NPOV summary.


glass.

Wrong. I presented all arguments and then a summary of what one should do if one wanted to be the most "offical."

It's clear that"

1. If one wants to be most "offical" one should follow the FAQ.

2. If one wants to interpret the rules on Monks and INA and being perfectly clear from the RAW and declare the FAQ in error and thus claim to be following RAW, one is certainly welcome to do so, but not to also claim "offical" status for that.

Both (1) and(2) can lay a claim to following RAW, but only (1) can claim to be "official."

So why is this even importatn? For an indiviual game, it's not, really. But for sanctioned tournament play it is important, and for that monks may take INA because that's the offical WotC ruling on the matter.

 

[Artoomis]

...Again, you can't just assert that the rules are ambiguous. You have to demontrate it, and I doubt you'll have any more luck this time than the previous ten or so.

glass.

From my previous post:


"Did the authors mean 'effects' to mean only the effects of spells and other supernatural things?
Did the authors mean effects in a most general sense?
Did the authors mean that if allowing their monks’ attacks to be “natural weapons” would grant them the benefit of a spell (or whatever), those attacks then are considered natural weapons for getting the benefit of that spell (or whatever).
Did the authors mean that if allowing monks’ attacks to be “natural weapons” would grant them the benefit of a feat that those attacks then are considered natural weapons for satisfying the prerequisites of the feat?"

How can those questions be clearly and umbiguously answered from the RAW?

Further, this board has CLEARLY shown a rather large debate on the matter, and if that's not prety good evidence of ambiguity I do not know what is. A large number of people disagreeing on terminology seems like about the best evidence of ambiguity that there can be.

In any case, it CERTAINLY is a good reason for WotC to wade in a take a firm position on one side or the other. They did that by publishing a FAQ entry.

The offical rule is now clearly that monks may take INA. You are free to ignore that and declare WotC to be in error, of course.

 

[Slaved]

Substitute "vending machine" for "bar".

Vending machines also do not accept anything over a 20, if they even go that high, and many do not accept most change anymore. So, does that mean that any denominations or change not accepted are not money? At that point we literally have green backs, cash, whatever you want to call it and they cannot be used.

"Vending machine" only accepts a couple of narrowly defined types of money. They could be programmed to accept a wider band, or a different band, but they typically only work for a couple of items. That again sounds like a narrowly tailored division of currency and so would fall under a special condition rule more than simply, "only accepts cash"

 

[glass]

Wrong. I presented all arguments and then a summary of what one should do if one wanted to be the most "offical."

It's clear that"

1. If one wants to be most "offical" one should follow the FAQ.

2. If one wants to interpret the rules on Monks and INA and being perfectly clear from the RAW and declare the FAQ in error and thus claim to be following RAW, one is certainly welcome to do so, but not to also claim "offical" status for that.

Both (1) and(2) can lay a claim to following RAW, but only (1) can claim to be "official."

So why is this even importatn? For an indiviual game, it's not, really. But for sanctioned tournament play it is important, and for that monks may take INA because that's the offical WotC ruling on the matter.

Are you suggesting the the PHB and MM are not official D&D products? I'd contend that they are! And on that basis both 1 and 2 can claim to be 'official' (nearly meaningless as that is), but only 2 follows the RAW (and again your wording tries to make my position seem wrong without actually demonstrating anything!).


glass.

 

[glass]

"Did the authors mean [lots of different things, snipped]

How can those questions be clearly and umbiguously answered from the RAW?

They can't, but that doesn't matter, because I never claimed the authors intended the rules to work a certain way, only that they do work that way.

Further, this board has CLEARLY shown a rather large debate on the matter, and if that's not prety good evidence of ambiguity I do not know what is. A large number of people disagreeing on terminology seems like about the best evidence of ambiguity that there can be.

Appeal to popularity. We get a query here about number of sneak attacks per round about every other week, and that isn't ambiguous, is it?

In any case, it CERTAINLY is a good reason for WotC to wade in a take a firm position on one side or the other. They did that by publishing a FAQ entry.

Not one side or the other: the side that matches the books. Sadly they chose the other side.

The offical rule is now clearly that monks may take INA. You are free to ignore that and declare WotC to be in error, of course.

How magnanimous of you! Of course I am free to do that; what's more IMO I am right to do so.

And as I have said before, 'official' is meaningless. The only rules that matter for debate is the one in the books and the one in use at any given table.


glass.

 

[Cedric]

Ultimately, what it comes down to in regards to Glass' position (as far as I can tell) is that Glass does not believe the PHB and MM are at all ambiguous regarding this rule. He believes that the PHB and MM are quite clear about NOT allowing Monk's to take INA.

Therefore, since no ambiguity exists, the FAQ does not apply, since the FAQ is not allowed to add to or alter rules, but only to clarify them where ambiguity exists.

Artoomis' opion, and my own for that matter, is that WotC acknowledges that the PHB and MM are ambiguous, therefore they have taken the step of specifying how the rule should work in the FAQ.

So in the end my question is...if WotC thinks the rule is ambiguous, and have take the step of clarifying it and Glass doesn't think it's ambiguous and therefore doesn't require clarification...whose side should I take?

I'll take WotCs side, because they are the ones who publish the rules. If they believe a rule is ambiguous and requires clarification...then who I am to disagree with them? They should be the ultimate authority on whether or not a rule requires clarification.

As with all rules though, if I don't like the way they work officially, I'll just change them for my own game.

 

[Artoomis]

...So in the end my question is...if WotC thinks the rule is ambiguous, and have take the step of clarifying it and Glass doesn't think it's ambiguous and therefore doesn't require clarification...whose side should I take?

I'll take WotCs side, because they are the ones who publish the rules. If they believe a rule is ambiguous and requires clarification...then who I am to disagree with them? They should be the ultimate authority on whether or not a rule requires clarification.

As with all rules though, if I don't like the way they work officially, I'll just change them for my own game.

Exactly. So if Glass wants to rule a certain way in his own game, that's okay, of course, as anyone can run with any rules they want.

If someone wants to, for whatever reason, follow the OFFICIAL rules then one has to let a monk qualify for INA.

Now whether WotC is violating their own rules is a possibility, but has NO bearing on what the offical rule is as of today.

A. To summarize, the official rule, per WotC, is that monks qualify for INA.

B. Some folks think that ruling is at odds with the clear, unambiguous published rules and therefore the FAQ should be ignored if one wants to play by the pure RAW.

I have two issues with (B).

1. I have shown how the rules are indeed ambiguous and no one has successfully challenged that. (see my posts above about "Did the authors mean...?")

2. I do not see how that matters, to tell you the truth, since WotC made a ruling on this. If you go to a WotC-sanctioned tournament monks will be allowed to take INA.

I guess if it makes anyone feel you are cleverer than WotC (the rules publisher) in denying monks to qualify for INA, then have at it.

I am a bit surprised at all this controversy over my simple re-stating of the various positions on this topic, plus a comment on what is currently official.