Can monks get improved natural attack?

[Artoomis]

I would take a guess that you haven't read the preceding pages/threads on this topic

Methinks perhaps he was making a joke?

 

[BryonD]

Methinks perhaps he was making a joke?

Absolutely.

Though, IMO, saying yes requires a vastly lesser amount of bending over backward.

 

[Deset Gled]

(1) I simply stated that WotC's offical position is that monks qualify for INA.

(2) Other than that, there are arguments on both sides of the issue, certainly, and a wise DM/playing group would do well to be familiar with them all so they could rule as they wish.

...

Does ANYONE disagree with statements (1) and (2) I made in this post?

I disagree with statement 1.

First, adding "WotC's official position" to the front of the statement does make the statement any different from just saying "I'm right and you're wrong", it just means you're trying to hide behind someone else's pathos and circumvent the rules of the forum. I would appreciate it if you would stop that.

Second, the Primary Source rule is also from a WotC publication, and can be considered as "official" as the FAQ.

Third, I disagree that WotC has an "official" position on anything. As a game term, it is completely meaningless. As an english word, it so loosely defined that it really has no bearing on the discussion at hand.

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.

Another reason this is important: third party publishers. Note that all of the secondary WotC sources that state INA can be taken by a monk are not OGL; they are copyrighted publications. If it can be argued that all OGL sources (i.e the SRD) says that monks cannot take INA, a third party publisher is risking a lawsuit for copyright infringement if they publish a state block showing a monk with INA.

 

[BryonD]

Third, I disagree that WotC has an "official" position on anything. As a game term, it is completely meaningless. As an english word, it so loosely defined that it really has no bearing on the discussion at hand.

WotC disagres with your disagreement.
And I'd find it quite silly to claim that the publisher's statements of intent are not menaingful to a true interpretation of written rules.

Another reason this is important: third party publishers. Note that all of the secondary WotC sources that state INA can be taken by a monk are not OGL; they are copyrighted publications. If it can be argued that all OGL sources (i.e the SRD) says that monks cannot take INA, a third party publisher is risking a lawsuit for copyright infringement if they publish a state block showing a monk with INA.

Exactly what copyright would this be an infringement of?
People add non-SRD stuff to their 3rd party products all the time. That is the point.
Not that it is even relevant to this matter.

But are you really claiming that INA monks are covered by copyright??????

 

[Artoomis]

I disagree with statement 1.

First, adding "WotC's official position" to the front of the statement does make the statement any different from just saying "I'm right and you're wrong", it just means you're trying to hide behind someone else's pathos and circumvent the rules of the forum. I would appreciate it if you would stop that.

Which way would it be played for a WotC-sanctioned tournament? That's as "offical" as it gets.

I am right, but only in saying that WotC has taken a position on this issue and that's the rule as far as WotC is concerned.

As to whether I am right or wrong over the RAW arguments I have presented in the past, that's a different matter entirely and there is much controversery and little acknowledgement that both sides can be right due to the inexact wording in the rules. It's all about interpretation. But that has nothing to do with what's "official" and what is not.

Second, the Primary Source rule is also from a WotC publication, and can be considered as "official" as the FAQ.

True, but in this case you only invoke that for one interpretation of the rules. If one went so far as to assume the only one interpretation of Monk/INA could possibly be correct (that of disallowing it), then the FAQ would be in error. That's one mighty hefy assumption.

Third, I disagree that WotC has an "official" position on anything. As a game term, it is completely meaningless. As an english word, it so loosely defined that it really has no bearing on the discussion at hand.

Really? Is it not "offical" if WotC states their clear and unambiguous interpretation and informs their cutomer service reps of the same?

Another reason this is important: third party publishers. Note that all of the secondary WotC sources that state INA can be taken by a monk are not OGL; they are copyrighted publications. If it can be argued that all OGL sources (i.e the SRD) says that monks cannot take INA, a third party publisher is risking a lawsuit for copyright infringement if they publish a state block showing a monk with INA.

ROFL. A lawsuit? That's the funniest thing I've heard in a very, very long time. A lawsuit for interpreting the rules in a way that many find to be correct and is in accordance with the FAQ? Oh my, that's a good one.

I am amazed that folks think this rule is so cystal clear that the FAQ is in error and should be ignored.

Ah well, I respect your right to have that opinion, of course.

So, in the end, here's what I present as being factual:

1. WotC published the rules on the monk and INA that turned out to be less than crystal clear. They leave room for two basic interpretations of the rules: Either monks quailify to take INA or they do not.

2. WotC published a FAQ entry to clarify the issue - they have ruled that monks qualify for INA. ("Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack (Monster Manual, page 304) to improve his unarmed strike?
Yes. As stated on page 41 of the Player’s Handbook, a monk’s unarmed strike “is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either” which includes feats such as Improved Natural Attack.")

3. They have their customer service reps following that rule and, by extension, all offical game play as well unless that particular game has specifically ruled otherwise (each game is prefectly entitield to specify rules variations and interpretation of their own).

4. Therefore, if one wishes to follow what is "official" one would allow monks to qualify for INA.

5. If one wants to ignore the FAQ and follow RAW as closely as possible assuming that WotC may be incorrect in the FAQ, then one may either allow or disallow INA for the monk - that argument will never, ever be truly settled, it seems.

Any argument with any statement of (1) through (5)?

 

[Artoomis]

So what is "offical" and what is not?

First why does it matter? Only for two reasons:

1. If you care.

2. If you run WotC-sanctioned events.

Okay so is the FAQ "official?"

From the FAQ web page: "Do you have questions about the D&D game rules? Download the official FAQ that best suits your needs."

It seems it's official.

Now I will be the first to admit that the FAQ sometimes does present a rule change in it - which properly should be in errata, but, nonetheless, they do it and consider it "official."

Bottom line, if it is in the FAQ WotC considers it "offical" and, since they own the rule set, I guess it really is "official."

For whatever that is worth.

 

[Legildur]

Just because the FAQ is official, doesn't make it right. There are numerous errors sprinkled through the FAQ. The 'monks and INA' Q&A are potentially one of those.

 

[Stalker0]

Just because the FAQ is official, doesn't make it right. There are numerous errors sprinkled through the FAQ. The 'monks and INA' Q&A are potentially one of those.

However, I would also contend this isn't one of those times when the faq says something, we all post it on enworld and get a good laugh at how stupid it is. When the faq is wrong, most of the time we come to a consensus pretty fast on it. In this case, there is a legitimate split down the middle, and noone can say for certain if the faq entry is wrong. With that being the case, the FAQ is put out by wotc who makes the game and the rules...so I think a benefit of the doubt should go to the FAQ unless the community can with consensus say its wrong.

 

[Artoomis]

Just because the FAQ is official, doesn't make it right. There are numerous errors sprinkled through the FAQ. The 'monks and INA' Q&A are potentially one of those.

Quite right, there are a few errors - at least potentially. We know for sure there have been some and some have been corrected.

Monks & INA is one of those if, and only if, you assume that the RAW clearly, unambiguously and indisputably prohibits the monk from qualifying for INA. Even then, it could simply be that the FAQ changed the rules - it's not supposed to do that, but that does not really stop WotC from using it that way.

That assumption is way too much for me, at least, to make, and I have trouble believing that anyone can say the rules clearly, unambiguously and indisputably prohibits the monk from qualifying for INA.

I have no trouble at all with folks honestly saying they are correct in saying monks should not be allowed to take INA from the Core Rules by themselves. I think that's wrong, of course, but I have no trouble seeing the validity of the argument that opposes mine.

Where I really have trouble is with those very few (I think it's very few) who think that the view that opposes their own cannot have any validity whatsoever - which is what it takes for the FAQ to be wrong in this instance.

It's good to keep in mind, though, that what is "official" really does not mean diddly squat for anything other than offical events, unless you want it to mean something for you and your game.

In our game, for example, our DM is a real rules stickler and is a Customer Service rep for WotC. So for us, what's official does matter. We allow monks to take INA, but did not do so until after the FAQ entry was added (despite my pleas to the contrary ). So we are an example of a group that follows what is official, mostly (we do have one house rule about negative levels being used rather than losing a level for loss of level situations).

I do not know how many groups actually care what WotC says is an offical rules interpretation through publishing a question and answer in the FAQ.

 

[Legildur]

Or they could issue errata..... If INA were intended for PCs, then it'd be in the PHB, so that monks and druids (and polymorphing spellcasters) could access it. By putting it in the MM (similarly the Leadership feat in the DMG), then there is doubt about it's availability, notwithstanding some kneejerk response in the FAQ.

But, I can see the validity of the other side of the argument as well, I just don't think it is right....

I'm happy for a DM to allow it... but I don't believe it is legitimately available to PCs.