Can monks get improved natural attack?

[Artoomis]

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.

All there need be is doubt for the FAQ to be correct. Doubt means a clarification for the FAQ is prefectly legitimate. Thus WotC feels INA is legitimately available for PCs. Well, monks, anyway.

Now I do agree that INA was not originally intended for PCs. However, it ended up being useful for some PCs, and some qualify - or at least they do after the FAQ (which is sort of like "after the fact," but not ).

 

[Legildur]

Now I do agree that INA was not originally intended for PCs. However, it ended up being useful for some PCs, and some qualify - or at least they do after the FAQ (which is sort of like "after the fact," but not ).

Agreed!!!

 

[ThirdWizard]

All there need be is doubt for the FAQ to be correct.

I have no doubt that monks can't take INA to increase their unarmed strike damage.

 

[Artoomis]

I have no doubt that monks can't take INA to increase their unarmed strike damage.

Zero doubt? Absolutely no validity to the opposing view whatsoever? It's completely clear from the RAW? No possible way to interpret the rules the opposite way?

If that's really the way you feel, I applaud you for your certainty. It must be wonderful to have no doubts at all.

 

[Legildur]

I think you missed the Third Wizard threw on the end of his statement.....

 

[Artoomis]

I think you missed the Third Wizard threw on the end of his statement.....

Yes, well, it's really hard to know for sure if someone is joking or not, even with smilies. There is always doubt.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I think you missed the Third Wizard threw on the end of his statement.....

Actually, I was completely serious.



Okay, a little too much fun with that one. There's always going to be some doubt, else I wouldn't have flip flopped on so many issues over the years, much to my group's displeasure.

 

[Artoomis]

Actually, I was completely serious.

Okay, a little too much fun with that one. There's always going to be some doubt, else I wouldn't have flip flopped on so many issues over the years, much to my group's displeasure.

So does ANYONE honestly think there is no doubt whatsoever that monks cannot take INA per RAW (not counting the FAQ)

That is: Zero doubt. Absolutely no validity to the opposing view whatsoever. It's completely clear from the RAW. No possible way to interpret the rules the opposite way.

If anyone truly feels that way than for that person the FAQ was inappropriate and may be ignores (though it really is still "official," for whatever that's worth).

Hmm, maybe it's time for another poll.

 

[Piratecat]

Thread continued here:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=175253