Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack? - Official answer

[Babylon Knight]

That is no excuse to have none at all, and just because someone else is going to frown upon it, no matter how few of them there are, doesn't mean you should abandon it either.


Wether or not you take one side in favor of your own rules interpretation ( INA works / INA doesn't work) doesn't mean you discount another viewpoint simply because it doesn't mesh with your agenda.

Case in point: it works both ways in terms of using feats and enchanting one's unarmed strikes.

 

[Scion]

That is no excuse to have none at all

The rules are abstractions in most cases, and many simply do not make sense in the real world.

Should we toss out 90% of the rules then?

This is the rules forum. I dont care if casting fireball hurts someones sensibilities and they feel that someone must carry around a handful of napalm in order to cast the spell, that isnt what the rules state needs to be done.

'Common sense' just doesnt make any sense as any sort of standard, I might as well flip a coin.

 

[Nifft]

I might as well flip a coin.

d02 KNOW NO LIMIT!!!1!

-- N

 

[IcyCool]

That is no excuse to have none at all, and just because someone else is going to frown upon it, no matter how few of them there are, doesn't mean you should abandon it either.


Wether or not you take one side in favor of your own rules interpretation ( INA works / INA doesn't work) doesn't mean you discount another viewpoint simply because it doesn't mesh with your agenda.

*shrug* If you aren't going to use the RAW to back up your assertions, you're going to be very frustrated here. That's what this forum is for. If you want to use "common sense" and "gut feelings" to make rulings, the House Rules forum is right around the corner.

 

[Babylon Knight]

The rules are abstractions in most cases, and many simply do not make sense in the real world.

Should we toss out 90% of the rules then?

This is the rules forum. I dont care if casting fireball hurts someones sensibilities and they feel that someone must carry around a handful of napalm in order to cast the spell, that isnt what the rules state needs to be done.

'Common sense' just doesnt make any sense as any sort of standard, I might as well flip a coin.

We aren't focusing on 90% of the rules, we're focusing on Monks and their Unarmed Strikes. Nothing mystical or magical about discussing wether or not legs, arms, hands, etc are natural (since birth) or manufactured (smith or factory made)

 

[IcyCool]

d02 KNOW NO LIMIT!!!1!

-- N

Heh.

 

[Babylon Knight]

*shrug* If you aren't going to use the RAW to back up your assertions, you're going to be very frustrated here. That's what this forum is for. If you want to use "common sense" and "gut feelings" to make rulings, the House Rules forum is right around the corner.

Gut feelings can be wrong. Common sense isn't. Someone saying 2+2 doesn't equal 4 because it doesn't "gel with them" doesn't make the original fact incorrect.

 

[IcyCool]

Gut feelings can be wrong. Common sense isn't. Someone saying 2+2 doesn't equal 4 because it doesn't "gel with them" doesn't make the original fact incorrect.

I think your definition of common sense is a bit different than mine...

Facts are not common sense, they are facts.

In short, common sense is subjective, and so "common sense" != "fact".

 

[Babylon Knight]

Facts are not common sense,

but

Common sense is fact.

 

[IcyCool]

Facts are not common sense,

but

Common sense is fact.

As I said, your definition of common sense is different than mine. Actually, I think this is the first time I've seen someone equate common sense with fact.