Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack? - Official answer

[Babylon Knight]

The fact is everything can be subjected by opinion and subjectiveness, ultimately. What we do here is rely on a few standards (English language, basic arithmetics, morals-even if these are subjective in any sense, and other things to avoid chaos and confusion)

Else, everything would be "but maybe, if this, oh what about"

You see my point.

It would go to hell, like many topics here go to (oh wait... )

 

[reveal]

potential religious argument diversion removed

My point is that your post about facts not being subjective is erroneous. Facts are subjective. People see what they want to see. What is factual to you is another persons theory.

 

[Scion]

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)

The rules state that they are treated as both.

So, they are treated as both.

I dont have any idea what you are trying to argue for here. The ability states it as such. If you believe that the ability does 'not' say it then we have nothing further to discuss.

 

[Babylon Knight]

Then why use the term fact? Why not use the term opinion?

Oh, by the way, someone might construe what you wrote as opinion, better not write it.

 

[Babylon Knight]

The rules state that they are treated as both.

So, they are treated as both.

I dont have any idea what you are trying to argue for here. The ability states it as such. If you believe that the ability does 'not' say it then we have nothing further to discuss.

The focus of this thread was to see if INA worked, as replied to by the official, it does work, so what's the confusion about?

 

[Scion]

The focus of this thread was to see if INA worked, as replied to by the official, it does work, so what's the confusion about?

Most of your points have nothing at all to do with that discussion. Therein lies the confusion.

In fact, even the part I just quoted in my previous post has nothing to do with the discussion. At least it isnt related to a useful discussion for this forum.

Rules forum. We like to work with the rules here

 

[Babylon Knight]

And i'm stating what others said, i'm not redefining their words, their actions, their motives. Why don't you just copy and paste what the previous people wrote if all you're going to focus on is the rules? Why say something when someone else already said it?

Is this even about wether or not Monks can take INA or if you're "right or wrong", for god sakes man, an official who surely has more in touch access to the rules and others who are even more qualified than him posts this, and it's still something you have to pick-apart for who knows whatever reason.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

This question will not die until they issue errata.

But they don't consider any of the material in question to have been some form of printing mistake - which is largely what the errata actually is. What you're dealing with here are differences in interpretation, not mistakes in printing. Still, eratta are not the ONLY thing that constitute what is "Official" D&D rules. "RAW", or Rules-As-Written is not the same thing because RAW still includes an interpretive factor. You and I and WotC may not have the same understanding of what the RAW MEANS. There is a WotC-approved heirarchy of rules which includes the books, errata, the FAQ's and... Sage Advice responses. You and I may think Sage Advice has the WRONG interpretation many times but it is unquestionably the OFFICIAL interpretation.

What that means is that even if we disagree with Sage Advice and can prove our assertions logically and conclusively it doesn't matter what the RAW actually does say - the official interpretation has been clearly stated to the contrary. That's why I've said for some time now that Sage Advice responses are TOOLS to use in making up your own mind about how to run things - because they aren't always the "correct" interpretation or even the best one. The best interpretation is the one YOU make for yourself.

A human monk can't take this feat because he doesn't have a natural weapon. However, a lizardfolk monk, because he has claws that are totally unrelated to his unarmed strike, can take this feat and apply it to his unarmed strike damage. Yes?

As written - yup.

No matter what the RAW say, that just seems illogical. I mean, I understand what you're saying, but if you concede that the unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon in the benefit portion of the feat, why shouldn't it count for the requirement part of the feat? I don't see that anywhere in the RAW.

The benefit is an effect that improves natural weapons. The prerequisite is not.

Q.E.D. The OFFICIAL answer has been given and cannot be more clear: it doesn't matter how strictly you have been interpreting things, OFFICIALLY INW can be used by Monks on their unarmed attacks.

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.

From an "official" standpoint there is nothing more to argue.

Now from a personal standpoint you can still argue all you like. I myself don't have any problem with this official ruling. IMO, monks need the boost anyway.

What is fairly clear to me though is that from 3.0 onwards, the monk "unarmed" attacks including Flurry of Blows is a freakin' mess and there's no excuse for it all being as cumbersome and complex as it is. When added to the fact that a lot of people don't think Monks belong in D&D anyway (or at least not CORE D&D) it doesn't exactly surprise me and I don't have a problem with people who want to be picky and particular about how they interpret and run their abilities (even if I think they're actually being OVERLY picky and particular).

 

[Babylon Knight]

Why don't Monks belong in D&D? Because people say they're too "asian" in flavor? That's ridiculous, a Monk could easily be another wandering or foreigner master of fighting with his body.

And yes, I heard that before. I can understand not using it, but don't take it out simply because you dislike it / don't use it.

 

[Aaron L]

Monkunarmed attacks a mess? In 3.5? Are we reading the same books? Now, 3.0, yes, yes it was a mess. 3.5, no way.