Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack? - Official answer

[Lonely Tylenol]

Oh good lord, can't you people ever be satisfied. You get the official answer and you're still nit-picking?

Obviously you've never got an answer from Customer Service before. "Official" doesn't mean anything when it's the opinion of one guy at WotC. The Sage is often wrong, and Custserv is usually wrong. They're both official. Which means that official answers are often wrong. Wrong answers are unsatisfying. Most of us will consider an answer "more or less right" when it's gone through the process of being errataed, but there are still some holdouts for that too.

Generally though, we don't trust official sources that have been proven wrong in the past.

 

[reveal]

Obviously you've never got an answer from Customer Service before. "Official" doesn't mean anything when it's the opinion of one guy at WotC. The Sage is often wrong, and Custserv is usually wrong. They're both official. Which means that official answers are often wrong. Wrong answers are unsatisfying. Most of us will consider an answer "more or less right" when it's gone through the process of being errataed, but there are still some holdouts for that too.

Generally though, we don't trust official sources that have been proven wrong in the past.

I think you, and the people who agree with you, will never be satisfied. No matter who answers, or how they answers, you will always find something to nitpick about. "If it's erattad, we'll believe it" is bull. You won't. You'll find some other way "it's wrong."

 

[Infiniti2000]

I think you, and the people who agree with you, will never be satisfied. No matter who answers, or how they answers, you will always find something to nitpick about. "If it's erattad, we'll believe it" is bull. You won't. You'll find some other way "it's wrong."

And I think you have inner anger and resentment over this issue for some strange reason. Maybe you should just let go your feelings?

 

[reveal]

And I think you have inner anger and resentment over this issue for some strange reason. Maybe you should just let go your feelings?

No anger or resentment. It's more exasperation. I've noticed a disturbing trend in this forum that people will not take anything at face value, which is fine, but when given the answer to questions, they seem more than ready to find something else wrong. No matter what they are told, they continue to justify their reasons for thinking the answer, official or not, is wrong.

 

[Infiniti2000]

You're assumption on our motives is just not true and it's quite frankly insulting. Did you mean to be or are you actually looking for a response?

 

[reveal]

You're assumption on our motives is just not true and it's quite frankly insulting. Did you mean to be or are you actually looking for a response?

I'm not trying to be insulting. It's something I've noticed that goes on in these forums. People bicker about RAW and "official" answers yet, when presented with answers, there are those that will continue to justify their reasons for not believing it. It just gets tiring after a while because it's becomes a "what's the point in trying to answer the question if they're just going to continue to argue regardless" situation. That's when it becomes exasperating. This was, effectively, the straw that broke the camels back. I've just never said anything before.

 

[Dimwhit]

I'd say both sides are using reasonable rules arguments, and I think both sides have a good point.

So, go with the tiebreaker, the most official thing to ever come out of the subject says you can. Well, that's good enough for me.

I dunno, I haven't seen a good response on the opposing view (not being able to use the feat) that actually draws from the RAW. But that's me. I would never even have asked this question in the first place. It's never seemed like one of those gray areas in the rules.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I've noticed a disturbing trend in this forum that people will not take anything at face value, which is fine, but when given the answer to questions, they seem more than ready to find something else wrong.

Wow, reveal, I thought better of you than this.

It's not that we are "more than ready to find something else wrong," it's that we can read the rules in front of us.

If the primary source says "A," and the Sage says "B," then the Sage is wrong. If WotC really wants the rules to say "B," they have the power to do that: they can issue errata, like they did, for instance, in the case of the Scout.

However, when the Sage says "B, because the rules say X and Y," and it's plainly obvious that the rules don't say X and Y, then what are we to do?

I think the only reasonable course of action is to ignore the Sage's ruling on A-vs.-B.

This is not to say that the Sage is always wrong - he's given some good advice and clarifications (c.f. Practiced Spellcaster) - but that he's wrong often enough, and with incorrect supporting materials often enough, that you should read what he writes with a grain of salt.

However hard you want to make this into some grudge match between us and the Sage, it isn't. I've got nothing personal against the guy. I'm just fairly certain that I'm better at this sort of thing - not even mentioning the Smurf - than he is some of the time.

Again, the question here is not whether or not a monk can benefit from the Improved Natural Attack feat; he can. The question is, "When does a monk qualify to take the Improved Natural Attack feat?" A human - even a human monk - doesn't meet the prereqs. A lizardman - even a lizardman non-monk - does.

For the record, I don't think it's at all unbalancing to let monks, human or otherwise, to take and benefit from the feat. I also know that my opinion on this matter is far from universal, and therefore I don't pretend that my non-RAW opinion should count for much. If I had written the Q&A for this one, it'd probably read like:

Q: Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack (Monster Manual, page 304) to improve his unarmed strike?

A: This is really two questions in one. They are, succinctly, "Can a monk use the INA feat to improve his unarmed strike damage?" and, "When does a monk qualify to take the INA feat?"

First, yes, a monk can use this feat to improve his unarmed strike damage. An unarmed strike counts as "both a natural and manufactured weapon for purposes of spells and effects that improve either."

The second question is thornier, however, because a normal human monk does not meet the prerequisites to take the feat; he doesn't actually have a natural weapon, though he has something that can be improved as if it is one.

We are therefore caught on the horns of a dilemma: a human monk could benefit from this feat, if he could take it, but he can't take it until he gains an actual natural attack. Lizardman monks have no such restriction.

Depending on your campaign, your DM might decide to allow an otherwise non-qualifying monk to take this feat. In my experience, it certainly would not have proved overpowered (keeping in mind that the earliest it could be taken by a pure monk is 6th-level and the damage increase is generally on par with Weapon Specialization), but YMMV. Therefore, check with your DM.

 

[reveal]

Wow, reveal, I thought better of you than this.

It's not that we are "more than ready to find something else wrong," it's that we can read the rules in front of us.

Sorry to not live up to your standards.

But that's the thing. That's the patronizing attitude I find as "justification."

"...it's that we can read the rules in front of us."

That's what I'm talking about. Because you interpret the rules differently, you will never accept the answer unless it meets your interpretation. So you justify your reasons to fit your interpretation. To me, that infers that you will never accept any answer until it does fit.

BTW, I know tone doesn't come over through posts. So, please, no one think I am trying to purposefully insult anyone or that I think you guys are [insert deragatory term here]. This is just something that has bugged me and I decided to speak up about it.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I've removed some potentially inflammatory 'religious' comments, but guys - one liner messages, sniping backwards and forwards is a great way to get a thread closed, not a great way to have a discussion.

Remember the rules - don't ascribe motivations to other people, don't generalise about other people or their views.

Cheers