Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack? - Official answer

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Sorry to not live up to your standards.

Yeah, me, too.

That's what I'm talking about. Because you interpret the rules differently, you will never accept the answer unless it meets your interpretation.

That's not true. In fact, I have, in the past, changed my answers to various questions based on the Sage's and, more particularly, Hyp's answers (among others).

I've changed it, however, when they've had the right supporting materials to back up their answers. The Sage, in this instance (and, unfortunately, others) doesn't have the supporting material to make a convincing case.

If he did, I'd go with it (as I have in, say, the case of Practiced Spellcaster). He hasn't, so I won't.

Hell, I'll even change my mind to your interpretation if you can back it up.

EDIT:

To expand, Practiced Spellcaster increases a character's Caster Level in a given class by +4, up to a maximum of his or her hit dice. So, a Fighter 4 / Wizard 4, with the feat, would have a CL of 8.

The question was, "When do you apply the increase?"

Possible answers are "At level up," "Last," etc. This is particularly important in the case of the Wild Mage, a character who suffers a permanent -3 penalty to their CL, but increases it by +1d6 whenever they cast a spell.

The Sage's answer was something like, "Whenever it is most beneficial to the character." In the case of the wild mage, it means you roll their effective CL for a given spell and, if it's less than than their Hit Dice, they get a free CL bump up to their HD or +4.

I have no problems with this particular answer, and have accepted it as "How the rules are meant to work." Why? Because the Sage brough the right info to the table.

Does the bonus to caster level from the Practiced Spellcaster feat (from Complete Arcane and Complete Divine) apply before or after other caster level bonuses (such as those from the Good or Healing domains)?

The bonus from Practiced Spellcaster applies whenever it would be most beneficial to the caster. A 4th-level cleric/4thlevel fighter with the Healing domain and Practiced Spellcaster would cast Conjuration (Healing) spells as a 9th-level caster (base caster level 4th, +4 from Practiced Spellcaster, +1 from the Healing domain). A 4th-level cleric/4th-level rogue with Practiced Spellcaster who activates a bead of karma (from a strand of prayer beads) would cast her spells as a 12th-level caster (base 4, +4 from Practiced Spellcaster, +4 from bead of karma).

And ...

How does Practiced Spellcaster interact with the wild magic class feature of the wild mage (from Complete Arcane)?

The –3 penalty and +1d6 bonus to the wild mage’s caster level are applied as a single step in the process of determining the wild mage’s caster level. Since Practiced Spellcaster’s bonus is always applied when it is most beneficial to the character (see previous answer), a wild mage with Practiced Spellcaster would typically apply the wild magic class feature first (subtracting 3 and adding 1d6 to her caster level) and then add the Practiced Spellcaster benefit, up to a maximum value equal to her character level.

For example, if a 5th-level wizard/4th-level wild mage with Practiced Spellcaster rolled a 1 on the 1d6 bonus to her caster level, her caster level for that spell would be 9th (base 9th, –3 from wild magic penalty, +1 from wild magic bonus, +4 from Practiced Spellcaster up to a maximum equal to her character level). If she rolled a 6, her caster level would be 12th (base 9th, –3 from wild magic penalty, +6 from wild magic bonus; the Practiced Spellcaster bonus would not apply since it would increase her caster level above her character level).

On the other hand, imagine a wild mage whose caster level (before applying the effects of the wild magic class feature) is less than her character level, such as a wild mage with levels of rogue or other non-spellcasting class. She might well choose to apply the Practiced Spellcaster bonus first, before applying the wild magic modifiers. A rogue 4/wizard 5/wild mage 4 would have a base caster level of 9th before any other modifiers are applied. Adding Practiced Spellcaster’s bonus would increase this to 13th, at which point the penalty and bonus from wild magic would be applied. The Sage recommends that players averse to frequently recalculating caster level avoid playing a character with this combination, as it is likely to cause headaches.

 

[reveal]

Hell, I'll even change my mind to your interpretation if you can back it up.

I've tried in the past on this topic and it obviously didn't work.

 

[Infiniti2000]

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.

That is absolutely not true and you still misjudge people's motives. If what you say were true, then those of us who seemingly fit your categorization would never develop any houserules. It's just that we understand the importance of knowing all of the RAW before deciding on a houserule and whether or not to incorporate it. As noted above, Patryn (is he being patrynizing? ba-dum-bum) has said that it's not unbalancing to allow it as a houserule. Personally, I disagree. Sure, it's on par with weapon specialization but I like to keep that for fighters, not other classes, so I'd disallow this feat to be taken for unarmed strikes, even for lizardmen (though I recognize the latter as a houserule). In fact, I'd go so far as to (houserule) restrict the feat to be used with the natural weapon that was used to qualify for the feat.

IMO, what the Sage (and anyone at WotC answering rules questions) should do is forward any decision like this to the errata-folk. They did this for righteous might, why not for all of the questions where it's not clear? For crying out loud, WotC, make it clear.

 

[reveal]

That is absolutely not true and you still misjudge people's motives. If what you say were true, then those of us who seemingly fit your categorization would never develop any houserules. It's just that we understand the importance of knowing all of the RAW before deciding on a houserule and whether or not to incorporate it. As noted above, Patryn (is he being patrynizing? ba-dum-bum) has said that it's not unbalancing to allow it as a houserule. Personally, I disagree. Sure, it's on par with weapon specialization but I like to keep that for fighters, not other classes, so I'd disallow this feat to be taken for unarmed strikes, even for lizardmen (though I recognize the latter as a houserule). In fact, I'd go so far as to (houserule) restrict the feat to be used with the natural weapon that was used to qualify for the feat.

IMO, what the Sage (and anyone at WotC answering rules questions) should do is forward any decision like this to the errata-folk. They did this for righteous might, why not for all of the questions where it's not clear? For crying out loud, WotC, make it clear.

The ruling by the Sage, to me, does fit the RAW. That's my interpretation. Yours is not the same. That's fine with me. But people quote the RAW as the truth not to be questioned when, in some cases, the RAW is vague and open to interpretation. This is one of those times.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

This is one of those times.

And that's the question, isn't it?

I don't believe this is one of those times. It's pretty clearly laid out that a monk's unarmed strike isn't actually a natural weapon - if it was, he couldn't gain multiple attacks per round with it from a high BAB.

If you have a spell or effect that says, "You may do X to a natural weapon," then you may do X to a monk's unarmed strike.

You have to get that spell or effect first, however.

 

[reveal]

And that's the question, isn't it?

I don't believe this is one of those times. It's pretty clearly laid out that a monk's unarmed strike isn't actually a natural weapon - if it was, he couldn't gain multiple attacks per round with it from a high BAB.

If you have a spell or effect that says, "You may do X to a natural weapon," then you may do X to a monk's unarmed strike.

You have to get that spell or effect first, however.

As I've said before, it says that's "treated like a natural weapon" which means it does qualify as a natural weapon in this instance. That's the way I read it.

 

[Dimwhit]

You have to get that spell or effect first, however.

Feats are effects.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Feats are effects.

No, the benefit line of a feat is an effect.

A prerequisite is not an effect.

 

[Scion]

which is of course the old arguement, but I disagree with your conclusion entirely.

The prereq only checks to see if you qualify for gaining the feat. The feat itself 'does' improve a natural weapon so, for purposes of that feat, the monk has a natural weapon. Which means that he qualifies.

I know some people are really attatched to the other arguement, but to me that position simply doesnt make any sense at all.

Plus, it comes down to the part of the monks description either meaning something or being completely wasted space. I prefer to believe that it is there for a reason. To those that believe that it is wasted space (as in, it doesnt mean anything) why do you feel that way?

 

[Dimwhit]

No, the benefit line of a feat is an effect.

A prerequisite is not an effect.

Umm, I never said the prereq was an effect. I said feats are effects. They are. Saying the benefit line of a feat is an effect is saying the exact same thing I am. If a feat increases natuaral weapon damage die, that increase is an effect. If a monk's unarmed strike "is treated as ... a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve [it]" and a feat is an effect, then a feat that effects natural weapons can effect a Monk.

Can people really not see that? It's pretty basic English.