Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack? - Official answer

[Lonely Tylenol]

It still only represents a change in the aspects of the character--a change effected by something other than itself. By something other than the representation of the change.

Your character now knows how to make potions or has a bonus to a particular skill--well; we'll call that a Brew Potion feat or a Skill Focus feat and we'll say that the new ability has this or that limitations, but to suggest that, because it has a name or a particular form, that the change is then caused by its name or by its form, while fine for talking about the change in an ordinary way, is completely unacceptable for determining how the change takes place under the rules.

Okay, I had wanted to get out of this thread, but I just had to comment on this one. You can't just say that if you have a +3 bonus to a particular skill that you therefore have Skill Focus. Because there's one thing that Skill Focus gets you that "a +3 unnamed bonus to a skill as a result of gaining a level in a class that grants this ability" doesn't. And that's the ability to qualify for prestige classes that require Skill Focus as a prerequisite. One is a feat, and one is simply an effect that happens to be the same as the effect from the feat. And only the feat satisfies the prerequisites. I think this demonstrates, again, that a feat is not identical to its effect.

Now that that's off my chest...you may continue.

 

[Artoomis]

Okay, I had wanted to get out of this thread, but I just had to comment on this one. You can't just say that if you have a +3 bonus to a particular skill that you therefore have Skill Focus. Because there's one thing that Skill Focus gets you that "a +3 unnamed bonus to a skill as a result of gaining a level in a class that grants this ability" doesn't. And that's the ability to qualify for prestige classes that require Skill Focus as a prerequisite. One is a feat, and one is simply an effect that happens to be the same as the effect from the feat. And only the feat satisfies the prerequisites. I think this demonstrates, again, that a feat is not identical to its effect.

Now that that's off my chest...you may continue.

Flawed reasoning. Feat requirements for Prestige Classes have more to do with balance than anything else. Requiring "Skill Focus" means more than just that you have some sort of +3 unnamed bonus, it also means you the PLAYER had to use up one of his prescious character-development feats. Even the rules themselves in at least one place refer to a feat as an effect. Even if one says Feats = Effects, though, that's not the same as saying that having the effect means the player chose to use up a feat, effects may come from different sources.

However, that's really neither here nor there.

I AM AT A COMPLETE LOSS AS TO HOW BOTH SIDES TO THIS DISCUSSION CANNOT SEE THAT EACH SIDE HAS MERIT AND THEREFORE THE RAW ITSELF CANNOT SETTLE WHETHER A MONK CAN TAKE INA.

This is why an "official" interpretation is important. Now we know what one should allow when if not using any house rules. Before this, either way would have qualified as following RAW. Now only one way does, because an official interpretation has been issued on a question that arguably had two legitimate answers from the RAW.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Before this, either way would have qualified as following RAW. Now only one way does, because an official interpretation has been issued on a question that arguably had two legitimate answers from the RAW.

That's a nice blanket statement, but it's an opinion, not fact, and it's the reason for this debate in the first place. How in the world do you presume to just wash away the whole debate by saying that both sides are supported by RAW? It's simply not true. Moreover, as has been stated in post #2, the 'official interpretation' has little or no relevance. So, keep saying 'official' but you're just pissing in the wind.

 

[Artoomis]

That's a nice blanket statement, but it's an opinion, not fact, and it's the reason for this debate in the first place. How in the world do you presume to just wash away the whole debate by saying that both sides are supported by RAW? It's simply not true. Moreover, as has been stated in post #2, the 'official interpretation' has little or no relevance. So, keep saying 'official' but you're just pissing in the wind.

I , and others, have presented valid RAW-based arguments showing how INA can be taken by monks. You, and others, hawe presented valid argiuments showing how they do not qualify.

When both sides can present valid, RAW-based arguments supporting their contentions, an official interpretation is required to settle the dispute. This has happened.

 

[Deset Gled]

When both sides can present valid, RAW-based arguments supporting their contentions, and official interpretation is required to settle the dispute.

Replace "official" with "DM" in that statement and I'm behind you 100%.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I , and others, have presented valid RAW-based arguments showing how INA can be taken by monks.

If you did, this long debate wouldn't exist in the first place. That's the whole point. I'd concede a 'not definitive in the rules' scenario if it were true. But, in this case, it's not.

Please understand that while it may seem like I'm merely being argumentative, that is not my intent. I'm only trying to rebut the assertion that either the rules are unclear or that both sides are supported and to just hand-wave the whole debate away. The opposing view (to mine, Patryn's, Hyp's, et al) do not have support in the RAW. You can disagree and rule however you like, but don't try to issue a blanket statement to close the debate. Let's just agree to disagree and we'll all houserule it like we wish.

 

[spatha]

People are saying a non human monk with a natural weapon would get to the INA feat only. I was under the impression that a creatures natural attacks couldn't be used in conguncture with a monks unarmed attacks. Hence while a lizardman monk using its inherent natural attack gets to aply the bonus to his natural attacks he can't apply the bonus to his unarmed attacks.

 

[Gez]

Similarly, no one burns an offering of a feat-slot to a feat-spirit to receive a feat-effect in return.

I find this declaration that I'm no one offensive to my religious beliefs.

 

[Artoomis]

... The opposing view (to mine, Patryn's, Hyp's, et al) do not have support in the RAW...

That's a load of bull. You may not agree with the argument, but it's putting blinders on to simply wash the opposition's argument aside as saying it has no support in the RAW. Citations from the RAW support BOTH sides of the argument. Each side believes their argument is the better one. Under those circumstacnes one is naive to think the other side's argument has no support in the RAW. It's simpy not true. BOTH sides have used the RAW to support their arguments.

Under these circumstances, if someone new to this wanted to follow the RAW, it would become immediately clear that they could buy into either argument and quite legitimately claim to be following the RAW. With the new clarification from the Sage, there is now guidance that says that, if you with to follow the "offcial" D&D rules, you will allow a monk to qualify for INA.

It seems to me that not admitting that fact is simply being stubborn.

As for my part, I long ago conceeded the point that Hyp's argument has some basis in the RAW and is a SECOND valid interpretation of the RAW.

 

[Artoomis]

Replace "official" with "DM" in that statement and I'm behind you 100%.

I think that EVERYONE agrees that the final word is the DMs.

This debate not about that .

It's about whether there is any support in the RAW for Andy Collin's "official" statment about monks qualifying for INA. It seem extremely clear to me that there is support within the RAW for that ruling, and, therfore, it is foolish to argue that Andy has "change" the rules rather than simply "clarifying" or "interpreting" them, which is what is being claimed.