Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack? - Official answer

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

To clarify this point, the argument is that having a natural weapon qualifies you to take the feat. But there's nothing in the feat that says that you have to apply it to the natural weapon that qualified you for the feat if you have something else to apply it to...for example, an unarmed attack that counts as a natural weapon for spells and effects.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

If you want to follow the official D&D rules, you will allow a wizard to carry seventeen wands of fireball which he can activate in one action because they all have the same command word. So says the Sage. Which is one example of many as to why many of us don't listen to him.

 

[Infiniti2000]

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.

If it makes you feel better to call me naive, etc. go for it.

If I thought you had support in the RAW, I'd say so. I'm sure Patryn and Hyp would say so, too. However, none of us do. Are you quoting rules and making a reasonable argument? Sure. That's not what I am saying though. There's no RAW argument vs. the prerequisite. turbo tried a metaphysical argument, but I wasn't buying it.

You can call me stubborn, but I am quite willing to change my stance on something given sufficient, even reasonable, support. Ask mistwell for one. In this particular case, I don't see it. Like I said, the best we can do is disagree. Until WotC issues errata, a human monk cannot take INA. Moreover, before you ask, if WotC did issue errata, I would houserule that a monk cannot take INA and I currently houserule that e.g. a lizardman monk cannot (for his unarmed strikes).

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

If it makes you feel better to call me naive, etc. go for it.

If I thought you had support in the RAW, I'd say so. I'm sure Patryn and Hyp would say so, too. However, none of us do. Are you quoting rules and making a reasonable argument? Sure. That's not what I am saying though. There's no RAW argument vs. the prerequisite. turbo tried a metaphysical argument, but I wasn't buying it.

You can call me stubborn, but I am quite willing to change my stance on something given sufficient, even reasonable, support. Ask mistwell for one. In this particular case, I don't see it. Like I said, the best we can do is disagree. Until WotC issues errata, a human monk cannot take INA. Moreover, before you ask, if WotC did issue errata, I would houserule that a monk cannot take INA and I currently houserule that e.g. a lizardman monk cannot (for his unarmed strikes).

Ditto, but I already houserule that monks can in fact take INA. If an erratum were issued that reified my house rule, it would probably tickle me pink. But until then, it remains a house rule.

 

[Gez]

If you want to follow the official D&D rules, you will allow a wizard to carry seventeen wands of fireball which he can activate in one action because they all have the same command word. So says the Sage. Which is one example of many as to why many of us don't listen to him.

If I were a wizard, I'd be extra careful if I carried seventeen wands of fireball that all had the same command word.

Ars Kaboomis!, says the wizard.
Kaboom!, says the fireball he targetted on the ogres.
Auuuugggh! It burns! It burns like hygiene!, says the ogres.
KABADABOOM! says the sixteen wands of fireball in the wizard's backpack.
Dude, here are your 4d6, roll a new character..., says the DM to the wizard's player.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

If I were a wizard, I'd be extra careful if I carried seventeen wands of fireball that all had the same command word.

Ars Kaboomis!, says the wizard.
Kaboom!, says the fireball he targetted on the ogres.
Auuuugggh! It burns! It burns like hygiene!, says the ogres.
KABADABOOM! says the sixteen wands of fireball in the wizard's backpack.
Dude, here are your 4d6, roll a new character..., says the DM to the wizard's player.

What, he wouldn't duct tape them together? The whole point of the exercise is 85d6 damage in one standard action. Save for half.

 

[Gez]

Duct tape isn't in the equipment list in the Player's Handbook.

But seriously, at most I'd allow someone to use two wands at once, one in each hand. More than that, and the extra wands do not work -- if they're activated anyway, the DM "chooses randomly" how they're targetted, not the player. (Could you fire with two guns or more in the same hand?)

So, if the Sage indeed said that one may activate 17 wands at the same time if they've the same command word, I can agree with that. Why not?

 

[Scion]

If I thought you had support in the RAW

Oddly, I still havent seen any real raw that supports the position of not being able to take ina with a monk on his unarmed strike attacks.

I think that between how the wording works and other feats which suggest that feats 'are' effects that it is crystal clear.

I really do not see the arguement about it not working as holding any water. It seems highly contrived and based on an incredibly narrow reading that ignores other rules in the ruleset.

But then, I have no problem with allowing it to work balance wise either, so even if it could be proven that it didnt work I'd still let it work in my own games


And of course that seems to be what it comes down to, each side feels that the other side doesnt have any/enough rules basis to make its claim.

 

[Artoomis]

Oddly, I still havent seen any real raw that supports the position of not being able to take ina with a monk on his unarmed strike attacks.

I think that between how the wording works and other feats which suggest that feats 'are' effects that it is crystal clear...

This really makes my point. When both sides of an argument see strong support for their position from the RAW, it seems clear that an offical interpretation is called for. That's now happened.

Why is this difficult to accept?

 

[ackron]

It seems clear that feats are effects according to the RAW. I also see no reason that said effects could not, in turn, cause or provide additional, secondary effects. It also seems clear that some feats to cause effects (Augment Summoning is the first example that comes to mind), while others (such as Combat Expertise) provide the character with a new ability. But in either case, the ability or effect is itself the result of another effect, the feat itself. The feat is an effect of leveling up (or perhaps, divine intervention or something else).

Basically, I agree with Turbo and Scion, that according to the RAW, a Monk should be able to take INA, and you don't need the sage's ruling to make that official.