Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack? - Official answer

[Scion]

I dont see any other way to read it if we are still useing the english language to parse it.

If there is another way to read it feel free to explain.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I dont see any other way to read it if we are still useing the english language to parse it.

If there is another way to read it feel free to explain.

"The victim seems to have been attacked by an unknown animal, though the inspector thinks that it is probably a wolf, bear, lion, tiger, panther, or other feline."

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

edit: Never mind, Rystil did it for me.

 

[Scion]

"The victim seems to have been attacked by an unknown animal, though the inspector thinks that it is probably a wolf, bear, lion, tiger, panther, or other feline."

Now, I am not an english major, but to me this just 'feels' wrong. Can anyone explain why it is correct or incorrect by english standards?

In my mind it is the 'or other' that is really killing your arguement.

If I was to take out the lion, tiger, and panter from your sentence it should still work grammatically if it was correct to begin with. At that point we are left with this:

'The victim seems to have been attacked by an unknown animal, though the inspector thinks that it is probably a wolf, bear, or other feline.'

And that just doesnt make any sense at all.

Now it could be 'or other predatory animals' or something similar, but the 'or other' really means that they should all be related.

At least that is how it seems to me. Can anyone provide support for this either way as an expert in english?

 

[Dimwhit]

You have a citation, IIRC, that includes feats in a list that terminates in "or other effects". That doesn't seem to me to be a clear statement that a feat is an effect, only that other effects are included in the category of "things that a particular situation applies to," which also, in this case, happens to include feats. But I can see how you might want to read it in an other way. Considering that it's the only place that feats and effects ever brush elbows in this way, I'd like some more evidence.

(I knew I'd get sucked back into this.)

First, I can't find Scion's quote you're referring to, so I'm shooting a little blind. However, considering that you (Awkward) haven't given one citation to show that feats are expressly NOT effects, I'd say Scion is one up on you.

However, I will say this: adding 'or other effects' to a list is completely ambiguous. Though it more likely implies that the preceding list also includes effects, it doesn't have to. Regardless, that doesn't help one way or the other with the wording of the Monk's unarmed attack.

It's not worth getting into a symantic argument over the wording here. Neither side can win. The only issue that can really be debated is: can feats be considered 'effects'?

I have not seen any citations from any of the rules, RAW or otherwise, that attempts to define 'effects' to any limiting scope. It is being used generically, i.e. as defined in common usage. Here is the definition of 'effect' (from my dictionary widget):

A change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.

I would argue that a feat is an ability that results from another cause, namely, gaining a level. You can a level, now you can (for example) more effectively dodge a chosen opponent, or craft a wand, etc.

So by that application of the definition of 'effect,' a Monk should be able to use the feat.

I would be interested in hearing the counter argument, using specific citations and definitions as the basis of the argument, not by saying the sage is always wrong anyway. I don't think it can be done, but I'm willing to be corrected.

 

[Dinkeldog]

Note that I'm not going to get sucked back into this. For any group that I DM for, the interpretation is pretty clear.

I do want to say that the answer earlier for what RAW means is "Rules As Written."

 

[Legildur]

Edit: Legildur, please read the moderator comments upthread. Folks, please don't respond to flames with more flames; report a bad post instead of responding to it, and check the rest of the thread to see if a moderator has already responded to the bad post. Thanks!
-Pielorinho

 

[Legildur]

<snip>I do want to say that the answer earlier for what RAW means is "Rules As Written."

Awww, you spoiled my fun

 

[Pielorinho]

You really wanna see fun-spoiling, look above. Sorry, man!
Daniel

 

[Artoomis]

... In fact, I see a very simple, absolutely iron clad rule for my side. ...I don't think any new arguments can be made, but if you want a summary for the sake of this long thread, I'd be happy to oblige.

Okay, one last time (perhaps).

1. Monks have an ability that allows their special attack to be treated as a natural weapon for the purposes of effects that enhance a natural weapon.
2. A feat exists that has an effect (or is an effect, but I think that argument is a distracting red herring) that enhances a natural weapon, which requires only that one have a natural attack to take the feat.
3. It seems clear on its face that the monk would qualify as having a natural attack for the purposes of effects granted by this feat, and therefore meet the prerequisite of having a natural attack for the purpose of taking this feat. A monk would not, of course, necessarily meet any other prerequisites, were there any.

Essentially, the argument is that the prerequisite must be viewed in context, not in isolation. In other words, one should not ask "Does a monk have a natural weapon?" for the prerequisite but rather, "Is there an effect here that would alow a monk to be considered to have a natural weapon?"

I KNOW you disagree, but I am absolutely dumfounded that you cannot see that the opposing argument (that is, that monks CAN take INA within the RAW) has some merit. It seems to me that you are trying a bit too hard to find a definitive rule here. What I am saying is that after analyzing both sides of this argument, both sides have merit. There is NO clear rule within the RAW for this specific instance, as demonstrated by the fact that BOTH sides see a very clear support with the RAW for their side.

It’s one thing to say I am wrong (as I say you are), and quite another to say that my argument has no merit, which is what you seem to be saying.

Neither side appears to be intellectually bankrupt, and both side present clear, coherent arguments based upon common interpretations of the English language and the rules as written.

When both sides to an argument present clear, coherent rules-based arguments to support their respective positions it seems clear that the rule in question is, shall we say, less than clear - as presented in the rules. In such a case, an official interpretation is clearly needed if we are to know how the rule is supposed to be followed - not counting house rules.

At this point, given the Sage ruling, any rule that disallows the taking if INA by a monk is a House Rule. It may (or may not) be a reasonable and logical and even somewhat rules-based House Rule, but it is a House Rule nonetheless.

Note that WotC customer service has instructions to unequivocally state that the rule is that monks qualify for INA. I have that from a reliable source within WotC customer service. Take that for whatever it is worth to you.