Can monks get improved natural attack?

[Nail]

I'm going to summarize all the positions I can on Monks and INA:...

Good job, Artoomis. Well written.

FWIW, from now on (and although I disagree with allowing Monks to take INA), I shall point other discussions toward this post.

 

[Nail]

Ten thousand years from now, ...

10,000 years from now we won't be playing D&D....

...we'll be living it.

 

[Legildur]

I'm satisfied that Artoomis' summary captures the salient points without too much bias.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I'm satisfied that Artoomis' summary captures the salient points without too much bias.

There's not too much bias if you strike the last paragraph and rewrite #1 so that it represents the actual viewpoint (i.e. it's not that feats aren't effects , it's that feat prerequisites aren't effects). While you're at it, strike #2 as completely irrelevant. And the "summary" has no content.

 

[Cedric]

There's not too much bias if you strike the last paragraph and rewrite #1 so that it represents the actual viewpoint (i.e. it's not that feats aren't effects , it's that feat prerequisites aren't effects). While you're at it, strike #2 as completely irrelevant. And the "summary" has no content.

Actually, I think Artoomis did a fine job of summarizing both sides. It's clear which side he leans towards, however he presents both sides and in my opinion does an excellent job of it.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

LOL knocker... Monks use thier whole body as a weapon, not jut thier firsts, as the mighty alteredbeast game said "POWER... UP!". And besides, where does it say inw gives them a bigger natural weapon, it seems to imply that it stays the same size. sorry im just picking on you arnt I?

 

[Artoomis]

There's not too much bias if you strike the last paragraph and rewrite #1 so that it represents the actual viewpoint (i.e. it's not that feats aren't effects , it's that feat prerequisites aren't effects). While you're at it, strike #2 as completely irrelevant. And the "summary" has no content.

I edited and added the bit about feat prerequisitesa to make it more complete.

The rest I like as is. Paragraph two is to state that the rules, if you include the FAQ (and PHBII) allow it. This is relevant and vlaue-added, so I left it.

The final line also has value, I think , so I left it.

The intent was to present eveything about INA and monks is as little space as possible so folks can make their own decisions on it. I cannot completely divorce myself from my own opinions, but I made it as objective as I reasonably could.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

monks are ether under powered or too powerfull. common gang. make up your minds...

 

[glass]

Did I not just now summarize all the pro and con arguments in as little space as possible? Did I only present my pont of view?

2. RAW plus other WotC published matirial (notably FAQ and PHBII). Definately allowed. There is no serious alternative argument here.

'No serious alternative argument' seems like your view to me. The primary source rule is a pretty cast-iron alternative argument.

Do I not often talk about how there are two (or more) ways to view the rules, all correct.

Indeed you do, frequently. It does not mean you are right, though.


glass.

 

[Cedric]

'No serious alternative argument' seems like your view to me. The primary source rule is a pretty cast iron alternative argument.

No, not really.

If your group accepts the FAQ and PHB2 as "canon" and considers those sources to be a valid extension and/or clarification of the Rules as Written...then Monks are "absolutely" allowed to take INA as a feat. The FAQ makes it crystal clear that it IS allowed. There is no ambiguity in the clarification provided in the FAQ.

In other words, as Artoomis said, definitely allowed.