Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

My vote, in case anyone still cares at this point, is "No, not per the Rules as Wriiten (RAW)." and "No, but I'll allow it in my games."

 

[FireLance]

Races of the Wild lists it as medium armor, so it is medium armor by the RAW even if it is not explicitly stated in the Core Rules. The Sage also clarifies that it is treated as medium armor for the purpose of proficiency in Dragon #335 (it will probably make it into the FAQ soon if it hasn't already), so it's also the official stand.

You do realize the irony of saying that on this thread, don't you?

I have just as much right to make sweeping statements as the next poster!

 

[xen_xheng]

I voted no, since it is a feat designed for monsters (it appears in the Monster Manual); I suppose only the designers can give a correct clarification on the issue, but I feel the feat was intended for monster's natural weapons (claws, bite, etc) and not unarmed attacks.

 

[Zandel]

I voted no, since it is a feat designed for monsters (it appears in the Monster Manual); I suppose only the designers can give a correct clarification on the issue, but I feel the feat was intended for monster's natural weapons (claws, bite, etc) and not unarmed attacks.

So are you saying that PCs cannot take the Craft Construct feat just because it's in a monster manual?

PCs can take the Craft Construct feat if they meet the prereq's and the rules are the same for INA. Monks with a +4 BAB DO meet the prereq's and thus can take and be effected by the feat.

Scion is right and his first post should end this discussion as that's how it is by the RAW. What you do in your games is up to you but that's not RAW and belongs in the house rules forum.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Here, I fixed that for you.

PCs can take the Craft Construct feat if they meet the prereq's and the rules are the same for INA. [Human] Monks with a +4 BAB DO [NOT] meet the prereq's and thus can['t] take and be [a]ffected by the feat.

Scion is [not] right [...] as that's how it is by the RAW. What you do in your games is up to you but that's not RAW and belongs in the house rules forum.

There. Much better.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Scion is right and his first post should end this discussion as that's how it is by the RAW. What you do in your games is up to you but that's not RAW and belongs in the house rules forum.

Dispute over interpretation of the written rules certainly belongs in the Rules forum, which is what is happening here.

Not everyone is saying "I agree that as written, a monk's Unarmed Strike class feature satisfies the prerequisite for INA". There is disagreement not just over what people would do in their own game despite what's written (which is more what the House Rules forum is for), but over what the rules actually say.

The Rules forum is the right place for the thread.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[Hypersmurf]

Here, I fixed that for you.

Patryn, don't do that.

Dispute points, but don't play the fixed-it-for-you game - it's needlessly inflammatory.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[Zandel]

Here, I fixed that for you.

There. Much better.

Only if your house rulling or can't read the RAW otherwise I was right.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Hey - I threw in a smiley or two.

Zandel, quite obviously Scion's original post is not right. You may wish that it was right, you may even believe it to be right, but the fact of the matter is that it is only correct if Scion [and yourself] are houseruling or can't read.

I've provided as much evidence as you have.

Ergo, if you're right, then I'm right. Since we can't both be right (since that would be a contradiction), then what we have here is a dilemma.

I've posted my own "proof" elsewhere, and feel no need to repeat it here. Suffice it to say that I have not seen sufficient evidence that my view is wrong, and therefore strident claims that "Scion's right, dernit!" will certainly not convince me.

Try again if you've got a more novel line of argument.

 

[Scion]

quite obviously Scion's original post is not right.

I have not seen any sufficient proof from you to state this.

If you know of a place where my arguement breaks down feel free to say so.

Otherwise, I follow the rules point by point and the only conclusion that I can draw is that it works.