Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Dimwhit]

The issue I worry about is whether regular humans can qualify for feats, prestige classes or what not that require natural weapons as prerequisites. The Yes side would allow this, and I think this is a mistake.

I can't speak for all on the Yes side, but I've never argued that humans have 'natural weapons' as defined by the rules. Just Monks. Based on the wording in the Monk description. It seems like a very clear exception that allows their unarmed strike to be considered a natural weapon for the purpose of...yada yada. No sense getting back into that part of the argument.

But I don't think I'd argue that ALL humans have natural weapons. Just Monks, be they human or otherwise.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There are areas where the rules are inconsistent, and if you pick and choose you can support the conclusion that unarmed strikes are natural weapons, and that feats are effects, and other dubious results.

The rules ARE inconsistent, and I strongly object to your characterization of the "Yes" side as "picking and choosing" when it is the "No" side that is "picking and choosing."

WE pointed out RAW PHB text that says that US are NW and that such sections were ADDED to the 3.5 versions of the relevant sections. WE pointed out subsequent publications that contain references to US as NW. WE pointed out that the PHB's glossary, equipment, and combat sections do not contradict this position.

Can the "No" side point to Core, RAW text that says US are not NW? Not so far.

The closest the "No" side can come to that is pointing out how US differ from NW. Of course, US ALSO differ from all other weapons in the game, so that doesn't forward their position at all.

Now, I didn't dip a toe into the argument about feats as effects- I thought it was a non-issue and still do, however I will confess that, AFAIK, I am the ONLY one who has forwarded the position that humans (as well as all other living beings) have natural weapons, and that the text of the Monk description was meant to add the classification of manufactured weapon, not natural weapon, to the Monk's US. To the best of my knowledge, this is UNIQUE among all the published classes- not even the similar OA Shaman can treat his US as manufactured weapons.

 

[Anubis]

Can you show me where in the RAW it says this?

I still hold to the "Law of the Persians and Medes" approach - the designers are not the ultimate authority; the RAW itself is.

Say WHAT?! I'm speechless. That statement made me completely dumbfounded. The mind boggles how you can arrive at such a conclusion.

The RAW being published does not make it a self-sustaining entity; it is a creation and therefore is only the ultimate authority when the creators are no longer around. Well, guess what? The creators are still around. The publishers are still around. WotC is still around. Andy Collins is still around. Monte Cook, Jonathan Tweet, Skip Williams, Rich Baker, David Noonan, Rich Redman, all still around. Not sure if they all still work for WotC, but they're all alive and kicking and (presumably) still in the D&D business in some (most often official) capacity. As such, all the above stated entities are the final authority.

If I write a novel and publish it, and I intend one thing yet wrote it in an unclear fashion, and you interpret it differently based on wording, and I published a "novel FAQ" stating it was some other way, you have absolutely no place to contest what I say, no matter how ridiculous it may be. The final authorities are in two groups:

Group A: Those who created it. They know the system and how it should work.

Group B: The holders of the copyright. They have the legal place to do whatever they like.

Seeing as both Group A and Group B have stated that monk's can take Improved Natural Attack, that means that as per the RAW, they can. Their words are equal to RAW, even if they are changes, because they have that right as the creators. You can't tell the creator of a fictional work that he's wrong, sorry to say.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I still hold to the "Law of the Persians and Medes" approach - the designers are not the ultimate authority; the RAW itself is.

Then...you don't buy into any of the errata or rulings until its "made official" in some kind of subsequent text, like a new edition?

You MUST have hated 2Ed, with classes being proficient in weapons that weren't in the weapons charts (thief & broadsword), or different lists of what multiclass options were permissible (Bards? Yep, Bards!). How could you ever decide what to do?

Which book was correct- the 1st printing or the 2nd or the Nth?

As for RAW vs Designers vs Copyright Holders...I'll use a combination of criteria.

I start with RAW, then see what the D's & CH's say. After all, if a typo exists in RAW, that doesn't make the RAW right- it just means an error was enshrined in the rules by mistake. If the D's tell me what they intended, I weigh that fact alongside the RAW. Ditto the CH's commentary. Hopefully, there is either accord or some kind of consensus between 2 of the 3 sources. If not, I try to determine what makes the most sense- even if it is contrary to the consensus! (See my earlier commentary about WOTC's rulings on M:TG cards Post #718.)

 

[Artoomis]

...The issue I worry about is whether regular humans can qualify for feats, prestige classes or what not that require natural weapons as prerequisites. The Yes side would allow this...

Actually, not ALL the Yes side would allow this.

My personal postion is that there are two distinct ways to get to the same result for INA for monks.

One way says monks can take it based on the language in the monk class description. This way relies on common sense and on strained wording about a prerequisite being an "effect" or not as "effect" is, except for spells, an entirely undefined game term.

The other way says pretty much anyone can take it (though it is of almost no benefit for most humanoids), because everyone (pretty much) has a "special" natural weapon of "unarmed strike."

Either way is fine with me. The first way makes perfect sense to me, the second also works and does not seem to raise any serious game-breaking issues.

 

[Artoomis]

...Now, I didn't dip a toe into the argument about feats as effects- I thought it was a non-issue and still do, however I will confess that, AFAIK, I am the ONLY one who has forwarded the position that humans (as well as all other living beings) have natural weapons, and that the text of the Monk description was meant to add the classification of manufactured weapon, not natural weapon, to the Monk's US. To the best of my knowledge, this is UNIQUE among all the published classes- not even the similar OA Shaman can treat his US as manufactured weapons.

I may not have "put forward" the position but I defended it. I do not see it breaking anything in the game, either.

 

[Borlon]

Hmmm. I am starting to lose track about what this thread is about. It has partly been about the role of the FAQ in establishing rulings. Clarifying/changing/whatever- but that has been relegated to a couple of other threads.

Another part of it is to explore various RAW justifications for the ruling that monks can take the INA feat. Among the issues addressed have been whether a feat counts as an effect, whether a feat's prerequisite is an effect of a feat, and other "effect" related matters. Then there has been a whole line of argument that explores the idea that unarmed strikes are natural weapons; that is, that their default status under the rules is that of a natural weapon. Another theme, fairly muted, has been whether granting the feat to monks would be unbalancing or not.

I know that I have a definite opinion on several of these issues, but not on the last one. I am solidly "no" as to whether a prerequisite is an effect, but I am agnostic as to whether I would allow the feat; I rather doubt that it is unbalancing, so what would the harm be? I am not DMing right now, so it hasn't come up.

Could some of the main posters clarify their positions on which issues seem important, and where they stand on them? For instance, a Yes poster who doesn't think that unarmed strikes are natural weapons would have a lot in common with me. Someone who thinks that because monks are underpowered and so should have access to the feat; well, I probably have no point of disagreement with them at all.

All I'm saying is that it might be a good time to take stock of where we stand on the various issues.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

My position:

1. Unarmed strikes are not natural weapons, nor are they "special natural weapons." Fists can be, but are not necessarily so. Any rules to the contrary are in error; not every creature has a natural weapon.

2. A feat has effects, but a prereq is not an effect.

3. No, monks cannot take INA.

4. IMHO, it would not be unbalancing to allow them to do it anyway.

 

[Anubis]

My position:

1. Unarmed strikes are not natural weapons, nor are they "special natural weapons." Fists can be, but are not necessarily so. Any rules to the contrary are in error; not every creature has a natural weapon.

2. A feat has effects, but a prereq is not an effect.

3. No, monks cannot take INA.

4. IMHO, it would not be unbalancing to allow them to do it anyway.

According to the powers-that-be, you are wrong.

Quoted from my question straight to the source:


Response (Chris L.) 10/24/2005 03:11 PM
The reference, under the kyton on page 53, is incorrect.

Yes, everything in the FAQ is meant to be official.

I hope this information is useful.
Good Gaming!
We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.

To login to your account, or update your question please click here.

Chris L.

Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 7am-6pm PST / 10am-9pm EST
Customer (Brandon Harwell) 10/24/2005 03:07 PM
Well, on page 39, the entry states that hardness applies to acid, sonic, and force effects; On page 53, the entry states that acid, sonic, and force effects ignore hardness. Based on your previous answer, can I take that to mean the entry on page 53 is in error from a previous ruling and that hardness does indeed apply to acid, sonic, and force effects?

Oh, and a clarification of my first question. Does your response mean that actual rules changes in the FAQ are official as well and that there are instances of errata in it?
Response (Chris L.) 10/24/2005 02:29 PM
Thank you for contacting us.
1. Absolutely, the FAQ is considered to be a log of official rules clarifications. It is considered to be official.

2. The confusion may be with regards to the differences between Hardness and Damage Reduction? All damage is reduced by hardness, while some aren't reduced by damage reduction. Let me know if this is the question. If it isn't, could you be more specific about which entry you're referring to on page 53. Thank you for your patience.

I hope this information is useful.
Good Gaming!
We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.

To login to your account, or update your question please click here.

Chris L.

Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast
1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada)
425-204-8069 (From all other countries)
Monday-Friday 7am-6pm PST / 10am-9pm EST
Customer (Brandon Harwell) 10/23/2005 05:16 PM
I have two questions.

1. Does the D&D Rules FAQ carry as much weight as the errata? Several rules changes have been implemented through the FAQ, and the errata is no longer being updated, leading me to believe the FAQ is for clarifications and changes. As such, is all the material in the FAQ official, just as if errata had been issued?

2. Regarding the FAQ, there is a contradiction. Previously, the FAQ confirmed that sonic, acid, and force attacks ignored hardness. In the newest FAQ, however, page 39 reverses that ruling (which now states that hardness applies to sonic, acid, and force attacks) while page 53 still upholds the previous ruling that such attacks all ignored hardness. Which is correct?

Thank you for your time.


Hopefully, now that I've posted this in the three proper threads, everyone will see it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm discussing this entire issue elsewhere, and someone suggested 2 ideas I had not considered, nor AFAIK, has anyone on this thread suggested.

1) INA is a "Monster Feat," and thus, should be limited to monsters. That is, since they are all under the heading of Monster Feats, being a "monster or animal" is a prerequisite. I'm OK with that, but "monster" is a pretty broad term. It obviously couldn't just apply to anything in the various MMs, because that wouldn't solve anything.

2) INA works 1 of 2 ways: either by improving how the creature uses its natural weapons (essentially making it the equivalent of IUC), or by changing the physical characteristics of the actual natural weapons- making them larger or sharper. If it is the former, it is the same kind of change that being a monk, OA shaman, or PC with IUC already has, and thus should not stack with it- either you're one of those 3 or you can have INA, but not both. If it is the latter, it would be something that would be "physically impossible" for virtually any PC race to satisfy, barring INA being a supernatural feat.

Either of these possible paths gives the reward of disallowing INA to most (but not all) PCs without a tortured reading of the rules or delving into drafter intent or implied rulings.