Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Anubis]

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.

Monster feat my rear. It's not. Monster feats all have a descriptor of "[Monstrous]". Improved Natural Attack is a "[General]" feat and thus can be taken by anyone who satisfies the prerequisites. According to the FAQ, monks satisfy said prerequisites, and since WotC has stated that everything in the FAQ is official (including clarifications, changes, and errata), that means monks can take it.

There is no discussion left as to whether the official rules allow this. If you don't want monks to have it, house rule it as such, but when people ask if the rules allow it, the answer is a clear "yes".

 

[Borlon]

Did Customer Service actually answer what Anubis asked? He asked if the FAQ was errata, and they said it was official. He asked if they represented clarifications and changes, and they said they were clarifications.[edit] I know they said "Absolutely" but I would be happier if they said "Absolutely; the FAQ counts as errata for all intents and purposes. They trump any contrary statements that you might find in the printed rulebooks." Or something equally decisive. As it is, the Customer Service answers don't match up well to the questions.[/edit]

I seem to recall a rule about the hierarchy of sources; in case of a difference between sources, a primary source trumps other sources, even if those sources are official. For example, a table and the associated text are both official, but the text trumps the table if they are different. The PHB is the primary source for feats and classes, and so trumps the DMG if the two differ, and so on.

I guess what I am suggesting is that even if the FAQ is official, it need not trump other sources. Unless it is errata, that is, in which case it would trump other sources, even primary sources.

But can we rely on Customer Service to specify the authority of a FAQ? After all, the position of Customer Service replies in the hierarchy of sources is unclear. If its statement of the hierarchy of sources contradicts something official written elsewhere, which statement trumps the other?

[edit]Oh, and I at least am not disputing whether the FAQ allows monks to take INA. What I want to know is if this represents a change in the rules or not. I say that it is a change, not merely a clarification. [/edit]

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If you don't want monks to have it, house rule it as such, but when people ask if the rules allow it, the answer is a clear "yes".

Fangs in, Anubis- remember, I'm on the "Yes" side.

Question for you though- "Monstrous" as a prerequisite is defined how and where?

 

[Caliban]

A response from WOTC Customer Service is irrelevant. They give obviously wrong answers to often, and if you send the same question in multiple times you will often get contradictory answers if you get responses from two different employees.

Customer Service Representative does not equal Rules Guru.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I seem to recall a rule about the hierarchy of sources; in case of a difference between sources, a primary source trumps other sources, even if those sources are official. For example, a table and the associated text are both official, but the text trumps the table if they are different. The PHB is the primary source for feats and classes, and so trumps the DMG if the two differ, and so on.

That's probably a good general rule, but even that rule gets trumped!

I've seen a couple of sourcebooks where they said that the subsequently published version of a class, feat, spell, etc. is the one that should be considered the official one. Thankfully, in most cases I can think of, they have been explicit in doing so.

 

[Anubis]

Borlon, Caliban, you two have the most convoluted logic I've ever seen.

The bottom line is simple: WotC, the designers, everyone who has any authority to say something official about the D&D system has said that the FAQ is official, it can make changes to the rules, and it can list errata. The customer service has more power than anyone here does.

Or should I go ask Andy Collins (who is higher up on the hierarchy) if the FAQ is official and allows for changes and errata?

In my second question to the customer service, I asked "Does your response mean that actual rules changes in the FAQ are official as well and that there are instances of errata in it?", and the answer was "Yes, everything in the FAQ is meant to be official." That makes the FAQ the primary source in all cases of contradictions. I mean you people aren't even understanding why the statement about primary sources was even made; it was made in case of a difference in text within the same book or between books with different purposes, it was not meant to be used how you are using it.

The spin stops here, folks. If you want to make changes to what's official, well, I would think that belongs in the "House Rules" forum. The designers and the copyright holders trump the RAW. As I said, if I write a novel and then an FAQ explaining things in the novel or making changes, you have no right to dispute that because, as I am the owner, my word is the gospel on that. Same goes for this.

 

[Legildur]

<snip>There is no discussion left as to whether the official rules allow this. If you don't want monks to have it, house rule it as such, but when people ask if the rules allow it, the answer is a clear "yes".

Yeah, so obviously really, really clear that more than 700 posts on this thread were made simply for the fun of it to see how long we can sustain a completely baseless argument. Your arm waving and blatant dismissal of the 'No' side (which obviously has some merit) is .... entertaining.

And the funny thing is, I want monks to have it (as I occasionally play a monk to the rest of my group's disgust). But with the way things have been 'clarified' I don't feel that I have a strong rules case to present to either of my DMs to support it (and they have both previously ruled [or house-ruled if you like] that monks are ineligible for INA).

This whole thread would have been a lot shorter if WotC had issued errata (which has a higher degree of internal scrutiny than the FAQ prior to publishing).

 

[Anubis]

Yeah, so obviously really, really clear that more than 700 posts on this thread were made simply for the fun of it to see how long we can sustain a completely baseless argument. Your arm waving and blatant dismissal of the 'No' side (which obviously has some merit) is .... entertaining.

And the funny thing is, I want monks to have it (as I occasionally play a monk to the rest of my group's disgust). But with the way things have been 'clarified' I don't feel that I have a strong rules case to present to either of my DMs to support it (and they have both previously ruled [or house-ruled if you like] that monks are ineligible for INA).

This whole thread would have been a lot shorter if WotC had issued errata (which has a higher degree of internal scrutiny than the FAQ prior to publishing).

The errata file itself is no longer updated. Errata is now placed within the FAQ. WotC has said as such. I'm positive Andy Collins would say the same and he's one of the top designers there.

You have plenty of rules basis. You have a designer (Andy Collins) on your side, you have WotC on your side, and you have at least one interpretation of the original RAW on your side.

 

[Artoomis]

Well, let's keep in mind that this thread is ABSOLUTLEY NOT about whether a monk can take INA. That was settled, officially. They can.

This thread was whether that position was in accordance with the rules as written - a very different and mostly intellectual discussion with little, if any, practical application. Just for fun, really.

Technically, disallowing a monk from taking INA would be a house rule, albeit one that has some justification from the rules as written but at variance with the official clarifcation of the question.

 

[Legildur]

<shrug> And I'm still not convinced it is right, no matter how much I would like it to be the case. That in itself should tell you something. The issuing of errata in FAQ is inappropriate and contentious. If WotC want clarity, then they need to be consistent with their messaging.