Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Artoomis]

Anubis:

Please lay off the discussion of what's offical and what's not. We ALL know that, officially, monk's can take INA. This thread is not about not, nor about what's the most authoritative source. Save that for the FAQ as Errata thread, please.

This thread is about whether the offical ruling is correct per the RAW. It's not really about anything practical, it's about an intellectual debate about what the rules do and do not say.

The other thread is about who's an authoritative source. Let's keep these two topics seperate, okay? Please?

 

[Caliban]

I think Infiniti2000 and Caliban just love arguing for the sake of arguing. That and they like hearing the sounds of their own voices I imagine.

Um, this is text. No one can hear what I'm saying, they can just read it.

I can't find any validity in what they're saying given that the people who have authority to say one way or another have stated in no uncertain terms what the rule is.

Where in this thread have I said that monks can't take Improved INA? You spreading misinformation again.

Everything else you posted was pretty much irrelevent.

 

[Caliban]

Well, I don't understand how that even matters.

I understand that. We just approach the question from different viewpoints, different enough what seems obvious to you and what seems obvious to me are completely different.

That's why I eventually accepted that this is a truly ambigous rules situation, even though it didn't seem that way to me at first. (And by "at first" I mean when this question was raised many moons ago in 3.0.)

 

[Dimwhit]

I understand that. We just approach the question from different viewpoints, different enough what seems obvious to you and what seems obvious to me are completely different.

That's why I eventually accepted that this is a truly ambigous rules situation, even though it didn't seem that way to me at first. (And by "at first" I mean when this question was raised many moons ago in 3.0.)

I hear ya.

 

[Anubis]

Anubis:

Please lay off the discussion of what's offical and what's not. We ALL know that, officially, monk's can take INA. This thread is not about not, nor about what's the most authoritative source. Save that for the FAQ as Errata thread, please.

This thread is about whether the offical ruling is correct per the RAW. It's not really about anything practical, it's about an intellectual debate about what the rules do and do not say.

The other thread is about who's an authoritative source. Let's keep these two topics seperate, okay? Please?

The thing is, the FAQ's validity is at the heart of this matter. People who think the rule is vague are directed to the FAQ under every interpretation out there as a source of clarification, and it makes the rule clear. For those thinking errata is required, well, official word is that errata comes from the FAQ as well. As such, people arguing the validity of the FAQ is trying to confuse this particular issue even more.

The fact is there is absolutely no way monk's can't take the feat unless you ignore the errata, the FAQ, the designers, and WotC's word. That's why this overlaps. The problem is this issue can't be resolved until the FAQ issue is. The question is, do the rules allow for monks to take Improved Natural Attack? No logical interpretation can come to a specific "no" conclusion, as the rules are either vague or clearly pointing to "yes". In the former case, of course, the FAQ gets the say. On the Rules forum, we should give only one answer, it shouldn't even be debatable. It's either allowed by the rules or it isn't.

Since certain people continue to argue the validity of the FAQ, though, it continues to loop back on itself. Can monks take it by the RAW? There are only two clear interpretations: "yes" or "the rules are unclear". In problem is that several people seem to come to this weird conclusion that the rules are perfectly clear that the answer is "no". Either way, the FAQ is what this keeps going back to, as it stated ver batum that the answer is "yes". Therein lies the circle. If errata is needed, well, WotC says the FAQ is errata; if only a clarification is needed, well, the FAQ does that as well.

This means that, until the FAQ issue is resolved, this issue of monks and that dang feat is gonna keep going in circles.

 

[Legildur]

The fact is there is absolutely no way monk's can't take the feat unless you ignore the errata, the FAQ, the designers, and WotC's word.

(my emphasis) Show me that 'monks can take INA' is errata!

It MAY be errata (if you follow WotC's flawed method of communicating rules changes), but there are so many answers in the FAQ that are clarification or otherwise that are NOT errata, that there is no way to distinguish or be certain which is errata, clarification, house rules, or helpful advice.

So, by the RAW (which is, afterall, what this whole forum is about), it is not sufficiently clear that monks can take INA.

 

[Artoomis]

(my emphasis) ...So, by the RAW (which is, afterall, what this whole forum is about), it is not sufficiently clear that monks can take INA.

No, this forum is not really ALL ABOUT the RAW. It's about D&D rules, which does include the RAW - as well as FAQ, etc. In THIS particular case, the topic we are talking about is whether RAW supports WotC's offical view that monks can talk INA.

Let's get back on topic, okay?

 

[Legildur]

Rules Forum. Rules as Written. You'll forgive me if I might get it confused.

And with there being so many threads around covering very similar ground, it tends to get a little blurred.

And just to get back on track, Monks still can't take INA without a rule 0, or errata from WotC (and the FAQ is not errata in my view, no matter how WotC peddle it).

But I'll be a very happy player if/when they do errata it.

 

[Anubis]

And just to get back on track, Monks still can't take INA without a rule 0, or errata from WotC (and the FAQ is not errata in my view, no matter how WotC peddle it).

Not according to the RAW. By the original RAW (the printed text of the book), it's merely "unclear". Nowhere is it stated that monks can't take it. In fact, the whole "treat them as natural weapons" language suggests that they can.

Even if you take a goofed interpretation of the literal meaning of the words, the spirit of the rule is still clear. The only way monks can't take the feat is if you both ignore the spirit of the rules and take the most hard-lined and narrow interpretation of the written rules. Somehow, I have a feeling that such a stance is wrong. My thinking, of course, is supported by WotC.

 

[glass]

On the other hand, I think it should be intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer that if you get to have a natural attack for the purposes of the feat, that means for the prerequisites of the feat, too. Seperating those two out as folks want to is, well... ludicrous.

It doesn't say 'for the purposes of feats', it says for the purposes of effects. If it specifically mentioned feats, then you could make the case that 'feats' includes prerequisites, but it doesn't. It says 'effects', and you can't really make the case that 'effects' include prereqs.

I know you are, but you still can't!


glass.