Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[glass]

Hey, you're really being unfair. You need to include everyone else who supports your opposing viewpoint. Hyp, Patryn, etc.

Don't forget me!


glass.

 

[glass]

EDIT:

Sorry, I got sidetracked arguing with Anubis again in the wrong thread.

I have reposted my previous post here to the FAQ thread.


glass.

 

[glass]

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.

Oh please. It's not explicitly stated that the can't cast finger of death at second level either. Is it your position then that they can?


glass.

 

[Artoomis]

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.

Actually, there are two distinct, technical arguments for why monks, per RAW, may take INA.

1. "Effects" is NOT a defined term in D&D (except for spells) and is used to mean MANY things in the RAW. Feats are, in fact, included in that list:

... a feat, class feature, or other permanent effect.

"Feats" really includes their prerequisites when one talks about being able to qualify for the feat.

2. Monks (and, indeed, darn near everyone) have a natural weapon (unarmed strike) that is "special" and does NOT count as a natural weapon for iterative attacks, etc., but does for other purposes - such as weapon finesse, feats, etc., etc. The line in the monk description is really required because their natural weapon is ALSO considered a manufactured weapon for the purposes of benefiting from spells and effects, and that is a special rule for monks.

This argument is not as straightforward, and requires some rules interpretation is not clearly stated anywhere (of course, of this whole discussion would be moot).

The counter argument seems to center on three points (presented here with brief counter-arguments):

1. Feats are not effects (disproved many times - see point 1 above).
2. Feats are effects, but prerequisites are not. Silly argument, really - when one is talking about being able to benefit from a feat because you have a natural weapon, it is phenomenal hair-splitting to state that one could benefit from the feat by virtue of having a natural weapon by not qualify for the feat by virtue of NOT having a natural weapon.
3. Unarmed strikes are NOT natural weapons except for the statement in the monk class description or certain, specific instances where they might be considered a natural weapon. Well, this one is harder to counter, for the counter-argument really is practically a restatement of the above with a different point of view - that they are "special" natural weapons that count as natural weapons - but not for most of the normal natural weapon attributes.

I think that's a pretty good high-level summary - with a "pro INA-per-RAW" twist, admittedly.

 

[Artoomis]

Oh please. It's not explicitly stated that the can't cast finger of death at second level either. Is it your position then that they can?


glass.

Now, now, that's entirely different - and I think you realize it. Anubis was correct in stating that Monks taking INA is not specifically prohibited from taking INA and it's unlcear from the RAW whether they are allowed to take INA.

I think the first half of that statement (as I re-stated it) is entirely superflous - if it's unclear whether monks qualify for INA, then OBVIOUSLY they are not specifically prohibited.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I think that's a pretty good high-level summary - with a "pro INA-per-RAW" twist, admittedly.

It's more than a twist. You totally misrepresent the counter argument with a disingenuous "high-level summary."

 

[Artoomis]

It's more than a twist. You totally misrepresent the counter argument with a disingenuous "high-level summary."

How? Is not the essence of the monks cannot take INA" one of three things:

No, because feats are not effects.
No, because even if feats are effects, prerequisites are not.
No, unarmed strikes are not natural weapons, so you cannot skip worrying about whether feats/prerequisites are effects or not.

Did I miss something?

I did include summaries of counters to those arguments, if that's what you mean by "totally misrepresenting."

How about YOU give a one or two sentence summary of your position (one sentence per position, like I did)? That way I can see for myself how I "totally misrepresented" my esteemed opposition.

 

[Legildur]

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.

Yes, it is unclear, and I think the choice of words for the monk ability is telling in that regard. They (the designers) could have written it in much simpler text and just allowed them to be natural weapons for all purposes (except for multiple attack progression). But they didn't. So it's not such a 'hard line' interpretation. In my mind, it is the FAQ that 'goofed'.

 

[Dimwhit]

No, because feats are not effects.
No, because even if feats are effects, prerequisites are not.

Wrong and wrong. First, define 'effect.' Because I guarantee you there is no definition you can give for it that will show feats are not effects. Don't give me an example of another effect. I want you to define it and show where it is you are getting that definition.

As for prereqs, I can almost understand some arguments against all this, but the 'prerequisites are not effects' argument is the most irrelevant one I've heard. You don't qualify for prereqs, you qualify for a feat. Saying prereqs need to be an effect before you can take INA makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Infiniti2000]

How? ... I did include summaries of counters to those arguments, if that's what you mean by "totally misrepresenting."

No, what I mean by totally misrepresenting is the use of phrases like "silly argument" and "phenomenal hair-splitting." While you may feel that way, don't try to present your opponent's view by using obviously belittling statements. If you really want to make a "high-level summary", don't do it disingenuously. You obviously didn't mean to present both sides in a fair manner so don't try.