Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Anubis]

Anubis does have a point with the spirit of the RAW but how can we guess what the designers intended?

*Points up to my last two posts.*

The spirit of the rules don't even matter, and the intentions of the designers are crystal clear. Skip Williams is part of the design team, and he says monks qualify, so they do.

*Points to the credits of the PH.*

Like I said, from Skip Williams's mouth to all of your ears, one truth prevails.

 

[Zandel]

The spirit of the rules don't even matter, and the intentions of the designers are crystal clear. Skip Williams is part of the design team, and he says monks qualify, so they do.

If skip says it and is backed up by others with no dispute amongst the designers then that is how it is. By the RAW it's not so clear but that doesn't reallt matter does it?

 

[Anubis]

If skip says it and is backed up by others with no dispute amongst the designers then that is how it is. By the RAW it's not so clear but that doesn't reallt matter does it?

BINGO! FINALLY!

Yes, this is the Rules forum, so if the RAW are unclear to anyone (they're clear to me, but I guess not so clear to others), the word of the designers clears it up 100% outright. They wrote it, they know how to interpret it better than we do.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Unarmed strike is their natural attack simply because without any other weapon, that is what they would attack with. The reason it doesn't necessarily fit the standard definition is because of the special modifiers on many humanoid races that make their attacks nonlethal.

And that they're used as off-hand attacks instead of secondary natural attacks, and that they can gain iterative attacks from a high BAB instead of being limited to one attack, and that they're distinguished in various places (eg: You can’t add the bonus from Power Attack to the damage dealt with a light weapon (except with unarmed strikes or natural weapon attacks)...) in the rules...

An unarmed strike is distinct from a natural weapon.

You see, I made two points. The first was merely about natural attacks in general, the second was about the rule itself. You attack the first part even though I didn't use that in the second part because it's truly a moot point. Anyway, since you didn't pay attention the first time, I'll repeat myself word-for-word. I suggest reading the entire post this time so you don't make yourself look bad again.

If I make a post that begins "A Medium longsword deals 1d6 piercing damage. On the topic of Improved Natural Attack...", then the fact that the first statement is irrelevant doesn't make it less wrong. Someone addressing it to correct my error is not making themselves look bad.

On the other note, it's the 'as-written' and 'spirit of the rules' interpretations that are under dispute.

-Hyp.

 

[Anubis]

On the other note, it's the 'as-written' and 'spirit of the rules' interpretations that are under dispute.

-Hyp.

You ignored my post again. Okay, I'll post it one more time, except I won't talk about the natural weapons this time, seeing as the rest of the post is what matters. So please, stop ignoring this.



Anyway, I still don't see the debate here, not for the Rules forum. This forum is about the official rules. As-written, monks qualify. As per the Sage's ruling (and he is the official rules interpreter), monks qualify. According to Artoomis (I think it was Artoomis), customer service says monks qualify. The spirit of the rules suggest monks qualify. Based on all this with a dose of common sense and the word of people "in the know", the official stance is that monks qualify, and that means specifically that per the rules, monks qualify.

Now whether it's balanced or not, that is well and fine for a debate. Whether you wanna house rule or not is up to you as well. This is the Rules forum, though, and the official by-the-book and by-the-creators (Skip Williams's name is listed as being on the design team, so he is most certainly one of the creators) rule, for purposes of a Rules forum, is that monk's qualify.

Honestly, what gives anyone here the right to defy the very creators of the product on this? They made the rules, so what they say goes, at least officially speaking. Use whatever you want at your table, but if you argue it any other way, it's not the official rule anymore and belongs in another forum. The case is closed, and from the Sage's mouth to all your ears, one truth prevails.

As you can see, the RAW may be unclear (to you and some others) and the spirit of the rules may be disputed, but the official rule is clear because a member of the design team said so. Unless the rest of them wanna come out and refute it (which they haven't), it can be assumed that they concur or that they just don't care. You see, your interpretation of the RAW doesn't matter and neither does mine. Skip Williams is one of the designers, though, so that's pretty good evidence that his interpretation is correct. Or are you saying you know more about what they intended than they do?

 

[Borlon]

The reason is that a prerequisite is not an effect which enhances a natural attack, and so it is not covered by the rule.

Could you do what patryn apparently cannot and show some rules stating that the prereq is a completely seperate entity from the feat that it is a part of?

Without that little bit of information stating that, 'the prereq isnt an effect' is at best a pink bunny.

I have already posted rules showing that the prereq is part of the feat, you will have to counter those as well.

Actually, Scion, I am on your side in all this. I agree that a feat is an effect (of leveling up), and since INA enhances a monk's natural effects, it treats a human monk as having a natural weapon. And all of its parts treat the human monk as having a natural weapon, including the prerequisite part of it.

Artoomis, however, has stated that it is irrelevant whether a feat is an effect or not (I am paraphrasing, and I hope I have not distorted Artoomis's position). That is the point I am trying to get at. That, far from being irrelevant, it is essential that a feat be considered an effect.

If you don't consider the feat to be an effect, then the only effect around that is enhancing a monk's natural weapon is the benefit section of the feat. Which is distinct from the prerequisites section. Thus the argument that a monk is an eligible recipient of the benefit, but does not meet the prerequisites for the feat.

The only way I see of linking the two (benefit and prerequisites) is by considering the feat as an effect. Artoomis doesn't see it that way, and I want to understand what the reason behind that position is.

I also want to see if there are undesirable consequences to the general principle that a feat is an effect, but that won't happen unless the importance of the principle is recognized.

 

[Hypersmurf]

As you can see, the RAW may be unclear (to you and some others)...

The RAW seem clear to me, but since there is obvious dispute, it is apparent that regardless of individual perception, they are unclear.

Skip Williams is one of the designers, though, so that's pretty good evidence that his interpretation is correct.

Firstly, some of Skip Williams' interpretations are extremely loosely-connected to what's written. I'm not sure how you can take something that's written as a one-handed weapon, say "It's a two-handed weapon", and call it 'interpretation'.

Secondly, the INA ruling in question came from Andy Collins, as I understand it...?

-Hyp.

 

[Dimwhit]

Thus the argument that a monk is an eligible recipient of the benefit, but does not meet the prerequisites for the feat.

And this is where that argument breaks down. Basic English says that's impossible. Being eligible for the feat IS meeting the prerequisite. That's what a prereq is. A prereq is there to tell you what you need to be eligible for a feat. Since the effect of the feat improves the natural attack, the Monk is eligible for it, thereby satisfying the requirement (i.e. prereq) of the feat. I see nothing in the English language that allows for a different interpretation. Not that anyone has shown yet.

 

[Anubis]

The RAW seem clear to me, but since there is obvious dispute, it is apparent that regardless of individual perception, they are unclear.



Firstly, some of Skip Williams' interpretations are extremely loosely-connected to what's written. I'm not sure how you can take something that's written as a one-handed weapon, say "It's a two-handed weapon", and call it 'interpretation'.

Secondly, the INA ruling in question came from Andy Collins, as I understand it...?

-Hyp.

Not according to the OP from the other thread.

From the new Dragon mag #336, page 94, "Official Answers to your Questions"

Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack (Monster Manual, page 304) to improve his unarmed strike?


Quote:
Originally Posted by the Sage
Yes. As stated on page 41 of the Player's Handbook, a monk's unarmed strike "is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either," which includes feats such as Improved Natural Attack.

Barring multiclassing, the earliest a monk could take this feat would be at 6th level (due to the base attack bonus prerequisite), at which point her unarmed strike damage would improve from 1d8 to 2d6 (which represents an average increase of +2.5 points of damage). The same monk at 20th level would deal 3d8 points of damage with her unarmed strike.

Hmmm, and there it even says official answers. It doesn't matter if you think the Sage's interpretations are incorrect. If something got written down in a way that jumbles up the original intention, that's something neither you nor I can readily see, but he can because he was there. Not like it matters if it was Skip Williams or Andy Collins, though, because they'r both part of the design team.

Still, RAW unclear or not, spirit disputed or not, the official rule is that they can take it. If you don't wanna allow it at your table, then that's a house rule. This is the Rules forum, though, which means it's about the official rules. Now that the question has an official answer in writing, I don't see how the debate about what's official can continue. Skip Williams helped write it, and without any of the others refuting it, we can safely say the word is pretty much final. If you think he's wrong, well, that's a house rule. As a mod, you should already know that, though.

SIDE NOTE: About enhancing versus making things worse, please keep in mind that by the book definition of enhance, any change up or down is counted as such. A longsword -1 has a -1 enhancement. Yeah, I know it sounds silly, but it makes things simpler to keep track of at least. Anyway, that's what the book states. Enhance can be good OR bad. That's why you can have enhancement penalties.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Being eligible for the feat IS meeting the prerequisite.

Being eligible for the benefit.

A Fighter with enough ranks in Spellcraft meets the prerequisites for the Practiced Spellcaster feat. However, since the benefit must be applied to 'a spellcasting class you possess', he is not eligible for the benefit.

A Fighter-2 is eligible for the benefit of Improved Critical (longsword) - there's no reason he can't improve his threat range with the weapon. But he doesn't meet the prerequisites (BAB +8, for example), so he can't take the feat.

Being eligible for the benefit of a feat, and meeting the prerequisites of a feat, are two completely separate things.

-Hyp.