Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Artoomis]

No, because as glass said, "You can't keep two positions, and hop between them to avoid any arguments that come your way."

It matters a lot because defining them one way makes some of those special cases change. Yet, as glass points out, you're redefining it as you see fit without regard for a clear definition in the rules. Basically, you're trying to paint yourself in a situation where no matter what interpretation or rules bring to bear, you can't possibly be considered wrong because you'll just revise your definition as needed.

The rest of us aren't allowing it.

No, that's not what I'm doing. I'm saying that either way of expressing it is valid and essentially the same. All of my arguments about how my way of looking at it meshes with all the rules and work equally well either way - so take potshots at either view - I can defend them both equally.

 

[Dimwhit]

That's OK, Artoomis, I see what you're saying.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What Artoomis is saying is that they are FUNCTIONALLY equivalent, and to distinguish between them further is meaningless.

After all, either position gets you to a kind of weapon that follows some natural weapon (NW) rules, some mechanical weapon (MW) rules, and some rules all its own (UW).

Any subsequent interaction between unarmed strikes and new rules will fall into one of the 3 categories of NW, MW, or UW (hopefully) as defined in that subsequently published rule.

+++

Regardless of your personal position, it should at least be clear to all that at some point, enough of the designers considered unarmed strikes to be natural weapons for there to be sections in the rules that make that statement. Then, for whatever reason, accidentally, intentionally or simply by omission, an explicit statment to that effect in a pure-rules or definition section (as opposed to certain spell or class descriptions) was not included in the PHB or DMG.

From an editing standpoint, it is far easier to notice that a section of text is incorrect than to see that it is missing. An editor or team of editors is far more likely to realize that a statement like "an unarmed strike or other natural weapon" is incorrect than to catch that a single sentence like "Unarmed strikes are a special subclass of natural weapons with special rules." is missing.

The likelyhood that a misdefinition would be caught rises further when you revise the product. Compare the 3Ed version of Magic Fang and Magic Weapon to their 3.5Ed counterparts. The 3Ed version of Magic Fang explicitly calls unarmed strikes natural weapons, but the 3.5Ed merely lists fists as one example of natural weapons. Meanwhile, the 3Ed M.Weapon ignores the concept of natural weapons entirely- something they corrected in 3.5 by saying that the spell couldn't be cast on natural weapons like unarmed strikes.

The editors of 3.5 felt the 3.0 versions of the spells weren't clear enough and corrected them. Had they felt that unarmed strikes were not natural weapons, they wouldn't have listed them alongside more typical exemplars (claws, fangs) and they definitely wouldn't have ADDED that concept to M.Weapon for clarity.

 

[Eloi]

Quoting Lamoni:

Do human monks qualify for Improved Natural Attack? (or dwarves, halflings, etc.)

No, by the RAW 45
Yes, by the RAW 103

That's 70% vs 30%. If this was Who wants to be a Millionaire and they just polled the audience, going with the 103 would be a safe bet.

No, but I'd still allow it: 20
Yes, but I don't allow it: 9

Of those with house rules, more than 2/3 house rule in favor of it. So even if going with the audience above turned out to be a bad choice, it is the fault of the question makers. If it isn't the right answer, then the rules should be changed so that it is.

--This, coupled with the clarification that 3.5 supplied that Magic Fang and Magic Weapon both work just as well on a Monk (who just happens to be a living weapon), leads me to conclude that if a Human Monk decides to take Improved Natural Attack, that they can.

Voters favor it, clarification in 3.5 confirms it, happiness is ours.

Let a quiet moment of cheer pervade the morning contemplation in the monasteries.
Then we can get back to watching the monks with Powerful Charge and Greater Powerful Charge pass out carefully modulated helpings of Instant Beat-Down to the target dummies.

Whee!

 

[Infiniti2000]

No, that's not what I'm doing. I'm saying that either way of expressing it is valid and essentially the same. All of my arguments about how my way of looking at it meshes with all the rules and work equally well either way - so take potshots at either view - I can defend them both equally.

You, Dimwhit, and Dannyalcatraz must have a lot of ranks in Ride (fence). I have no idea how to continue the debate when the opposing side also supports my view.

 

[Artoomis]

You, Dimwhit, and Dannyalcatraz must have a lot of ranks in Ride (fence). I have no idea how to continue the debate when the opposing side also supports my view.

I'm a little lost right now - what is your view?

 

[Infiniti2000]

It's that monks cannot take INA, but I'm not sure if that's still the current topic of debate.

 

[Artoomis]

It's that monks cannot take INA, but I'm not sure if that's still the current topic of debate.

The dabate has shifted to whether all unarmed attacks (monks included) are natural weapons (at least as for as feats, spells,. etc. are concerned) which, if they are, renders the monk debate moot as anyone with unarmed attacks could take INA, though it would be of little benefit for most.

 

[Pinotage]

The dabate has shifted to whether all unarmed attacks (monks included) are natural weapons (at least as for as feats, spells,. etc. are concerned) which, if they are, renders the monk debate moot as anyone with unarmed attacks could take INA, though it would be of little benefit for most.

Moot? There's that word again!

Pinotage

 

[Artoomis]

Moot? There's that word again!

Pinotage

Clever how I worked that in again, isn't it? <pats self on back>