Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Artoomis]

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)...

No errata is needed because BOTH the "Yes" and "No" side have reasonable arguments drawn from the rules. In such a case it is not errata that is needed, but clarification - the prime purpose of the FAQ, I think everyone agrees. Thus monks can take INA - a very strong argument for your DMs unless they just dismiss the FAQ out of hand.

 

[Artoomis]

...The issuing of errata in FAQ is inappropriate and contentious. If WotC want clarity, then they need to be consistent with their messaging.

I agree with you. I see and understand what they've done (using the FAQ to issue rule changes/errata), but they have not made it clear that this is what they are doing, and do not always make clear the distiction between simple advice in the FAQ and a rule change.

 

[Borlon]

No errata is needed because BOTH the "Yes" and "No" side have reasonable arguments drawn from the rules. In such a case it is not errata that is needed, but clarification - the prime purpose of the FAQ, I think everyone agrees. Thus monks can take INA - a very strong argument for your DMs unless they just dismiss the FAQ out of hand.

The inconsistencies in the rules could better be addressed with errata, I think. These errata could also supplement those rules here and there. For example, it could be added to the monk's natural weapon/manufactured weapon equivalency rule that it applied to prerequisites too. And maybe it could be mentioned under unarmed strikes that they benefit from effects that benefit natural weapons, but do not qualify as natural weapons for the purpose of prerequisites. Or something along those lines.

'Clarification' would be appropriate for something like the Improved Spell Resistance epic feat, where they could say that "feats or other effects" was an example of synecdoche, and did not imply that a feat was an effect. That could be done in a FAQ, I think.

But I believe that most of the rules we have been arguing about could actually use errata.

 

[Caliban]

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

You must be new here. That's nothing.

The bottom line is simple:

You don't get to tell us what the bottom line is. Your right, that 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.

I pretty much agree you have said, with the caveats I mentioned above. If the Sage doesn't state that he making a rule change, then he's not. He's making a mistake.

The customer service has more power than anyone here does.

Customer Service has no power whatsoever. It's not official in any way, it's just a poorly paid phone jockey doing their best to answer the inane questions we send in. It's not their primary job, and they have no special access to WOTC R&D or the Game Designers. They try to be nice and give it their best shot, but they are just people. Most of them probably don't even play D&D.

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?

Knock yourself out. No matter what answer you get, it won't change anyones mind.

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.

Not the same thing at all. The FAQ is not gospel, and the rules are not holy writ, no matter how much you want to worship them.

The designers are human, Andy Collins is human. They make mistakes. I am not bound by their mistakes.

 

[Anubis]

They created it, so they have the final say.

How can you be wrong about something you create?

The mind boggles . . . Typos are the extent of "mistakes" a creator can make. In my novel, when one character dies and later comes back to life, no one has any right to say "you can't do that because people don't come back to life"; nope, I create the world and the story, so what I say goes. If I want the sky to turn pink, well by golly the sky will turn pink.

Just the same, the designers created D&D and WotC holds the copyright. As such, they could say fireball does 10d100 points of cold damage and we'd have no place to say they're wrong. Sure, none of us would go along with it, but that wouldn't make it any less official, no matter how inane is.

Given that these clarifications/changes (however you wanna look at it) aren't anywhere close to inane (it's not illogical or broken to be able to sheathe for free as part of a move or to let monks take Improved Unarmed Strike), there's no reason to complain and gripe and moan about it. Just accept that them's the rules, and if you don't like it, fall back on Rule 0.

 

[Caliban]

They created it, so they have the final say.

How can you be wrong about something you create?

Since there were several designers, and human memory is fallible, it's pretty easy.

 

[FireLance]

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

Not in the core rules, but Libris Mortis (and possibly Savage Species, but that's so 3.0 ) has "Monstrous" feats. It states on p. 23 that "Only creatures and characters with a monstrous form or one or more monstrous abilities may select these feats. Monstrous forms and abilities are those that are typically unavailable to humanoid or animal creatures, including but not limited to extra appendages, nonstandard appendages, and extraordinary, supernatural, or spell-like abilities."

Of course, that doesn't in itself bar a character from taking those feats if they somehow meet the prerequisites, e.g. through prestige classes. For example, a 10th-level Walker in the Waste (from Sandstorm) who becomes a dry lich gains the Undead type and may qualify for some of the Monstrous feats in Libris Mortis.

 

[FireLance]

My position:

1. Unarmed strikes are not natural weapons. It seems to me that magic fang may have been written with the intention of affecting an unarmed strike as if it was a natural weapon, but that is not the matter under debate here .

2. A feat is an effect.

3. Yes, monks can take INA.

4. In any case, I don't think it is unbalancing.

 

[Nail]

Oh, I gotta post in this thread.......

 

[Pinotage]

My position:

1. Unarmed strikes are not natural weapons. It seems to me that magic fang may have been written with the intention of affecting an unarmed strike as if it was a natural weapon, but that is not the matter under debate here .

2. A feat is an effect.

3. Yes, monks can take INA.

4. In any case, I don't think it is unbalancing.

That's pretty much my position as well.

Pinotage