Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Infiniti2000]

He also refuses to accept that, in the case of INA, it's allowable by the RAW. Oh well. I guess that's why this thread has gone for more than 800 posts.

Honestly, I'm just entertained by it now.

Hey, I'm not the only one being so stubborn, so right back at ya.

According to what law?

You've got nothing. Give it up.

Iamdalaw! Or, rather, the law as written in the errata itself.

 

[Artoomis]

That's ok, it baffles me how someone can think that a requirement or prerequisite that you must meet before you can take the feat is an effect of the feat.

The difference seems very obvious to me.

*shrug* One of those mysteries of life.

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.

 

[Infiniti2000]

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.

On the other 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 it doesn't mean you have a natural attack for the prerequisites of the feat, too. Merging those two as folks want to is, well . . . ludicrous.

Okay, now that we come full circle back into ad hominem, I say it's time to close the thread.

 

[Dimwhit]

That's ok, it baffles me how someone can think that a requirement or prerequisite that you must meet before you can take the feat is an effect of the feat.

The difference seems very obvious to me.

*shrug* One of those mysteries of life.

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

 

[Artoomis]

On the other 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 it doesn't mean you have a natural attack for the prerequisites of the feat, too. Merging those two as folks want to is, well . . . ludicrous.

Okay, now that we come full circle back into ad hominem, I say it's time to close the thread.

Yes, well, I thought this topic had died a natural death before, but it got ressurected.

 

[Borlon]

Yes, well, I thought this topic had died a natural death before, but it got ressurected.

Nah. It had only been dead a few weeks. Well within the limits of raise dead.

 

[Anubis]

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. 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.

Andy Collins > Infiniti2000 + Caliban

That's the bottom line here. Andy Collins has the "power" given to him as a designer to say how it is. Since the RAW is sooo unclear, it's his job to make it clear, and he has done so, as it is his job to do. Infiniti2000, Caliban, what credentials do you have to have any right whatsoever to say Andy Collins is wrong? Especially given that he was handed the reigns by WotC to do exactly what he did. WotC owns the product, so what they say goes. They say that what Andy Collins says goes. Andy Collins says you two are wrong.

Simple math.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Andy Collins > Infiniti2000 + Caliban

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

 

[Anubis]

Okay, how about this:

Andy Collins > Anyone at EN World who doesn't work for WotC

No matter what any of us say, he's the one with the "official" say that should be used in answers on the Rules forum.

Do we think he's wrong somtimes? Yes. Is he human? Yes. Does he make mistakes? Yes. Doesn't the actual RAW make mistakes as well in the form of typos? Yes. Is anything perfect? No. Does WotC and parent companies own the copyrights for D&D? Yes. Do they have the authority to give Andy Collins the reigns on rules? Yes. Have they done so? Yes. Do they embrace, validate, and put their stamp of approval on the FAQ and his answers within? Yes.

Everything in the previous paragraph shows us that, we may think he's wrong and we may disagree, but that doesn't matter. He's been given the authority by WotC, and nothing anyone here at this FAN SITE says can do a dang thing about it.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Anubis, they're not going to take your word for it, nor AC's, nor WizCustServ.

Essentially, unless it appears in the Errata section, something WOTC implies will never happen if they are indeed now using the FAQ as Errata (according to WizCustServ), they will remain unconvinced of the ruling.