Improved monk attack

[Mordane76]

That would be the domain of House Rules, Lasher...


But that would be a relatively easy fix - create a general feat that gave someone a "natural attack" like a weak claw attack. Then, take INA, and then you can apply it. Basically, monstrous monks (most of whom have NA) would be able to get this for one feat, while most humanoids would have to spend two feats (one for the NA, one for INA).

 

[Trainz]

But it's not coming from the makers of the game. Customer Service has nothing to do with Game Design, and no direct connection to the developers. They receive no training on rules interpretation.

Still, why can't you admit my interpretation might be the right one ?

I've made my case, half the peeps in this thread agree (Hyp and Darkness might be mods, it doesn't make their opinion more solid than any other well spoken rules lawyer ).

Basically, any take you choose is an house rule at this point anyways, as a clearer answer is needed.

Cust Serv provided one. Until someone higher up provides something to the contrary, I'm sticking with my interpretation, which is as good at this point as anyone elses.

So there.

And the point that Monks need the boost anyways is also very important. In order to make the monk player in one of my previous campaigns not totally useless, I had to literally spoil him with magic items (amulet of mighty fists +5, monk's belt, ring of permanent enlarge) and EVEN THEN, he paled with comparison to the other melee combatants.

That feat would have been just the thing to bring him up to par and actually have fun with his character.

 

[Darkness]

Hyp and Darkness might be mods, it doesn't make their opinion more solid than any other well spoken rules lawyer

One, huh? What's that about me? My point in this thread is that CustServ isn't reliable, not that they're necessarily wrong in this case.

Two, Hypersmurf is considerably better than your typical well-spoken rules lawyer.

 

[Trainz]

One, huh? What's that about me? My point in this thread is that CustServ isn't reliable, not that they're necessarily wrong in this case.

*lurking back...*

Oh... hum... yes. There's that.

Two, Hypersmurf is considerably better than your typical well-spoken rules lawyer.

Huh... yyeeeess... maybe, but...

Hum...

I don't care in this case. He's wrong I'm right.

Nah.

 

[Yig]

Where is this feat from ?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Monster Manual.

 

[Egres]

But that would be a relatively easy fix - create a general feat that gave someone a "natural attack" like a weak claw attack. Then, take INA, and then you can apply it. Basically, monstrous monks (most of whom have NA) would be able to get this for one feat, while most humanoids would have to spend two feats (one for the NA, one for INA).

It already exists.

But it's a vile feat.

 

[Mordane76]

It already exists.

But it's a vile feat.

No reason it really needs to be. It was more a non-RAW suggestion.

 

[Caliban]

Still, why can't you admit my interpretation might be the right one ?

Why is important that you force someone who disagrees with your interpretation to agree with it?

*shrug* Your way might be proven "right" in the end (as in the Sage might interpret it as you do), but I don't think it likely. Still, stranger things have happened. In MY opinion, the RAW don't support you. I'm less certain about the designers intent at the time the rules were written in 3.0, and even less certain about the current designers (Andy Collins) intent.

I think this issue (and others like it) comes about because the Monster Manual feats were not written with player characters in mind, and the monk class abilities were not written with abilities from the monster manual in mind.

A different designer headed the development of each book (Skip Williams - Monster Manual, Monte Cook - Dungeon Masters Guide, Jonathan Tweet - Player's Handbook), and although they had input from the other designers, certain differences in design philosophy crept into each book (and even into different sections of the PHB). The 3.5 revisions helped clean up some of the inconsistencies, but not all of them. This one being a case in point.

 

[Trainz]

Why is important that you force someone who disagrees with your interpretation to agree with it?

It's not:

Still, why can't you admit my interpretation MIGHT be the right one ?

You skipped a word there, that totally changes the meaning of my phrase.

Really, I am quite content that someone would not accept INW in their campaign. Some have been debating that the RULES preclude it. I said that they don't.

In the end, as long as your game is fun, that's all that matters.