Monks and Improved Natural Attack

[Artoomis]

CLOSED.

Well, I cannot close it, but maybe a moderator will for me. Replaced by a better poll.

 

[frankthedm]

I say nope on the RAW due to prerequirment of a natural weapon and the feat has to apply to a natural weapon. If that prerequirment was not there and the feat normally applied to all natural weapons the being has, the effect of the feat would work on the the monk psuedo-slams.

Now if I am asked if they really need the feat to be less behind the power curve, that i might agree to.

 

[Artoomis]

I say nope on the RAW due to prerequirment of a natural weapon and the feat has to apply to a natural weapon. If that prerequirment was not there and the feat normally applied to all natural weapons the being has, the effect of the feat would work on the the monk psuedo-slams.

Now if I am asked if they really need the feat to be less behind the power curve, that i might agree to.

So you voted the first choice. Is that right?

 

[Nail]

FWIW, I voted: It's arguable either way, per RAW.

 

[Nail]

BTW:

"RAW" means "Rules As Written". It does NOT mean "core only" or "SRD only" or "printed text only" or "Only books + errata", etc.

It means: "All the rules, errata, and clarifications (and errata disguised as FAQs....ggrrrrrrr ..... ) currently published by WotC."

 

[mvincent]

By 'RAW' I assume you mean the "core rules as written" (as semantically, rulings presented in the FAQ, RotG and elsewhere can technically qualify as "Rules As Written")

 

[lukelightning]

Biased poll. I vote that it is 100% valid RAW.

 

[Artoomis]

By 'RAW' I assume you mean the "core rules as written" (as semantically, rulings presented in the FAQ, RotG and elsewhere can technically qualify as "Rules As Written")

Oh, fiddlesticks. I meant to exlude the FAQ - it did not occur to me that folks would read that as including the FAQ.

Back to the drawing board.

 

[mvincent]

Biased poll.

Can you elaborate? I'm not saying you are wrong, but how would you make it unbiased (and still meet the purpose of the Poll, which may not be what you initially think).

To me, the following possible question seems even more biased (even though it might more directly meet the intent of the poll):
"Using only the core rules, is there room for interpretation on the monk/INA issue?
- Yes
- No"

 

[Nail]

Oh, fiddlesticks. I meant to exlude the FAQ - it did not occur to me that folks would read that as including the FAQ.

Exactly.

Although I personally dislike the FAQ (it contains mistakes; it is used to issue errata), the FAQ is RAW. There is simply no other interpretation.