Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Deset Gled" data-source="post: 4013670" data-attributes="member: 7808">Actually, I would be very interested to hear from someone that owns the Rules Compendium to find out if any of the wording about this has been changed there.&nbsp; We're about due for this topic to come up again, anyway (it happens about once a year).Just to round up the various points that have been discussed on this issue in other threads, here's a list of the most prominent opinions I have seen:Rules POV:1.&nbsp; Monks can take INA.&nbsp; Their unarmed strike counts as a natural weapons for spells and effects, and feats are effects.2.&nbsp; Monks cannot take INA.&nbsp; Their unarmed strike counts as a natural weapons for spells and effects, and feats are not effects.&nbsp; (Many secondary sources are incorrect per the Primary Source rule.)3.&nbsp; Monks cannot take INA.&nbsp; Their unarmed strike counts as a natural weapons for spells and effects.&nbsp; Feats are effects, but their prerequisites are not.&nbsp; (Many secondary sources are incorrect per the Primary Source rule.)4.&nbsp; Monks can take INA.&nbsp; The primary source is ambiguous, and other sources clarify that they can.Balance POV:A.&nbsp; Monks can take INA.&nbsp; The monk is underpowered, and this feat helps balance them.B.&nbsp; Monks cannot take INA.&nbsp; INA is too powerful for a feat.&nbsp; Other sources provide better alternatives.Intent POV:I.&nbsp; Monks cannot take INA.&nbsp; INA was intended for monsters only.&nbsp; (Many secondary sources were written by authors that did not follow the original intent.)II.&nbsp; Monks can take INA.&nbsp; INA was intended to improve any attack made without weapons.Of course, there are always fringe theories, but I think this covers most of the bases.If anyone objects to people discussing this issue, or feels that they cannot remain civil in the discussion, I would humbly request that you simply not participate in the thread.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Deset Gled, post: 4013670, member: 7808"] Actually, I would be very interested to hear from someone that owns the Rules Compendium to find out if any of the wording about this has been changed there. We're about due for this topic to come up again, anyway (it happens about once a year). Just to round up the various points that have been discussed on this issue in other threads, here's a list of the most prominent opinions I have seen: [B]Rules POV:[/B] 1. Monks can take INA. Their unarmed strike counts as a natural weapons for spells and effects, and feats are effects. 2. Monks cannot take INA. Their unarmed strike counts as a natural weapons for spells and effects, and feats are not effects. (Many secondary sources are incorrect per the Primary Source rule.) 3. Monks cannot take INA. Their unarmed strike counts as a natural weapons for spells and effects. Feats are effects, but their prerequisites are not. (Many secondary sources are incorrect per the Primary Source rule.) 4. Monks can take INA. The primary source is ambiguous, and other sources clarify that they can. [B]Balance POV:[/B] A. Monks can take INA. The monk is underpowered, and this feat helps balance them. B. Monks cannot take INA. INA is too powerful for a feat. Other sources provide better alternatives. [B]Intent POV:[/B] I. Monks cannot take INA. INA was intended for monsters only. (Many secondary sources were written by authors that did not follow the original intent.) II. Monks can take INA. INA was intended to improve any attack made without weapons. Of course, there are always fringe theories, but I think this covers most of the bases. If anyone objects to people discussing this issue, or feels that they cannot remain civil in the discussion, I would humbly request that you simply not participate in the thread. [/QUOTE]

Verification