Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[Hypersmurf]

Hyp - you're cheating. Chiming in but not voting.

Do you see zero validity to the opposing argument?

I'll vote if you like. Based on a position that "feats have effects" (as opposed to "feats are effects"), I'm content that "Monks with no natural weapons qualify for the 'One or more natural weapons' prerequisite of INA" has zero validity.

-Hyp.

 

[frankthedm]

Do you guys REALLY feel there is ABSOLUTELY NO validity to the opposing argument. If so I am truly amazed at the number of folks who feel that way - on both sides.

Did everyone miss "By 100% certain I really mean it - no room whatsoever for an opposing view."

Or are folks really that entrenched into their own positions? I am very surprised.

Yes, very entrenched that monks do not quality for INA.

Whether it would help them be less weak is a seperate issue. Progress wise, it is like being ahead 6 monk levels in unarmed strike damage when first taken, then at 8th level the character's damage is of a 16th level monk.

6th-1d8 becomes 2d6-
7th-1d8 becomes 2d6-
8th-1d10 becomes 2d8-
9th-1d10 becomes 2d8-
10th-1d10 becomes 2d8-
11th-1d10 becomes 2d8-
12th-2d6 becomes 3d6-
13th-2d6 becomes 3d6-
14th-2d6 becomes 3d6-
15th-2d6 becomes 3d6-
16th-2d8 becomes 3d8-
17th-2d8 becomes 3d8-
18th-2d8 becomes 3d8-
19th-2d8 becomes 3d8-
20th-2d10 becomes 3d10 or 4d8-

 

[Artoomis]

I'll vote if you like...

-Hyp.

Thanks for playing...

 

[Slaved]

I'll vote if you like. Based on a position that "feats have effects" (as opposed to "feats are effects"), I'm content that "Monks with no natural weapons qualify for the 'One or more natural weapons' prerequisite of INA" has zero validity.

-Hyp.

If you dont mind me asking, why do you use feats as a rule source in the thread and yet ignore another feat which provides a rules source? Using one while ignoring the other confuses my mind.

 

[Nifft]

I would allow it in my campaign.

I could understand that it might not fit all campaigns.

I voted for #3.

-- N

 

[Xarls Taunzund]

I voted for it going either way. While I'm inclined to say that a Monk (as a opposed to a character of another class taking the Improved Unarmed Strike feat) would qualify on a technicality, I personally would disallow it anyways.

 

[BryonD]

I'll vote if you like. Based on a position that "feats have effects" (as opposed to "feats are effects"), I'm content that "Monks with no natural weapons qualify for the 'One or more natural weapons' prerequisite of INA" has zero validity.

-Hyp.

Feats are not effects.
But qualifying to gain new feat is an effect of gaining an appropriate level.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If you dont mind me asking, why do you use feats as a rule source in the thread and yet ignore another feat which provides a rules source? Using one while ignoring the other confuses my mind.

A feat from the ELH? That's not within the scope of the poll (Core 3.5 only).

As far as I can tell, the Epic feats in the 3.5 DMG go Improved Sneak Attack, Improved Spell Capacity, Improved Stunning Fist... Improved Spell Resistance doesn't appear on p210. Am I looking in the wrong place?

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But qualifying to gain new feat is an effect of gaining an appropriate level.

I don't agree, which leaves me back at "No"

-Hyp.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

IMHO, as per the OP's question, monks may take INA by the Core rules, a position reinforced by sections of the Complete Warrior, PHB2, and other sources. However, I do concede that the other viewpoint has definite merit. As I have posted elsewhere, I consider the current Core rules to be a mess on this particular subject- the designers got a little cute with some of their language, leaving both interpretations open. Thus, I voted in the third category.