Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[BryonD]

CAUSE: the Faq came up with a misguided ruling on monks and INA, which would really only benefit monks for levels 1-3, anyway.

EFFECT: The Book of Nine Swords has the Superior Unarmed Strike feat to make up for this, and to allow unarmed combatants to do more damage, even at higher levels.

problem resolved.

I'm very sorry but your post is being disqualified because you used the general english definition of "effect".

 

[KarinsDad]

It is amazing what a little bolding can do.
Again, context, context context......
The word "typically" completely undermines the implication you are trying to show.

And if you would have read and quoted the rest of my post (talk about ignoring context), I did mention the "caveat" there.

The fact remains is that the "who uses them" portion of the sentence is totally unnecessary in the "monster feats are useable by anyone at anytime" POV and qualifying in the "monster feats are almost exclusively used by monsters" POV. Hence, your conclusion is not only flawed, but makes no logical sense other than as a strawman to support your POV.

Monster feats are meant for monsters. Even the word "typically" supports that. It means that there can sometimes be exceptions, but typically, there are not.

And since typically these feats are only used by monsters, the exceptions to that general rule have to be explicitly stated. The Monk Unarmed Strike ability does not state that it is an exception to the general rule.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

If the monster manual was meant for the dm exclusively, how does a druid do anything? Just pointing out that the monster manual was also meant for pc characters.

 

[Cedric]

Monster feats are meant for monsters. Even the word "typically" supports that. It means that there can sometimes be exceptions, but typically, there are not.

And since typically these feats are only used by monsters, the exceptions to that general rule have to be explicitly stated. The Monk Unarmed Strike ability does not state that it is an exception to the general rule.

I've not replied to much of what you've said, because I thought that, though you had stated a position in disagreement to my own, you were making a valid, logically stated point.

However, in this instance, I have to disagree with you. There is absolutely nothing in the rules, that I am aware of, that requires applying rules in a non-typical manner to only be done if expressly stated that it's allowed.

The use of the word "typically" indicates a commonality of use among a specific group, in this case monsters. However it does NOTHING to exclude other qualifying groups.

If a class ability provides my character with Natural Armor, I would be able to take Improved Natural Armor, regardless of the fact that my character is not of a monsterous race.

Had the term "typically" meant to be exlusionary, it would have to be restated to something like, "Unless otherwise noted, monster feats listed herein are only available to monsters."

That's a clear, exlusionary statement that requires a direct counter statement in order to be eligible for Monster Feats. The use of "typically" applies absolutely no exclusion whatsoever to the feats listed after that statement.

 

[Nail]

If a class ability provides my character with Natural Armor, I would be able to take Improved Natural Armor, regardless of the fact that my character is not of a monsterous race.

No need for a monsterous race......

Barkskin
The enhancement bonus provided by barkskin stacks with the target’s natural armor bonus, but not with other enhancement bonuses to natural armor. A creature without natural armor has an effective natural armor bonus of +0.

Apparently, a human (etc) can take the Improved Natural Armor feat. Right?

 

[mvincent]

Apparently, a human (etc) can take the Improved Natural Armor feat. Right?

There seems to be a difference between "an effective natural armor bonus of +0" and "Prerequisite: Natural armor". A better example might be the Archmage's spell-like ability and the "Quicken Spell-Like Ability" feat.

Regardless, doesn't the fact that the "Craft Construct" feat is listed under monster feats imply that non-monsters can take these feats? (this has likely been addressed earlier, I just didn't have time to sift through pages and pages of responses)

 

[Infiniti2000]

It is amazing what a little bolding can do.
Again, context, context context......
The word "typically" completely changes the implication.

"Typically" or any other wording has nothing to do with it. Strike that whole sentence if it makes you feel better. The idea about mentioning the MM is to show intent. Surely, a feat published in the MM is intended for creatures in the MM, right? Maybe the feats there can be used by PC races/classes, but the intent for INA was for monsters and not monks by virtue of its printing in the MM. So, people like No Name who are going strictly by intent should find this reasoning persuasive.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

If we're going with "intent" then we have to bring in subsequent WotC products, of course, and then we're back to the various feats that may or may not show that they wanted/intended monks to take the feat and the PHBII which shows, however flawed in execution, the INTENT to allow a monk to take the feat.



Honestly, I feel that the feat was originally NOT intended for Monks ... not, mind you, that this is an intent to DISALLOW the feat for Monks, which is a very different thing. It's a case of secondary utility, which all tech and the internet in particular loves. The feat was most likely created without monks at mind at all.

"Hey, we'll make a feat so monsters can have improved natural attacks."
"Yes, let us shall."

That this action created a feat which could be used by monks is happenstance and one, it appears, they have not tried to change, either through rulings in the FAQ nor in the only product that comes to mind that shows a monk built to one specification or the other.

--fje

 

[Cedric]

The feat was most likely created without monks at mind at all.

"Hey, we'll make a feat so monsters can have improved natural attacks."
"Yes, let us shall."

That this action created a feat which could be used by monks is happenstance and one, it appears, they have not tried to change, either through rulings in the FAQ nor in the only product that comes to mind that shows a monk built to one specification or the other.

--fje

I agree. I imagine the first time the developers who worked on the MM were asked "Hey, can a monk take Improved Natural Attack?" They just sat back and thought a moment, then a light went off overhead and they replied, "Well...yeah, I guess they could. Hmm, works for me."

 

[seans23]

I agree. I imagine the first time the developers who worked on the MM were asked "Hey, can a monk take Improved Natural Attack?" They just sat back and thought a moment, then a light went off overhead and they replied, "Well...yeah, I guess they could. Hmm, works for me."

And then they thought "it'd be a waste of a feat, because at level 4 their damage from an unarmed strike would be the same as if they had improved the damage of their natural attack, anyway."