# Can monks get improved natural attack?



## Captain Howdy (Sep 12, 2006)

Quick question:

Can a monk's unarmed attack be affected by the _improved natural attack_ feat (MM page 304), and does a monk's unarmed attack qualify for the _natural weapon_ prerequisite of the feat?


----------



## Fieari (Sep 12, 2006)

Relevant text, for reference, again.



			
				3.5 SRD said:
			
		

> A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.





			
				3.5 SRD said:
			
		

> *IMPROVED NATURAL ATTACK [GENERAL]*
> 
> *Prerequisite:* Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4.



Mitigating circumstances: The PHBII specifically states that YES, YOU CAN.

There are references (someone else can quote them for me) which states that a feat is an effect.  Some people choose to ignore these, insisting that a feat is not an effect.

I have heard it argued that a prerequisite is a seperate thing from the feat, and that the prerequisite is not an effect, meaning that the monk doesn't qualify.  I personally do not buy this.

People will mention that the FAQ expressly states that INA can be taken by a monk.  There may be arguments as to the validity of the FAQ, however, the above still stands.

Others still will argue that it is unbalancing to allow monks to take the feat, and regardless of whether WotC says they can or not, they _shouldn't_ be allowed to take it.  This is still under debate, espcially given that many people consider monks to be a rather weak class even with the feat.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 12, 2006)

Yes. Some GMs, and Living Greyhawk, do not permit it.


----------



## TheEvil (Sep 12, 2006)

Yes.


----------



## frankthedm (Sep 12, 2006)

Monks unarmed strikes are made with all parts of thier bodies. Last i checked INA represents a larger natural weapon, Bigger jaws or paws, or an impresive rack of horns. A Human with INA would look like  knocker from Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back

_A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. _

I do allow a feat where monk's unarmed attacks use the next highest die on the monk chart. Some powergreedy folks feel it is not enough for a feat.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 12, 2006)

From the core rules themselves there are at *least* two equally valid viewpoints.

1. Read broadly, "effects" from the monk class description includes feats such as INA since effects is a undefined game term, in the general sense, and therefore inludes things that produce effects, such as feats, not just the effect itself and thus excluding feat prerequisites.

2. Read narrowly, "effects" is a very limited term. Feats have effects (or not, it matter not to this choice), but are not in and of themselves effects or, even if they are, the prerequisites for them are not.

I have a lot of trouble with number two, as it seems like an overly-technical reading that assumes an unreasonably high level of precision in the original writing of these rules.

In addition to the above, the PHB II and the FAQ both allow for INA for monks, so it seems that if you use sources outside the core rules (assuming you consider the FAQ and PHB II to be outside the core rules), then yes you should allow it per the rules.  Whether or not the FAQ is part of the core rules is the subject for some debate.

There are other variations of how to look at the results, too, but, generally, that's about it.

Bottom line: some folks feel this is overpowered and/or not allowed by a very strict reading of the rules.   WotC has taken the opposite view.

I don't know what else there is to say.  You (or your DM) are now, I think, fully armed to make your own choice.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 12, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> 2. Read narrowly, "effects" is a very limited term. Feats have effects (or not, it matter not to this choice), but are not in and of themselves effects or, even if they are, the prerequisites for them are not.




Feats have Benefits.  I have yet to see it defined anywhere in the rules where benefit = effect


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Sep 12, 2006)

There's three conflicting systems - natural attacks, manufactured attacks, and the horribly unclear "unarmed attack". I don't believe the RAW are clear.

Personally I think Superior Unarmed Strike makes the point moot, at least if you're using Tome of Battle (which is admittedly not core rules and not used in a lot of groups). SUS definitely works with a monk's unarmed attack. I wouldn't let Improved Natural Attack work, as a result, and stacking would definitely be a no-no!

Using INA with monks is a bit silly anyway. That doesn't solve the monk's real problems. Oh look, you can do some more damage but still suffer from a crappy attack bonus, lack of reasonable enhancement bonuses, MAD, flavor problems and a bunch of other stuff.


----------



## Slaved (Sep 12, 2006)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Feats have Benefits.  I have yet to see it defined anywhere in the rules where benefit = effect




This is at least interesting. It states that feats are permanent effects.



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> IMPROVED SPELL RESISTANCE [EPIC]
> Prerequisite: Must have spell resistance from a feat, class feature, or other permanent effect.
> Benefit: The character’s spell resistance increases by +2.
> Special: A character can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects stack.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 12, 2006)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Feats have Benefits.  I have yet to see it defined anywhere in the rules where benefit = effect




PHB page 141?  



> 8 The description of a feat defines its effect.




Oh, I forgot. The feat description consists of the prerequisite, the benefit, what normally happens without the feat, and any special information. Somehow, all of this is the definition of the feat effect, even what normally happens without the feat.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 12, 2006)

Slaved said:
			
		

> This is at least interesting. It states that feats are permanent effects.




Does it also state that class features are effects? :\


----------



## Cedric (Sep 12, 2006)

Sorry, you stepped into a hot topic around here. I'll try to sum up the discussion briefly.

If you are JUST using the core 3 books, it's a murky issue and technically would lean against allowing INA for monks. 

However, if you allow precident from WotC (in this case with precident being established by the FAQ and PHB2), then WotC has clearly established that INA is allowed for Monks. 

So if your group (DM) is mostly concerned with how WotC intends the rule to be used, then go for it. If you just use the core books and don't allow the other material to establish precident, then you have to decide for yourself if a feat is an effect, and if it is does that qualify for meeting the prerequisite. 

My two cents? WotC has made it clear they intend for it to be allowed, so go for it.


----------



## Slaved (Sep 12, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> Does it also state that class features are effects? :\




Sure, why not? If a ranger could only use his favored enemy with manufactured weapons I would certainly allow a monk/ranger to use his unarmed strikes in place of a manufactured weapon.


----------



## Mistwell (Sep 12, 2006)

I fall firmly into the "yes" camp.  Feats provide an effect or effects.  "The description of a feat defines its effects", a line that KarinsDad pointed out, seems clear enough to me.  Also, it is not unbalancing.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 12, 2006)

No.  And, it is very unbalancing for a feat.


----------



## frankthedm (Sep 12, 2006)

INA scales _too_ well for the monk. The damge upgrade is huge. What then happens is the quite cheap Enlarge person is added into the mix raising damge dire really high. And 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-


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 12, 2006)

See, Natural Weapon Specialization would have been a much more sensible design decision.


----------



## No Name (Sep 12, 2006)

frankthedm said:
			
		

> INA scales _too_ well for the monk. The damge upgrade is huge. What then happens is the quite cheap Enlarge person is added into the mix raising damge dire really high. And 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.



You could also say that fighter and barbarian damage goes up when you cast Enlarge Person on them as well. Especially after they take advantage of the Monkey Grip feat.


----------



## frankthedm (Sep 12, 2006)

Monkey grip was balanced back in 3.0 when power attack was always one for one, the -2 for the larger one handed weapon was about the same trade off as power attack. In 3.5 it is a little weak since it sticks you with -2 to hit that could have been used in a two for four power attack.


----------



## Drowbane (Sep 12, 2006)

*IMO: yes*

Is it the 15th already?

I swear this comes up like clockwork every month.

Enjoy your can of worms.


----------



## atomn (Sep 12, 2006)

This is slightly off topic, but does a non-monk character with Improved Unarmed Strike count as a natural weapon or manufactured weapon?  Logic says it'll be a natural weapon but D&D rules don't always stick with logic.


----------



## Gargoyle (Sep 12, 2006)

Captain Howdy said:
			
		

> Quick question:
> 
> Can a monk's unarmed attack be affected by the _improved natural attack_ feat (MM page 304), and does a monk's unarmed attack qualify for the _natural weapon_ prerequisite of the feat?




I will agree with those that said "Yes".  Technically it's allowed.

However, IMC I don't allow monks to take it, including NPC monks.  My thinking is:

1) The feat was intended to be given to monsters.  I know that saying "this feat is for monsters only" is a poor argument.  The line between a monster and a character is blurred or non-existant in 3E/3.5 and that's as it should be.  If something is good enough for the characters, it should be obtainable by monsters, and vice versa. 

Still, I think whoever wrote it didn't have monks in mind, including monsters with monk levels.  There are no notes about monks in the description, and they specifically note a damage progression that is much less generous that what monks gain from using this feat.  I just don't think they thought it through. 

2) It's a boring feat.  It has no visible effect in the game except that you hit harder.  I would rather PC monks take something more flashy or interesting, like Power Attack.  Feats that do nothing except increase numbers are great for NPC's / monsters because it make it that much easier for the DM to run, but I don't like them for player characters.

3) Frankthedm makes a compelling argument about the damage increase.  It seems too good for monks at lower levels.


----------



## Legildur (Sep 12, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> However, if you allow precident from WotC (in this case with precident being established by the FAQ and PHB2), then WotC has clearly established that INA is allowed for Monks.



Okay, we now have three threads kicking around the INA for monks idea.

And this is funniest bit yet.  In claiming that WotC is setting precedent for Monks and INA through the FAQ and PHBII, I believe you are asserting that those two sources are official (I agree on official, but not core RAW) and that they are accurate.  You would normally expect that to be a reasonable assertion.

'Official' I don't have a problem with (though I note it is not core RAW).

But 'accurate'?  Well, that's a whole new ball game.  I came across this new thread: INA and PHBII where Testsubo makes a pertinent observation that the example 1st level monk in the PHBII doesn't actually meet the BAB prerequisite for INA!  The example monk has BAB +0, whilst the prerequisite is, in fact, BAB +4 (ignoring the natural weapons argument for the sake of simplicity).  There's a (not necessarily fatal) mark against the PHBII supporting the argument.

Similary for the FAQ, where at the bottom of page 11 it states that "... nor could she... or feint (which requires a *move* action)."  When you look at the SRD or the PHB, a feint clearly requires a standard action.  There are other errors in the FAQ which undermines it's credibility as a rules source - I still use it as a reference, and I don't attach a great deal of weight to the clarification it is meant to provide.  But, once again, I'm not sure that this is a necessarily fatal error.


----------



## Thanee (Sep 12, 2006)

By the core rules, I would say, that it is not possible.
The FAQ states, that it is possible, however.

So, officially: yes you can.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 12, 2006)

Legildur said:
			
		

> ...  There are other errors in the FAQ which undermines it's credibility as a rules source - I still use it as a reference, and I don't attach a great deal of weight to the clarification it is meant to provide.  But, once again, I'm not sure that this is a necessarily fatal error.






There are errors in the CORE RULES which undermines it's credibility as a rules source.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 12, 2006)

atomn said:
			
		

> This is slightly off topic, but does a non-monk character with Improved Unarmed Strike count as a natural weapon or manufactured weapon?  Logic says it'll be a natural weapon but D&D rules don't always stick with logic.




Definately NOT a manufactured weapon.  That much is clear.

Some say unarmed strikes are in their own category - neither a natural weapon nor manufactured weapon.

I think they ought to be a natural weapon, but, like I said, nto all agree.

In any case, it matters not weather you have IUS or not when you want to know how to categorize an unarmed strike.


----------



## KarinsDad (Sep 12, 2006)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Sure, why not? If a ranger could only use his favored enemy with manufactured weapons I would certainly allow a monk/ranger to use his unarmed strikes in place of a manufactured weapon.




So, if class features are effects, the ability to cast a spell is an effect. Not just the results of the spell itself, but the ability to do so.

Weapon proficiency is an effect.

Armor proficiency is an effect.

Illiteracy is an effect (well, maybe sometimes here on the message boards  ).

Bonus Languages are an effect.

This is a very unusual interpretation of the word effect.


----------



## Enforcer (Sep 12, 2006)

To weigh in briefly, while a monk with this feat would eventually be rolling some heavy damage dice, I believe a warrior-class is still likely to outdamage the monk, based on magic weapons, usually higher strength (due to the monk's MAD), and most importantly a MUCH better attack roll--a Fighter with Power Attack can reduce his attack bonus down to a monk's level with a two-hander and outclass the monk's damage. 

That said, I haven't seen a monk with this feat in play, perhaps my new campaign will have a monk that I can test this theory on. It does look like we'll have a big, bad Fighter to compare to.


----------



## Slaved (Sep 12, 2006)

KarinsDad said:
			
		

> So, if class features are effects, the ability to cast a spell is an effect. Not just the results of the spell itself, but the ability to do so.
> 
> Weapon proficiency is an effect.
> 
> ...




Unusual interpretation of the word effect? It fits with both what is written in the d&d books and it fits with the dictionary definition of the word.

In this case weapon/armor proficiency is the effect of training (or, from the player perspective, taking a level in a certain class and/or spending a feat). It is represented by those words on your paper in the appropriate place, but that does not change what it actually is.

Illiteracy is the effect of never learning how to read or some other condition which blocks off that part of the mind. Again, it is just a word used to describe the actual effect that is going on.

Etc etc.

I think that perhaps you are taking an overly narrow interpretation of effect given the sources that I have seen. In this case I am meaning references in the books and the dictionary definition as the word effect seems to refer more to that when written than it does to a d&d term like damage.


Can anyone put up the actual text from the monstrous manual by chance? Someone mentioned earlier that it would represent the creature somehow getting bigger, which would mean I guess that a bear with it would have huge paws the size of its body or something. The SRD does not mention anything about the natural weapon actually increasing in size and I had always thought that it was a representation of more cunning use of the weapon or something similar.

After all, it isnt a feat that must be picked up early on, if a monster is awakened and gains class levels there doesnt seem to be anything restricting it from picking it up with bonus feats from extra hd.


----------



## werk (Sep 12, 2006)

No, PCs may not take feats from the Monster Manual unless they are playing monstrous races 

That was easy...


----------



## Slaved (Sep 12, 2006)

werk said:
			
		

> No, PCs may not take feats from the Monster Manual unless they are playing monstrous races
> 
> That was easy...




Only monstrous races can craft constructs? That sucks


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 12, 2006)

werk said:
			
		

> No, PCs may not take feats from the Monster Manual unless they are playing monstrous races
> 
> That was easy...




So anything other than human, then? Got it.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 12, 2006)

atomn said:
			
		

> This is slightly off topic, but does a non-monk character with Improved Unarmed Strike count as a natural weapon or manufactured weapon?  Logic says it'll be a natural weapon but D&D rules don't always stick with logic.




Logic would not say that, because it is not a natural weapon. A weapon is armed, and an unarmed strike is... unarmed. Monks are a special case.


----------



## Deset Gled (Sep 12, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> 2. Read narrowly, "effects" is a very limited term. Feats have effects (or not, it matter not to this choice), but are not in and of themselves effects or, even if they are, the prerequisites for them are not.




I subscribe to the "Feats are effects, Prerequisites are not" school of thought.  The monk's unarmed strike can be treated as a natural weapon, but it is not one.  Thus, a monk does not meet the prerequisite of having a natural weapon.  I personally believe this is the most literally accurate reading of the rules (not saying anything about the intent or logic of the rules).  However, one of the weird effects of this ruling is that a race with a natural weapon could take INA and appy it to their Unarmed Strike, even though a human cannot.


----------



## starwed (Sep 12, 2006)

> The feat was intended to be given to monsters. I know that saying "this feat is for monsters only" is a poor argument. The line between a monster and a character is blurred or non-existant in 3E/3.5 and that's as it should be.



The only time this feat has ever come up in a game I run, the PC was a bugbear anyway.  So I said yes (especially since the bugbear levels/LA reduced his unarmed damage in the first place.)


----------



## Borlon (Sep 12, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> I subscribe to the "Feats are effects, Prerequisites are not" school of thought.  The monk's unarmed strike can be treated as a natural weapon, but it is not one.  Thus, a monk does not meet the prerequisite of having a natural weapon.  I personally believe this is the most literally accurate reading of the rules (not saying anything about the intent or logic of the rules).  However, one of the weird effects of this ruling is that a race with a natural weapon could take INA and appy it to their Unarmed Strike, even though a human cannot.




QFT


----------



## Nail (Sep 12, 2006)

Captain Howdy said:
			
		

> Can a monk's unarmed attack be affected by the _improved natural attack_ feat (MM page 304), and does a monk's unarmed attack qualify for the _natural weapon_ prerequisite of the feat?



No.  Unarmed Strike is not a natural attack; it just can be affected by spells an items as if it was.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 12, 2006)

If a feat is an effect, and a monk's attack can be treated as one, then a monk's attack can be treated as a natural weapon for the purposes of INA. Thus, while you are treating it as one, the monk does qualify.

It does not say anywhere that a monk has to be currently experiencing any effect for which it would be advantgeous to have their attack treated as a natural weapon, in order for their strike to be treated as a natural weapon for that effect. It's just the same as dwarf treating the waraxe as a martial weapon, whether or not he actually owns one or is even proficient with martial weapons. 

IF the feat is an effect THEN the monk treats his strike as a natural weapon for purposes of it. Thus, a monk does have the prerequisite.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Sep 12, 2006)

Improved Natural Attack [General]
The creature's natural attacks are more dangerous than its size and type would otherwise dictate.
*Prerequisite:* Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4.
*Benefit:* Choose one of the creature’s natural attack forms. The damage for this natural weapon increases by one step, as if the creature’s size had increased by one category: 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6. 
A weapon or attack that deals 1d10 points of damage increases as follows: 1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 12, 2006)

> No. Unarmed Strike is not a natural attack; it just can be affected by spells an items as if it was.




There are core spells that specifically describe fists and such as natural attacks, as does the Kensai PrCl.



> This is slightly off topic, but does a non-monk character with Improved Unarmed Strike count as a natural weapon or manufactured weapon? Logic says it'll be a natural weapon but D&D rules don't always stick with logic.




IMHO, its a natural weapon.

My reading of the rules as a whole regarding natural weapons & PC races (monk description, feats, key spells, Kensai description, etc.) leads me to the opinion that what the monk's "Unarmed Strike" language adds to their abilities is to be affected by spells and effects that would normally be limited to manufactured weapons, since their unarmed strikes are already natural weapons.

Thus. the Monk and only the Monk has an unarmed strike that scales up with level advancement, and is also the only class that can treat its unarmed strikes as manufactured weapons.


----------



## Deset Gled (Sep 12, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> It's just the same as dwarf treating the waraxe as a martial weapon, whether or not he actually owns one or is even proficient with martial weapons.




I believe the example you chose here is actually one that demonstrates my point.  A dwarf with levels in fighter is proficient with the dwarven waraxe, because they are  proficient with "all martial weapons", and because they treat the waraxe as a martial weapon.  However, a dwarf rogue cannot take the feat Martial Weapon Proficiency: Dwarven Waraxe, because there is no such thing as a martial dwarven waraxe.  They have to take Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Dwarven Waraxe instead, because the waraxe is still an exotic weapon.  The same issue comes up with the Bastard Sword.

Being treated "as" something for a specific purpose is very different than actually being something else.



			
				Borlon said:
			
		

> QFT



 w00t!


----------



## Nail (Sep 12, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> There are core spells that specifically describe fists and such as natural attacks



So an unarmed attack is an attack with a natural weapon?

Really?


----------



## Deset Gled (Sep 12, 2006)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> IMHO, its a natural weapon.
> 
> My reading of the rules as a whole regarding natural weapons & PC races (monk description, feats, key spells, Kensai description, etc.) leads me to the opinion that what the monk's "Unarmed Strike" language adds to their abilities is to be affected by spells and effects that would normally be limited to manufactured weapons, since their unarmed strikes are already natural weapons.
> 
> Thus. the Monk and only the Monk has an unarmed strike that scales up with level advancement, and is also the only class that can treat its unarmed strikes as manufactured weapons.




There are two problems with this ruling.

1.  Natural weapons do not use the itterative attack sequence.

2.  The text from the Equipment section, which states: 







> A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. A Small character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage. A monk or any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat can deal lethal or nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes, at her option. The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.



  Which states that the monk's unarmed strike is a modified unarmed strike, not a modified natural attack.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 12, 2006)

> So an unarmed attack is an attack with a natural weapon?




Seeing as how an unarmed attack uses things that are body parts to do damage, yes.  I don't have them in front of me right now, but check out the PHB glossary definitions of unarmed attacks and natural weapons.



> 1. Natural weapons do not use the itterative attack sequence.




True.  And there are creatures with natural weapons that are not, in reality, truly weapons- like a horse's hooves.  Hooves are part of the horse's locomotive anatomy, and are only pressed into service as weapons as a last resort.  The characteristics that make a horse's hooves useful as a weapon are a direct result of the main task they perform.

In comparison, they are no more real weapons than the natural attacks of a human being- whose punches, kicks, gouges, chokes and bites are quite capable of killing even if untrained.



> 2. The text from the Equipment section, which states:




And there is language elswhere in the PHB that explicitly calls a fist a natural weapon, such as spells that affect natural weapons.

End result (as I've stated elsewhere): the natural weapon/unarmed strike/manufactured weapon rules are a contradictory mess, and should be replaced with a natural weapon/manufactured weapon regime, with trained unarmed martial strikes considered to be a form of specialized training that improves a creature's natural weapons.

Much cleaner and less confusing.


----------



## Stalker0 (Sep 12, 2006)

The monk's unarmed strikes are NOT natural attacks HOWEVER they often do count as natural attacks for certain effects. Arguing about whether a monk's unarmed strike is a natural attack is pointless. The critical point is whether the monk's "certain effect" clause counts for the prereqs of feats.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 12, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> I believe the example you chose here is actually one that demonstrates my point.  A dwarf with levels in fighter is proficient with the dwarven waraxe, because they are  proficient with "all martial weapons", and because they treat the waraxe as a martial weapon.  However, a dwarf rogue cannot take the feat Martial Weapon Proficiency: Dwarven Waraxe, because there is no such thing as a martial dwarven waraxe.  They have to take Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Dwarven Waraxe instead, because the waraxe is still an exotic weapon.  The same issue comes up with the Bastard Sword.
> 
> Being treated "as" something for a specific purpose is very different than actually being something else.
> 
> w00t!




What makes you think that?

_Weapon Familiarity: Dwarves may treat dwarven waraxes and dwarven urgroshes as martial weapons, rather than exotic weapons._

Looks like you can take WWP (dwarven waraxe) to me. I believe your argument is circular.


----------



## Unkabear (Sep 12, 2006)

I say give the Monk whatever leg up you can.  If they wanted to be a damage dealing monster straight fighter is the way to go.  Let them have thier strange flavor and not be the weak(er) link in the party.


----------



## mvincent (Sep 12, 2006)

The FAQ was mentioned earlier, but I didn't see the applicable portion cut/pasted into the thread yet, so here it is (for reference):
_"*Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack (Monster
Manual, page 304) to improve his unarmed strike?*
Yes. As stated on page 41 of the Player’s Handbook, a
monk’s unarmed strike “is treated as both a manufactured
weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and
effects that enhance or improve either” which includes feats
such as Improved Natural Attack.
Barring multiclassing, the earliest a monk could take this
feat would be at 6th level (due to the base attack bonus
prerequisite), at which point her unarmed strike damage would
improve from 1d8 to 2d6 (which represents an average increase
of +2.5 points of damage). The same monk at 20th level would
deal 4d8 points of damage with her unarmed strike."_


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 12, 2006)

mvincent said:
			
		

> The FAQ was mentioned earlier, but I didn't see the applicable portion cut/pasted into the thread yet, so here it is (for reference):
> _"*Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack (Monster
> Manual, page 304) to improve his unarmed strike?*
> Yes. As stated on page 41 of the Player’s Handbook, a
> ...




From this quote, it seems the FAQ is doing one of two things:

a) clarifying that feats are effects
b) creating a new rule which states/implies that feats are effects

It's because of this line _“is treated as both a manufactured
weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and
*effects* that enhance or improve either” *which includes feats*
such as Improved Natural Attack._

By Core RAW, it doesn't work.  By FAQ RAW...  well, it's obvious it does.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 12, 2006)

Rules aside, I'll give you just my opinion. I would allow it because I feel that monks are not in any way overpowered and that adding this feat to a monk (even a "Large" race Monk) would not make them overpowered. 

I think monk's best shine under situational conditions and outside of those conditions are mediocre at best. 

However, I fully respect the fact that others do NOT agree and feel that adding such a significant damage boost to monks would be abusive. Likewise I would suspect that a lot of those people have very well balanced and prepared games where the situational benefits of a monk are often showcased and monk players feel 'satsified' with their level of contribution to the team as a whole...but that's just suposition.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 13, 2006)

Oh yeah, and FWIW...  I would allow it as a DM, and I beleive my current DM allows it, I would take it as a player.  I am just of the opinion that according to Core RAW it doesn't work, but the FAQ RAW is either (a) clarifying (specifically that feats are effects) or (b) creating a new rule (which should be a no-no for the FAQ, only errata should be doing that).


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 14, 2006)

It's not that this feat in itself makes a monk overpowered.  It's that this feat as applied to a monk is _way_ overpowered for a feat, a non-tier feat at that.  There's no other feat of equivalent power anywhere, it is that strong.  What this feat proves is that there will _never_ be a monk that does not have INA and a monk's belt (within reasonable character development time).  Maybe that's okay for you, but I personally find such things as "never" a little suspect.

It is bad game design to use this feat as the "equalizer" should you think monks are underpowered.


----------



## Thurbane (Sep 14, 2006)

Apparently PHB II has an example Monk with the Improved Natural Attack feat listed...that would seem to make it official (barring they fact they forgot about the BAB prerequisite)...


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Sep 14, 2006)

Thurbane said:
			
		

> Apparently PHB II has an example Monk with the Improved Natural Attack feat listed...that would seem to make it official (barring they fact they forgot about the BAB prerequisite)...




If they forgot about one prereq, what's to say they didn't forget the other?  

I'm in the "No, because prereqs are not effects" camp, a la Deset Gled's post.

I'd likely allow a monk to do it anyway, in any game I ran, as a house rule, because the effects have never seemed terribly overpowering.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 14, 2006)

Does anyone seriously have a problem with the concept that the benefits of a feat are an effect, or that the prerequsites of INA are intended to restrict it to characters who can reasonably benefit from an improved natural attack? 

Since a feat is an effect, it seems reasonable that treating a monk's attack as a natural weapon fulfills the prerequisite, just as a treating it as a manufactured one allows you to cast _magic weapon._ The counter-argument would be, "Oh, sure, a monk's strike could benefit from _magic weapon_, but since the target is 'weapon touched,' you can't actually cast it on him. The last line only says his attack can be enhanced by this spell, not that the spell can be cast on him."


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 14, 2006)

I'm going to summarize all the positions I can on Monks and INA:

1.  Core RAW only (no FAQ or other material)):  Maybe allowed, maybe not.  Hinges on such things as whether feats (or maybe feat prerequisites) are "effects."  Really comes down to how precisely one reads the rule, how picky one is over ill-defined game terms, how precisely one assumes the class description was written and what one thinks was the original intent of the class allowing the monks's attacks to be manufactured or natural weapons for "spells and effects."

2.  RAW plus other WotC published matirial (notably FAQ and PHBII).  Definately allowed.  There is no serious alternative argument here.  The only counter-argument is very, very thin and is based upon WotC not knowing what they are doing at all.  This is not a _*completely*_ baseless argument as WotC has made some pretty big errors in the FAQ and in published material before, and continues to do so from time to time.

3.  Game balance.  Again, two views here.   Whether one prohibits this on game balance grounds depends on things like whether one thinks it too strong to allow monks to boost up their attacks like this at the cost of only one feat.  Note that a "splat book" feat _(Superior Unarmed Strike from Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords )_ has a very similar effect for a monk and if one allows that feat, and, assuming no stacking of the two feats, then this becomes moot since one would simply take that feat instead of INA.  So far I have not heard anyone think that these two feats should stack together to advance the monk TWO size categories for damage.

So there you have it.  At this point one should allow it, officially, unless one feels it is too strong and simply prohibits it based upon those grounds.


----------



## moritheil (Sep 14, 2006)

Ten thousand years from now, in whatever afterlife may await all of us, Artoomis will still be laboring to explain the error of our ways to those of us who deny monks INA - and people will probably still be just as confused as to the actual truth of the matter, whatever it may be.    

Is this the seventh monk INA thread, or what?

And, since people have meticulously categorized the arguments and I have not, let me ask something - was the argument that "spells and effects" generally means _supernatural_ effects, such as psionics, or the _effects of spells_, ever addressed?


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Sep 14, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> 3.  Game balance.  Again, two views here.   Whether one prohibits this on game balance grounds depends on things like whether one thinks it too strong to allow monks to boost up their attacks like this at the cost of only one feat.  Note that a "splat book" feat somewhere _(sorry, I have forgotten which one, I'll edit this when I get reminded of it)_ has a very similar effect for a monk and if one allows that feat, and, assuming no stacking of the two feats, then this becomes moot since one would simply take that feat instead of INA.  So far I have not heard anyone think that these two feats should stack together to advance the monk TWO size categories for damage.




Superior Unarmed Strike from Tome of Battle is the feat you might be thinking of.

Maybe WotC should learn to design a light fighter class for DnD*, and then people can then ban INA. Right now, monks are so weak people throw desperate things at them in an effort to make them not suck. I've yet to see WotC design a good light fighter class for DnD. Tome of Battle didn't do the Swordsage right either, the Swashbukler has weaknesses (I think both versions), and so forth.

* Funny thing is, D20 Modern doesn't have this problem. DnD needs some cross-pollination, and quickly!


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 14, 2006)

moritheil said:
			
		

> Ten thousand years from now, in whatever afterlife may await all of us, Artoomis will still be laboring to explain the error of our ways to those of us who deny monks INA - and people will probably still be just as confused as to the actual truth of the matter, whatever it may be.    ...




In truth, I present two things:

1.  Why I allow it.

2.  Why other folks may or may not allow it.

Did I not just now summarize all the pro and con arguments in as little space as possible?  Did I only present my pont of view?

Do I not often talk about how there are two (or more) ways to view the rules, *all correct*.



			
				moritheil said:
			
		

> And, since people have meticulously categorized the arguments and I have not, let me ask something - was the argument that "spells and effects" generally means supernatural effects, such as psionics, or the effects of spells, ever addressed?




I think so.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 14, 2006)

Well, the issue, I think, is that your defenses are supposed to go up mainly based on equipment. BAB goes up, and hit points go up, but the classic D&D paradigm, your defense bonus does not. D&D 3e has changed that to some extent, but there are still remnants of the old model. Thus, lightly armored fighters who are viable are bucking the trend.

For comparison, fencers under AD&D 2e who took the correct kits could expect a -1 AC. One point. They could garner another point by taking an appropriate style proficiency. That was basically as good as it got. Monks? Started at AC 8 or so, the same as Joe Average in leather armor, or most dangerous animals, and slowly improved if you managed to survive to mid levels, and bracers did not stack with their AC improvement. IIRC, the original version didn't even get their Dex bonus to their monk AC, despite a respectable Dex requirement just to take the class in the first place.

Under basic D&D, your defense was your armor, and your Dex bonus, and that's it. And improving your Dex beyond 15 (+1 bonus) took an insane number of wishes.


----------



## Nail (Sep 14, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> I'm going to summarize all the positions I can on Monks and INA:...



Good job, Artoomis.  Well written.

FWIW, from now on (and although I disagree with allowing Monks to take INA), I shall point other discussions toward this post.


----------



## Nail (Sep 14, 2006)

moritheil said:
			
		

> Ten thousand years from now, ...



10,000 years from now we won't be playing D&D....

...we'll be _living it_.


----------



## Legildur (Sep 15, 2006)

I'm satisfied that Artoomis' summary captures the salient points without too much bias.


----------



## Infiniti2000 (Sep 15, 2006)

Legildur said:
			
		

> I'm satisfied that Artoomis' summary captures the salient points without too much bias.



There's not too much bias if you strike the last paragraph and rewrite #1 so that it represents the actual viewpoint (i.e. it's not that feats aren't effects , it's that feat prerequisites aren't effects).  While you're at it, strike #2 as completely irrelevant.  And the "summary" has no content.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 15, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> There's not too much bias if you strike the last paragraph and rewrite #1 so that it represents the actual viewpoint (i.e. it's not that feats aren't effects , it's that feat prerequisites aren't effects).  While you're at it, strike #2 as completely irrelevant.  And the "summary" has no content.




Actually, I think Artoomis did a fine job of summarizing both sides. It's clear which side he leans towards, however he presents both sides and in my opinion does an excellent job of it.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Sep 15, 2006)

LOL knocker... Monks use thier whole body as a weapon, not jut thier firsts, as the mighty alteredbeast game said "POWER... UP!". And besides, where does it say inw gives them a bigger natural weapon, it seems to imply that it stays the same size.    sorry im just picking on you arnt I?


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 15, 2006)

Infiniti2000 said:
			
		

> There's not too much bias if you strike the last paragraph and rewrite #1 so that it represents the actual viewpoint (i.e. it's not that feats aren't effects , it's that feat prerequisites aren't effects).  While you're at it, strike #2 as completely irrelevant.  And the "summary" has no content.




I edited and added the bit about feat prerequisitesa to make it more complete.

The rest I like as is. Paragraph two is to state that the rules, if you include the FAQ (and PHBII) allow it.  This is relevant and vlaue-added, so I left it.

The final line also has value, I think , so I left it.

The intent was to present eveything about INA and monks is as little space as possible so folks can make their own decisions on it.  I cannot *completely* divorce myself from my own opinions, but I made it as objective as I reasonably could.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Sep 15, 2006)

monks are ether under powered or too powerfull. common gang. make up your minds...


----------



## glass (Sep 15, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Did I not just now summarize all the pro and con arguments in as little space as possible?  Did I only present my pont of view?





			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> 2.  RAW plus other WotC published matirial (notably FAQ and PHBII).  Definately allowed.  There is no serious alternative argument here.



'No serious alternative argument' seems like your view to me. The primary source rule is a pretty cast-iron alternative argument.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> Do I not often talk about how there are two (or more) ways to view the rules, *all correct*.



Indeed you do, frequently. It does not mean you are right, though.


glass.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 15, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> 'No serious alternative argument' seems like your view to me. The primary source rule is a pretty cast iron alternative argument.




No, not really.

If your group accepts the FAQ and PHB2 as "canon" and considers those sources to be a valid extension and/or clarification of the Rules as Written...then Monks are "absolutely" allowed to take INA as a feat. The FAQ makes it crystal clear that it IS allowed. There is no ambiguity in the clarification provided in the FAQ. 

In other words, as Artoomis said, definitely allowed.


----------



## Hawkeye (Sep 15, 2006)

Enforcer said:
			
		

> To weigh in briefly, while a monk with this feat would eventually be rolling some heavy damage dice, I believe a warrior-class is still likely to outdamage the monk, based on magic weapons, usually higher strength (due to the monk's MAD), and most importantly a MUCH better attack roll--a Fighter with Power Attack can reduce his attack bonus down to a monk's level with a two-hander and outclass the monk's damage.
> 
> That said, I haven't seen a monk with this feat in play, perhaps my new campaign will have a monk that I can test this theory on. It does look like we'll have a big, bad Fighter to compare to.




The DM has given my monk the INA through a magic item.  I am not sure if the posts still exists after the various server problems over the last few months, but it you look for DM_Matt's Heroes Inc threads in the gaming section, you might find how my monk, Shando, fares in battle.

Hawkeye


----------



## glass (Sep 15, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> No, not really.
> 
> If your group accepts the FAQ and PHB2 as "canon" and considers those sources to be a valid extension and/or clarification of the Rules as Written...then Monks are "absolutely" allowed to take INA as a feat. The FAQ makes it crystal clear that it IS allowed. There is no ambiguity in the clarification provided in the FAQ.
> 
> In other words, as Artoomis said, definitely allowed.



No. Of course, if you chose to play by the FAQ, then it is allowed in your game, but that does not mean it is allowed by RAW. The primary-source rules are quite explicit: Nothing can overrule a primary source except errata to that source.

The FAQ can't do it. An example in an optional supplement, with another prerequisite error in the same example, and alongside several other example also riddled with abvious errors certainly can't do it.

_EDIT: And even if your and Artoomis's position was right, it would still be your position. I don't need you to tell me that my position doesn't exist, thank you_  


glass.


----------



## IcyCool (Sep 15, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> No, not really.




The primary source rule is WHY the FAQ and PHB 2 are labeled as incorrect.


----------



## Slaved (Sep 15, 2006)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> The primary source rule is WHY the FAQ and PHB 2 are labeled as incorrect.




Since there is core evidence to show that they are in fact _correct_ it might be a little presumptuous to declare them to be _incorrect_.


----------



## IcyCool (Sep 15, 2006)

Slaved said:
			
		

> Since there is core evidence to show that they are in fact _correct_ it might be a little presumptuous to declare them to be _incorrect_.




Core evidence?  Really?  Howso?


----------



## Cedric (Sep 15, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> No. Of course, if you chose to play by the FAQ, then it is allowed in your game, but that does not mean it is allowed by RAW.




And really...that's all that Artoomis' second point addresses, as well as the only thing my response addresses, and clearly, from the above statement, you agree. 

So where is the disagreement?


----------



## Cedric (Sep 15, 2006)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> The primary source rule is WHY the FAQ and PHB 2 are labeled as incorrect.




If you read up several posts, you'll see that the assumption in this point is that the reader is accepting the FAQ and PHB2 to be valid alterations, clarifications and additions to the Rules as Written. 

Additionally the other points clearly acknowledge that this is only one of many positions and that many people DO NOT accept the FAQ as a valid source of rule changes.


----------



## glass (Sep 15, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> glass said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That isn't what Artoomis said. He said:



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> 2.  RAW plus other WotC published matirial (notably FAQ and PHBII).  Definately allowed.  There is no serious alternative argument here.  The only counter-argument is very, very thin and is based upon WotC not knowing what they are doing at all.  This is not a _*completely*_ baseless argument as WotC has made some pretty big errors in the FAQ and in published material before, and continues to do so from time to time.



He is suggesting that 'other published WotC material' has any bearing on the answer, when it is quite clear (IMO) from the primary source rules that they do not.

Or alternatively, he doesn't believe that they have any bearing, and is being deliberately disingenuous by mentioning them in his summary. But I prefer to assume people are being honest if possible.


glass.


----------



## glass (Sep 15, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> If you read up several posts, you'll see that the assumption in this point is that the reader is accepting the FAQ and PHB2 to be valid alterations, clarifications and additions to the Rules as Written.



And if this was an NPOV summery, there wouldn't be any unstated assumptions. But as I have pointed out already, it wasn't. It was slanted to your (and his) position.


glass.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 15, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> That isn't what Artoomis said. He said:
> 
> He is suggesting that 'other published WotC material' has any bearing on the answer, when it is quite clear (IMO) from the primary source rules that they do not.
> 
> ...




I am afraid that once more, a situation has arisen where parties will have to agree to disagree. I feel that Artoomis' summary was accurate and despite having mild but clear bias, fairly presented both sides of the discussion. 



> 1. Core RAW only (no FAQ or other material)): Maybe allowed, maybe not. Hinges on such things as whether feats (or maybe feat prerequisites) are "effects." Really comes down to how precisely one reads the rule, how picky one is over ill-defined game terms, how precisely one assumes the class description was written and what one thinks was the original intent of the class allowing the monks's attacks to be manufactured or natural weapons for "spells and effects."
> 
> 2. RAW plus other WotC published matirial (notably FAQ and PHBII). Definately allowed. There is no serious alternative argument here. The only counter-argument is very, very thin and is based upon WotC not knowing what they are doing at all. This is not a completely baseless argument as WotC has made some pretty big errors in the FAQ and in published material before, and continues to do so from time to time.
> 
> ...




It is very clear to me that the first point in his summary is from the viewpoint of only allowing core RAW as valid for establishing and using rules that are addressed in the core RAW. 

The second point in his summary is from the viewpoint that subsequent published material, such as the PHB2 or the FAQ, can impact the intent or function of rules published originally in the core RAW material, even where ambiguity exists. 

The second contention is NOT presented from the standpoint that one MUST accept those sources as valid. It merely establishes the ruling if one CHOOSES to accept those sources as valid. 

Whether or not you accept any of those sources is beyond the scope of his summary, is not addressed and is left to each person to decide for themselves. 

I choose to accept those sources, you do not...but our choices are irrelevant to the summary which makes no decisions about which source material is valid, but merely presents the different viewpoints based on which source material the reader chooses to accept as valid. 

Once more, none of my recent posts are in support for or against allowing INA for monks, I am discussing whether or not the posted summary is valid and fairly states the discussion at hand, regardless of any bias. 

I find it to be fairly stated in accordance with the discussion to date. If you feel the summary is inadequate, I would encourage you to post your own summary that represents both sides of the discussion. 

Cedric


----------



## Deset Gled (Sep 15, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> The second point in his summary is from the viewpoint that subsequent published material, such as the PHB2 or the FAQ, can impact the intent or function of rules published originally in the core RAW material, even where ambiguity exists.
> 
> The second contention is NOT presented from the standpoint that one MUST accept those sources as valid. It merely establishes the ruling if one CHOOSES to accept those sources as valid.




The problem that glass is pointing out (glass- feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that the Primary Source rule dictates when other sources (such as the PHB2 or FAQ) can impact the function of the rules.  Alternate sources cannot change something "*even* where ambiguity exists", but rather *only* where ambiguity exists.  In order for the FAQ ruling to be valid you have to believe that rules in the PHB are vague.  This requires a looser, more "Artoomisish" reading than some people allow.  If you use a stricter reading, and rule that the core rules do not allow INA for monks, then the fact that the FAQ and PHB2 say you can is irelevant.

For reference:


			
				PHB Errata said:
			
		

> Errata Rule: Primary Sources
> When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a
> primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning
> of the spells chapter disagrees.
> ...


----------



## Cedric (Sep 15, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> In order for the FAQ ruling to be valid you have to believe that rules in the PHB are vague.  This requires a looser, more "Artoomisish" reading than some people allow.  If you use a stricter reading, and rule that the core rules do not allow INA for monks, then the fact that the FAQ and PHB2 say you can is irelevant.




The fact that this has been discussed in three different threads THIS week alone, supports the validity that a reasonable percentage of people on these boards find the original rules in the PHB to be vague regarding this feat and whether or not Monks can take it. 

If you do not feel the rule is vague and are confident you are reading it correctly and that Monk's may not take this feat, then your viewpoint falls into the category with Artoomis' first point in the summary. In that case, the FAQ and PHB2 are completely dismissed in accordance with the Primary Sources text you cited above. 

If you do feel the rule is vague (which a reasonable percentage of us do and a likewise reasonable percentage of us do not), then you may choose to decide based on the text in the Core RAW only (again, Artoomis' first point in the summary) OR you may address other WotC source material to see if the question has been clarified ...and find that it has in the FAQ and PHB2 (Artoomis' second point). 

However, declaring that the original rules are not vague, and that I am not allowed to look in other source material because the rules aren't vague is an attempt to impose your opinion upon my own. I am very much entitled to the right to decide for myself whether or not the rule is vague. The fact that many others agrees with me provides me with some confidence in my decision, but ultimately is an unnecessary justification, because I can decide vaguery on my own. 

Again though, if you feel you can summarize BOTH viewpoints in this lengthy discussion in a more effective manner than Artoomis has, then I encourage you to do so and please share.

Cedric


----------



## mvincent (Sep 15, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> If you use a stricter reading, and rule that the core rules do not allow INA for monks, then the fact that the FAQ and PHB2 say you can is irelevant.



The FAQ serves as an extension of the rules for those that view an issue as subject to interpretation. It resolves issues that there may be two sides to. If someone does not view something as open to interpretation, then the FAQ is not for them anyway (since they have no question on the subject). However, they may encounter groups in the future that were more undecided on the subject... in which case the FAQ can at least allow them to know what to expect (especially with RPGA groups)... which is the whole purpose of having rules in the first place. If they insist on arguing against the FAQ with such groups, they may well be in for disappointment and/or needless conflict.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 15, 2006)

Oh, man... misundertandings abound...



			
				glass said:
			
		

> He is suggesting that 'other published WotC material' has any bearing on the answer, when it is quite clear (IMO) from the primary source rules that they do not.
> 
> Or alternatively, he doesn't believe that they have any bearing, and is being deliberately disingenuous by mentioning them in his summary. But I prefer to assume people are being honest if possible.




Okay, choice one is look at why you might allow (or not) INA for monks IF you consider Core Rule ONLY, with no consideration given to the FAQ or PHBII or any other material. 

Choice two is IF you apply the RAW INCLUDING the FAQ and such things as PHB II to guide you.

Think of these items as "What if...."

The it goes like this:

What if you use only the RAW and nothing else, how might you rule?

What if you add in use the FAQ and PHBII to guide you, how might you rule?

What if you let game balance be your deciding factor, how might you rule?

Does that help?

The intent was to extremely briefly summarize all arguments, pro and con.


----------



## moritheil (Sep 15, 2006)

Artoomis, I have no intent to offend you.  My post was not a jab at the _quality_ of your posts, but rather underlining the _frequency_ with which they concern the INA topic.



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> I think so.




Would you mind explaining how those issues are addressed?  I asked because I did not see them addressed in your general summary of both sides' takes on major issues.


----------



## moritheil (Sep 15, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> The fact that this has been discussed in three different threads THIS week alone, supports the validity that a reasonable percentage of people on these boards find the original rules in the PHB to be vague regarding this feat and whether or not Monks can take it.
> 
> Cedric




Are you implying that truth exists solely by democracy, and that if many people believe something is true, it must be true?  I think many people in this discussion are operating with a different assumption as to the fundamental nature of truth.  This might be the source of some of the conflict.


----------



## mvincent (Sep 15, 2006)

moritheil said:
			
		

> Are you implying that truth exists solely by democracy, and that if many people believe something is true, it must be true?



Excellent point, and especially applicable for objective debates*. However, clarity, interpretability and rules intuitiveness seem like subjective issues, where consensus can have bearing.

Still, even on objective issues regarding _rules_, if _enough_ people believe an actual rule is a not a rule (or vise-verse), they could effectively become correct.

*Most objective rules debates are over fairly quickly.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 15, 2006)

moritheil said:
			
		

> Are you implying that truth exists solely by democracy, and that if many people believe something is true, it must be true?  I think many people in this discussion are operating with a different assumption as to the fundamental nature of truth.  This might be the source of some of the conflict.




I was only suggesting that if enough people believe something to be vague, no matter how clear any individual believes it to be, they might want to consider acknolwedging that in fact, it's vague. 

Now, you could have 2 million people tell you the sky is bright green, that won't make it true. But when dealing with issues of perception and understanding, if enough people perceive or understand something to be one way...there may be some truth to it. 

So in essence...while several people have said that the rule isn't vague. Several other people have said it is. That in and of itself satisfies the criteria of it being vague.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 15, 2006)

moritheil said:
			
		

> Artoomis, I have no intent to offend you...




I am no so easily offended  

Form a previous post:



			
				moritheil said:
			
		

> ...And, since people have meticulously categorized the arguments and I have not, let me ask something - was the argument that "spells and effects" generally means supernatural effects, such as psionics, or the effects of spells, ever addressed?




and now...



			
				moritheil said:
			
		

> Would you mind explaining how those issues are addressed?  I asked because I did not see them addressed in your general summary of both sides' takes on major issues.




The answer lies with "Hinges on such things as whether feats (or maybe feat prerequisites) are 'effects.' "

That remark covers a whole lot of ground about how the word 'effects' is defined and whether feats are even included - as they would not be if "spells and effects" generally means supernatural effects, such as psionics, or the effects of spells.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 15, 2006)

moritheil said:
			
		

> Are you implying that truth exists solely by democracy, and that if many people believe something is true, it must be true?  I think many people in this discussion are operating with a different assumption as to the fundamental nature of truth.  This might be the source of some of the conflict.




Surely you are not suggesting the reverse:  that only a select group can decide the "proper" way to read a rule?  In other words, if *I* say it is true, then it must be so?

Now, certainly some things have a clear, objective truth.  Things like gravity, the speed of light, etc.  Interpreting the written word generally is NOT one of those things.


----------



## moritheil (Sep 15, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> The asnwer lies with "Hinges on such things as whether feats (or maybe feat prerequisites) are 'effects.' "
> 
> That remark covers a whole lot of ground about how the word 'effects' is defined and whether feats are even ioncluded - as they would not be if "spells and effects" generally means supernatural effects, such as psionics, or the effects of spells.




Ah, so we have a categorization mix-up: I had thought that part referred only to the "Effects line" controversy.

Thanks for your time.


----------



## moritheil (Sep 15, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Surely you are not suggesting the reverse:  that only a select group can decide the "proper" way to read a rule?  In other words, if *I* say it is true, then it must be so?




Surely not.



> Now, certainly some things have a clear, objective truth.  Things like gravity, the speed of light, etc.  Interptreting the written word generally is NOT one of those things.




I will respectfully disagree.  Interpreting the written word is generally straightforward, as, absent horrid writing, translation difficulties, or deliberate ambiguity, there either is or is not support for a given interpretation.  Our problems arise from the fact that we are dealing with the exceptions on these boards.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 15, 2006)

moritheil said:
			
		

> Surely not.
> 
> 
> 
> I will respectfully disagree.  Interpreting the written word is generally straightforward, as, absent horrid writing, translation difficulties, or deliberate ambiguity, there either is or is not support for a given interpretation.  Our problems arise from the fact that we are dealing with the exceptions on these boards.




Try reading virtually any Supreme Court decision and see if you still say that.


----------



## moritheil (Sep 15, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Try reading virtually any Supreme Court decision and see if you still say that.




I actually have, and did not have the kind of difficulty you seem to be implying - but that aside, those are hardly normal examples of the written word.  Stop signs, newspaper headlines, and the like are probably fairer examples of "the written word" in general, and they are usually pretty clear, with virtually no ambiguity.

Now, if you want to make a case that interpreting _WOTC's rules_ is usually not clear and objective, feel free to.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 15, 2006)

moritheil said:
			
		

> I actually have, and did not have the kind of difficulty you seem to be implying - but that aside, those are hardly normal examples of the written word.  Stop signs, newspaper headlines, and the like are probably fairer examples of "the written word" in general, and they are usually pretty clear, with virtually no ambiguity.
> 
> Now, if you want to make a case that interpreting _WOTC's rules_ is usually not clear and objective, feel free to.




Actually, I was referring to the way statutes are read - every similar to WOtC rules, except they are intended to be more exacting.

As for WotC example, INA and monks is an excellent example.

What on earth does "spells and effects" means?  There is NO clear guidance on the core rules for this.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Sep 15, 2006)

If people cant agree what raw is saying, then how can raw be used as an argument? if 50% of people lets say see ina working with monks, then how can raw be used as a counter argument. Both sides are saying that raw is in favor of their view, therefore raw doesn’t apply and their is no solution or answer?


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 15, 2006)

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> If people cant agree what raw is saying, then how can raw be used as an argument? if 50% of people lets say see ina working with monks, then how can raw be used as a counter argument. Both sides are saying that raw is in favor of their view, therefore raw doesn’t apply and their is no solution or answer?





No true, universal answer, correct.  My point exact6ly.

Under such circumstances there may very well be two (or maybe more) correct answers if the RAW allows it by the way the RAW is written.

This is one area where this forum is of great service to players and DMs. Presenting both points of view with their arguments so that groups may decide for themselves.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 15, 2006)

moritheil said:
			
		

> I will respectfully disagree.  Interpreting the written word is generally straightforward, as, absent horrid writing, translation difficulties, or deliberate ambiguity, there either is or is not support for a given interpretation.  Our problems arise from the fact that we are dealing with the exceptions on these boards.





I would disagree. Often the only true agreement is that we all use the same words in the same way... we could agree one day, then disagree fiercely the next if it turns out my definition of one thing is not exactly the same as yours when applied to a certain context. 

Only within a shared language is agreement possible. Life rarely indulges absolutes.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 15, 2006)

moritheil said:
			
		

> ... Stop signs, newspaper headlines, and the like are probably fairer examples of "the written word" in general, and they are usually pretty clear, with virtually no ambiguity.




Actually, as it turns out, even a STOP sign presents some amiguity.  A lawyer in California succesfully argues that it really does not mean STOP.  More like slow wayyyy down and be safe.

Maybe that's a silly example, but I think it drives home my point.

Newspaper headlines, too, are very often ambiguous and you cannot tell what they really mean until reading the story.  Of course, that's very often intentional.


----------



## IcyCool (Sep 15, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Actually, as it turns out, even a STOP sign presents some amiguity.  A lawyer in California succesfully argues that it really does not mean STOP.  More like slow wayyyy down and be safe.




Link?


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 15, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Actually, as it turns out, even a STOP sign presents some amiguity.  A lawyer in California succesfully argues that it really does not mean STOP.  More like slow wayyyy down and be safe.
> 
> Maybe that's a silly example, but I think it drives home my point.
> 
> Newspaper headlines, too, are very often ambiguous and you cannot tell what they really mean until reading the story.  Of course, that's very often intentional.




GIANT COACH AIMS FOR NEW HIGH

has always been one of my favorites.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 15, 2006)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> Link?




Sorry - I guess I was making a point more than anything else.  I did hear this story told to me as true, but it could be urban legend.

It went something like:

A lawyer, arguing a case of running a stop sign where the driver almost, but did not quite stop (per the police officer) used a ball to illustrate a point.  He tossed it in the air and challenged the officer (or the court, I am not sure which) to identify when it stopped.  The end result was that STOP really ended up meaning "darn near stopping, but not necessarily competely."

It's hardly a perfect example and I cannot prove it, but it was merely illustrative of a point.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 15, 2006)

So, just for fun, let's go back to the original question of this thread:

"Can monks get improved natural attack? "

The answer is painfully obvious, is it not?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It depends.


----------



## IcyCool (Sep 15, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Sorry - I guess I was making a point more than anything else.  I did hear this story told to me as true, but it could be urban legend.




Made up evidence isn't terribly useful, but it sure is handy. 

The description makes it sound like urban legend.  How did the lawyer prove that the officer was mistaken?  And if he did, the lawyer would have a heck of a lot more luck in proving fault with the officer than trying to convince a judge that "stop" doesn't mean "stop".

I think someone was pulling your leg.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 16, 2006)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> Made up evidence isn't terribly useful, but it sure is handy.
> 
> The description makes it sound like urban legend.  How did the lawyer prove that the officer was mistaken?  And if he did, the lawyer would have a heck of a lot more luck in proving fault with the officer than trying to convince a judge that "stop" doesn't mean "stop".
> 
> I think someone was pulling your leg.




Could be.  It does not really matter.  It's a fun story and ilustrates how even a simple word like "STOP" might not necessarily have a universally accepted meaning.


----------



## moritheil (Sep 16, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I would disagree. Often the only true agreement is that we all use the same words in the same way... we could agree one day, then disagree fiercely the next if it turns out my definition of one thing is not exactly the same as yours when applied to a certain context.
> 
> Only within a shared language is agreement possible. Life rarely indulges absolutes.




We have done just that.  My point is that when we were doing that, we were discussing rules, and not the everyday "written word."  To take the STOP sign example, it's clear to everyone that the sign says STOP.  It is nothing but dissembling to argue that people don't understand STOP (aside from literacy issues.)  That example of the maverick lawyer - true or not - is passed along because of its _absurdity_, not because it constitutes an example of the _commonplace_.

People have come out of the woodwork left and right with unusual examples, but I did not state that interpretation of the written word is _always_ a nonissue - just that it is generally so in everyday situations.  It's absurd to suggest that just because everyone has a favorite example of when things were not straightforward, things are never straightforward, or that that somehow proves that things are not generally straightforward.

Also note that I have not stated that _unraveling the INA rules_ is one of those situations.  I would really appreciate it if people stopped behaving as if I was the one who made that statement in this thread - if it was made, I wasn't the one to make it.  (Some suggest that glass meant to state that, but I'm not so sure.)


----------



## Cedric (Sep 16, 2006)

IcyCool said:
			
		

> Made up evidence isn't terribly useful, but it sure is handy.
> 
> The description makes it sound like urban legend.  How did the lawyer prove that the officer was mistaken?  And if he did, the lawyer would have a heck of a lot more luck in proving fault with the officer than trying to convince a judge that "stop" doesn't mean "stop".
> 
> I think someone was pulling your leg.




It is actually an Urban Legend, however, it is so common in California (and often overlooked by police officers) that the act of slowing down greatly, but not completely stopping, has become known as a "California Stop". 

However, there are instances of people avoiding more severe penalties after an accident involving running a stop sign by claiming they slowed down. 

Typically if you run a stop sign and cause an accident that invokes a Reckless Driving charge. People have successfully argued that down to a failure to yield or stop, because they slowed down first to acknowledge the stop sign.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 16, 2006)

_To take the STOP sign example, it's clear to everyone that the sign says STOP. _

"I'm sorry, officer. I thought the stop sign applied to cross traffic, not to me."

Anyway, the lawyer example isn't absurd, and it hardly matters if you think it's a real event or not, because arguments like that happen in courtrooms all the time. In real life, things are often not clear. 

What does stop mean? Does it mean to completely depress your brakes, even if the car is still rocking forward? Does it mean your car is not significantly moving, even if your brake pedal isn't depressed?

But all that's a tangent. Because we're not talking about a sign that says STOP. We're talking about a sign that says "FINES DOUBLE IN CONSTRUCTION ZONE WHEN WORKERS PRESENT" and the workers are at lunch.


----------



## moritheil (Sep 16, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> _To take the STOP sign example, it's clear to everyone that the sign says STOP. _
> 
> "I'm sorry, officer. I thought the stop sign applied to cross traffic, not to me."




Aha!  That's not an example of the sign being unclear - that's an example of the context being unclear.  The sign itself saying STOP is not contested - only the context.  The person in your example is not saying that the sign does not say to STOP.  The driver misinterpreted the conditions in which the written word appeared, not the written word itself.

Practically, the effect may seem similar, but it's an important distinction.



> But all that's a tangent. Because we're not talking about a sign that says STOP.




I am.

I'm not talking about INA being clear or unclear.  I'm not talking about rules in general being clear or unclear.  I'm taking issue with a broad blanket statement made by Artoomis that the written word itself has no "broad, objective truth."


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 16, 2006)

The written word has no broad, objective truth. A given word means whatever someone says it means.


----------



## moritheil (Sep 16, 2006)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> The written word has no broad, objective truth. A given word means whatever someone says it means.




Perhaps in your understanding of the matter.  However, if you say "no," and someone else interprets that "no" to mean yes, is that word not still "no" to you?  Is it not still composed of the letters N and O when written out in English?

Understand that, as stated previously, I am personally disagreeing with the concept that words do not have meaning - not attempting to force this view upon others.  I'm not picking a fight here, just noting my disagreement with another interpretation of a matter.  This seems to have dragged out mainly because people haven't grasped that.


----------



## Moon-Lancer (Sep 16, 2006)

well i think i see what Artoomis is saying.

You could argue stop to mean

Stopping at the sign were it is marked
or
Starting to stop at the sign.

this is of course disregarding any rules about the stop sign and taking it for face value as "stop" It really depends if their was a law in the county or whatnot that defined were one stops at the sign.

Two valid interpretations. Although culturally everyone with common sense should know that you stop at the sign, not starting to stop at the sign.


we are not agueing over a word like stop or no, we are argueing over the word "effect" and this word means too much to be used the way it was. Thus the ambiguity.

anyone do those fun games in high school or jr high were you have to write a manul or instructonal booklet? its hard to write something so that everyone will interprit the same. In fact sometimes we take some words for granted that others will use and interprit these words in the same manor as ourselves. such as "effect"

 so wizards droped the ball and it rolled a bit (hahah) oh well. rule as you will.


----------



## moritheil (Sep 16, 2006)

Clearly at this point, the subject of this little side discussion has been redefined so many times that it obviously isn't what I'm talking about, so please do not address me as if it concerns me and I owe some sort of response.



> we are argueing over the word "effect"




_You_ may be.  _I_ am not.  That's been clearly stated in my previous posts. 

Are you so desirous of argument that you want to start an argument over what it is that we are arguing about?


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 16, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Actually, as it turns out, even a STOP sign presents some amiguity.  A lawyer in California succesfully argues that it really does not mean STOP.  More like slow wayyyy down and be safe.
> 
> Maybe that's a silly example, but I think it drives home my point.
> 
> Newspaper headlines, too, are very often ambiguous and you cannot tell what they really mean until reading the story.  Of course, that's very often intentional.




C'mon, well know what STOP really means...

Slightly
Tap
On
Pedal


----------



## Question (Sep 16, 2006)

IMHO its very simple. Wizards has constantly told us that INA is a valid feat for monks. I dont see why you are argueing that its NOT a valid feat.


----------



## Baramay (Sep 16, 2006)

Question said:
			
		

> IMHO its very simple. Wizards has constantly told us that INA is a valid feat for monks. I dont see why you are argueing that its NOT a valid feat.




I agree.  At the same time the wording of the monk's unarmed attack has given DMs reason to feel it is not suitable for monks.  So if your DM says no to the feat he has a reason why he feels that way.  Either way DMs can disallow whatever feat or class they wish to.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 16, 2006)

Question said:
			
		

> IMHO its very simple. Wizards has constantly told us that INA is a valid feat for monks. I dont see why you are argueing that its NOT a valid feat.




May I ask who you are addressing with this comment?


For me (I have stated this before) I am not arguing it's validity. I am stating...

1) I would allow it as a DM, and I beleive my current DM allows it, I would take it as a player.
2) I am of the opinion that according to Core RAW it doesn't work
3) I beleive the FAQ RAW is either (a) clarifying (specifically that feats are effects) or (b) creating a new rule (which should be a no-no for the FAQ, only errata should be doing that).

"validity" is just another word for "official" AFAIC.  And "official" can mean a couple of things.  Offcial per Core RAW, or official per any and all RAW (including FAQ, errata, later WotC books such as PHB2).


----------



## Question (Sep 16, 2006)

Im addressing those who are argueing about whether or not INA is allowable.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Sep 16, 2006)

Question said:
			
		

> Im addressing those who are argueing about whether or not INA is allowable.




In which case I will re-iterate...

It is clearly allowable via the FAQ.  What we are arguing is why the FAQ ruling is or is not correct.


----------



## moritheil (Sep 17, 2006)

I'm discussing Artoomis's sweeping statement that words have no meaning.  (It was made in this thread.)

Even were I to accept the ludicrous STOP sign examples people have come up with, or the poorly worded newspaper title, proving that uncertainty exists in language does not in any way prove that words contain no meaning whatsoever.

Also, before anyone tries it, just because an alien cannot understand a word does not mean that no information is there, only that he cannot process it.  A blind man cannot process light, but that does not mean that light cannot contain meaning.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 17, 2006)

moritheil said:
			
		

> I'm discussing Artoomis's sweeping statement that words have no meaning.  (It was made in this thread.)




Got a quote?


----------



## Cedric (Sep 17, 2006)

moritheil said:
			
		

> I'm discussing Artoomis's sweeping statement that words have no meaning.  (It was made in this thread.)
> 
> Even were I to accept the ludicrous STOP sign examples people have come up with, or the poorly worded newspaper title, proving that uncertainty exists in language does not in any way prove that words contain no meaning whatsoever.
> 
> Also, before anyone tries it, just because an alien cannot understand a word does not mean that no information is there, only that he cannot process it.  A blind man cannot process light, but that does not mean that light cannot contain meaning.




Ok, Artoomis' actual statement was:



			
				Artoomis said:
			
		

> certainly some things have a clear, objective truth. Things like gravity, the speed of light, etc. Interpreting the written word generally is NOT one of those things.




Sorry, but to my thinking, the fact that most major college prep and placement exams, like the SAT, have reading comprehension sections..combined with the fact that most students get mediocre scores from that section...supports the statement that "Interpretting the written word" is generally not a clear, objective truth. 

As a second example...when Artoomis said, effectively, that interpretting the written word is generally not a clear, objective truth, Moritheil read that to mean that "words have no meaning" whereas I took it to mean that sometimes it is hard to read something and gain the same meaning from it that the author originally intended. 

Cedric


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 17, 2006)

To the extent we could all agree on the meanings of words, we would never disagree on anything. For instance, if we all agreed the same things about the phrase "orange Jell-O" then we would all agree that orange Jell-O means "the worst flavor of Jell-O" and "that flavor of Jell-O I had when my Aunt Irene was in town as a kid and we all went to Luby's." It would be impossible to disagree how much yellow Jell-O powder you could add to orange Jell-O and still have it be "orange jello." It would be impossible to debate whether that meant a particular flavor of jello that is orange, all versions of that flavor, or jello that is simply orange in color.

Because we would agree.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 17, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> ..when Artoomis said, effectively, that interpretting the written word is generally not a clear, objective truth, Moritheil read that to mean that "words have no meaning" whereas I took it to mean that sometimes it is hard to read something and gain the same meaning from it that the author originally intended.
> 
> Cedric




Exactly.  That's reason it's difficult in many cases, especially the one before us on INA and Monks, to definitively state one knows what the INA/Monk rule is based upon what the Core Rules (not counting any FAQ, etc) based solely upon word found in the core rules.

On the other hand, had the Core Rules actually specifically and unambiguously stated that monks qualify for the INA feat, then I think the words would be clear.

Really, in deciding whether the words are actually ambiguous, it comes down to whether the disagreement over the meaning of words is reasonable or not which, alas, is, generally, judgment call.

Let’s look back at the questions needing to be answered to make the case that the rules is clear using ONLY core rules

Did the authors mean “effects” to mean only the effects of spells and other supernatural things? 
Did the authors mean effects in a most general sense?
Did the authors mean that if allowing their monks’ attacks to be “natural weapons” would grant them the benefit of a spell (or whatever), those attacks then are considered natural weapons for getting the benefit of that spell (or whatever).
Did the authors mean that if allowing  monks’ attacks to be “natural weapons” would grant them the benefit of a feat that those attacks then are considered natural weapons for satisfying the prerequisites of the feat?

All excellent questions that cannot be answered using the core rules alone, because the original language is “spells and effect” leaving us completely on our own to decide the meaning of the word “effects” in this context.


----------



## Fortain (Sep 17, 2006)

I believe that the majority of the debate on "Yes INA/No INA" can be summed up like so:

A gentleman walks up to a bar, where he wants to buy a soda. A sign on the bar, next to the bartender, says "Cash Only". The gentleman orders a Coke, and pulls out a piece of plastic to pay with. The bartender points to the "Cash Only" sign; the gentleman says "I have been assured, by that company I got this from, that this plastic is good wherever cash is accepted."

Yes INA: Bartender says, "One second - we have a card-reader; that'll be $.99".
No INA: Bartender says, "No card-reader here, greenbacks only."


Edit: if that's the case, substitute "traveler's checks" for "plastic", and you'll have the same argument


----------



## Slaved (Sep 17, 2006)

Fortain said:
			
		

> I believe that the majority of the debate on "Yes INA/No INA" can be summed up like so:
> 
> A gentleman walks up to a bar, where he wants to buy a soda. A sign on the bar, next to the bartender, says "Cash Only". The gentleman orders a Coke, and pulls out a piece of plastic to pay with. The bartender points to the "Cash Only" sign; the gentleman says "I have been assured, by that company I got this from, that this plastic is good wherever cash is accepted."
> 
> ...




As good as != same as. Credit cards are as good as cash anywhere with an opperational reader.

Mayhaps a better comparison would be if you had travelers checks? From what I understand they are accepted pretty much anywhere in place of cash, just as if they were cash, but they are not actually cash.


----------



## Gumby (Sep 17, 2006)

Couldn't find a version of the pic I wanted to post that was WS, so...


----------



## Slaved (Sep 17, 2006)

Fortain said:
			
		

> Edit: if that's the case, substitute "traveler's checks" for "plastic", and you'll have the same argument




If a place accepts cash I dont think there are many (any?) reasons why they wouldnt accept travelers checks. As far as I know they are exactly the same as cash, just in a different form.

Perhaps if it is something illegal, maybe, but then that is a special situation and perhaps it would be better to look at that as if something had claw as a prerequisite instead of natural weapon. As in, "must have a natural weapon with claws" as a special condition instead of, "must have a natural weapon".


----------



## glass (Sep 18, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> The problem that glass is pointing out (glass- feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that the Primary Source rule dictates when other sources (such as the PHB2 or FAQ) can impact the function of the rules.  Alternate sources cannot change something "*even* where ambiguity exists", but rather *only* where ambiguity exists.



Exactly. Therefore, by including the item at all, Artoomis was tacetly suggesting that there is ambiguity. Since I contend that there is no ambiguity, the summary was subtly slanted against my position.


glass.


----------



## glass (Sep 18, 2006)

Question said:
			
		

> IMHO its very simple. Wizards has constantly told us that INA is a valid feat for monks. I dont see why you are argueing that its NOT a valid feat.



If the 'you' in that last statement is me, then I am arguing that it is not a valid choice for (human) monks, per what is written in the PHB and MM. Wizards pronouncements have litterally no bearing on the matter (unless they come in the form of errata)


glass.


----------



## Deset Gled (Sep 18, 2006)

Slaved said:
			
		

> If a place accepts cash I dont think there are many (any?) reasons why they wouldnt accept travelers checks. As far as I know they are exactly the same as cash, just in a different form.




Substitute "vending machine" for "bar".   



> Again though, if you feel you can summarize BOTH viewpoints in this lengthy discussion in a more effective manner than Artoomis has, then I encourage you to do so and please share.




Well, I'm game.  Personally, I think the problem here is that there are many more than 2 points of view on this discussion.  As such, the main problem with Artoomis's summary from before is that it simplifies the discussion to a point that some people will undoubtably argue that their standpoint is not represented by it.

The following are the main arguements for allowing or disallowing a monk to take INA.  Points can be mixed and matched freely:

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.

5.  Monks can take INA.  The monk is underpowered, and this feat helps balance them.

6.  Monks cannot take INA.  INA is too powerful of a feat.

7.  Monks cannot take INA.  INA was intended for monsters only.  (Many secondary sources were written by authors that did not follow the original intent.)

8.  Monks can take INA.  INA was intended to improve attacks without weapons.

Personally, I stand by #3, but also agree with #5 and #6.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 18, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> Exactly. Therefore, by including the item at all, Atroomis was tacetly suggesting that there is ambiguity. Since I contend that there is no ambiguity, the summary was subtly slanted against my position.
> 
> 
> glass.




Only insofar as WotC is slanted against your position.  By publishing the material in the FAQ, WotC has tacitly suggested either that ambiguity exists and the FAQ entry is for WotC to clear that up by stating the WotC position on the matter, or that it is clear that INA and monks go together by the RAW with no ambiguity and teh FAQ is to clear up the misunderstandings on the lack of ambiguity (I do not think it is the latter).

In any case it should be clear that by the current set of full rules (inlcuding the FAQ), monks can take INA.  If YOU choose to ignore the FAQ and take the poisiton that it is in error and YOU decide that for YOU there is no amiguity and for YOU the rule is clear from RAW and for YOU the FAQ entry and any other material saying monks can get INA is in error, than for YOU the anwser is monks cannot take INA. 

However, that answer ignores the truly amiguous nature of this rule and the clarity brought forth by the FAQ which makes it clear that, per WotC, the rule is monks may take INA.

It's very, very difficult to see how anyone could read my last post above and not conclude that the rule of what "effects" means for monks is ambiguous as presented in the PHB.


----------



## glass (Sep 18, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Only insofar as WotC is slanted against your position.  By publishing the material in the FAQ, WotC has tacitly suggested either that ambiguity exists and the FAQ entry is for WotC to clear that up by stating the WotC position on the matter, or that it is clear that INA and monks go together by the RAW with no ambiguity (I do nto think it is the latter).



Yes, but it is my position that WotC are wrong. Therefore, what they say is relevant only to your position and has no place in what claimed to be a NPOV summary.

_EDIT: Missed a bit:_



> _In any case it should be clear that by the current set of full rules (inlcuding the FAQ), monks can take INA._



Again, it is quite clear to me that they can't. Restating your position and implying that it is obvious is not a great debating technique!



> _However, that answer ignores the truly amiguous nature of this rule and the clarity brought forth by the FAQ which makes it clear that, per WotC, the rule is monks may take INA._



Again, you can't just assert that the rules are ambiguous. You have to demontrate it, and I doubt you'll have any more luck this time than the previous ten or so.


glass.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 18, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> Yes, but it is my position that WotC are wrong. Therefore, what they say is relevant only to your position and has no place in what claimed to be a NPOV summary.
> 
> 
> glass.




Wrong.  I presented all arguments and then a summary of what one should do if one wanted to be the most "offical."

It's clear that"

1.  If one wants to be most "offical" one should follow the FAQ.

2.  If one wants to interpret the rules on Monks and INA and being perfectly clear from the RAW and declare the FAQ in error and thus claim to be following RAW, one is certainly welcome to do so, but not to also claim "offical" status for that.

Both (1) and(2) can lay a claim to following RAW, but only (1) can claim to be "official."

So why is this even importatn?  For an indiviual game, it's not, really.  But for sanctioned tournament play it is important, and for that monks may take INA because that's the offical WotC ruling on the matter.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 18, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> ...Again, you can't just assert that the rules are ambiguous. You have to demontrate it, and I doubt you'll have any more luck this time than the previous ten or so.
> 
> glass.




From my previous post:


"Did the authors mean 'effects' to mean only the effects of spells and other supernatural things? 
Did the authors mean effects in a most general sense?
Did the authors mean that if allowing their monks’ attacks to be “natural weapons” would grant them the benefit of a spell (or whatever), those attacks then are considered natural weapons for getting the benefit of that spell (or whatever).
Did the authors mean that if allowing monks’ attacks to be “natural weapons” would grant them the benefit of a feat that those attacks then are considered natural weapons for satisfying the prerequisites of the feat?"

How can those questions be *clearly and umbiguously* answered from the RAW?

Further, this board has CLEARLY shown a rather large debate on the matter, and if that's not prety good evidence of ambiguity I do not know what is.  A large number of people disagreeing on terminology seems like about the best evidence of ambiguity that there can be.

In any case, it CERTAINLY is a good reason for WotC to wade in a take a firm position on one side or the other.  They did that by publishing a FAQ entry.

The offical rule is now clearly that monks may take INA.  You are free to ignore that and declare WotC to be in error, of course.


----------



## Slaved (Sep 18, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Substitute "vending machine" for "bar".




Vending machines also do not accept anything over a 20, if they even go that high, and many do not accept most change anymore. So, does that mean that any denominations or change not accepted are not money? At that point we literally have green backs, cash, whatever you want to call it and they cannot be used.

"Vending machine" only accepts a couple of narrowly defined types of money. They could be programmed to accept a wider band, or a different band, but they typically only work for a couple of items. That again sounds like a narrowly tailored division of currency and so would fall under a special condition rule more than simply, "only accepts cash"


----------



## glass (Sep 18, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Wrong.  I presented all arguments and then a summary of what one should do if one wanted to be the most "offical."
> 
> It's clear that"
> 
> ...



Are you suggesting the the PHB and MM are not official D&D products? I'd contend that they are! And on that basis both 1 and 2 can claim to be 'official' (nearly meaningless as that is), but only 2 follows the RAW (and again your wording tries to make my position seem wrong without actually demonstrating anything!).


glass.


----------



## glass (Sep 18, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> "Did the authors mean [lots of different things, snipped]
> 
> How can those questions be *clearly and umbiguously* answered from the RAW?



They can't, but that doesn't matter, because I never claimed the authors intended the rules to work a certain way, only that they _do_ work that way.



> _Further, this board has CLEARLY shown a rather large debate on the matter, and if that's not prety good evidence of ambiguity I do not know what is.  A large number of people disagreeing on terminology seems like about the best evidence of ambiguity that there can be._



Appeal to popularity. We get a query here about number of sneak attacks per round about every other week, and that isn't ambiguous, is it?



> _In any case, it CERTAINLY is a good reason for WotC to wade in a take a firm position on one side or the other.  They did that by publishing a FAQ entry._



Not one side or the other: the side that matches the books. Sadly they chose the other side.



> _The offical rule is now clearly that monks may take INA.  You are free to ignore that and declare WotC to be in error, of course._



How magnanimous of you! Of course I am free to do that; what's more IMO I am right to do so.

And as I have said before, 'official' is meaningless. The only rules that matter for debate is the one in the books and the one in use at any given table.


glass.


----------



## Cedric (Sep 18, 2006)

Ultimately, what it comes down to in regards to Glass' position (as far as I can tell) is that Glass does not believe the PHB and MM are at all ambiguous regarding this rule. He believes that the PHB and MM are quite clear about NOT allowing Monk's to take INA. 

Therefore, since no ambiguity exists, the FAQ does not apply, since the FAQ is not allowed to add to or alter rules, but only to clarify them where ambiguity exists. 

Artoomis' opion, and my own for that matter, is that WotC acknowledges that the PHB and MM are ambiguous, therefore they have taken the step of specifying how the rule should work in the FAQ. 

So in the end my question is...if WotC thinks the rule is ambiguous, and have take the step of clarifying it and Glass doesn't think it's ambiguous and therefore doesn't require clarification...whose side should I take?

I'll take WotCs side, because they are the ones who publish the rules. If they believe a rule is ambiguous and requires clarification...then who I am to disagree with them? They should be the ultimate authority on whether or not a rule requires clarification.

As with all rules though, if I don't like the way they work officially, I'll just change them for my own game.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 18, 2006)

Cedric said:
			
		

> ...So in the end my question is...if WotC thinks the rule is ambiguous, and have take the step of clarifying it and Glass doesn't think it's ambiguous and therefore doesn't require clarification...whose side should I take?
> 
> I'll take WotCs side, because they are the ones who publish the rules. If they believe a rule is ambiguous and requires clarification...then who I am to disagree with them? They should be the ultimate authority on whether or not a rule requires clarification.
> 
> As with all rules though, if I don't like the way they work officially, I'll just change them for my own game.




Exactly.  So if Glass wants to rule a certain way in his own game, that's okay, of course, as anyone can run with any rules they want.

If someone wants to, for whatever reason, follow the OFFICIAL rules then one has to let a monk qualify for INA.

Now whether WotC is violating their own rules is a possibility, but has NO bearing on what the offical rule is as of today.

A.  To summarize, the official rule, per WotC, is that monks qualify for INA.

B.  Some folks think that ruling is at odds with the clear, unambiguous published rules and therefore the FAQ should be ignored if one wants to play by the pure RAW.

I have two issues with (B).

1.  I have shown how the rules are indeed ambiguous and no one has successfully challenged that.  (see my posts above about "Did the authors mean...?")

2.  I do not see how that matters, to tell you the truth, since WotC made a ruling on this.  If you go to a WotC-sanctioned tournament monks will be allowed to take INA.

I guess if it makes anyone feel you are cleverer than WotC (the rules publisher) in denying monks to qualify for INA, then have at it. 

I am a bit surprised at all this controversy over my simple re-stating of the various positions on this topic, plus a comment on what is currently official.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 18, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> They can't, but that doesn't matter, because I never claimed the authors intended the rules to work a certain way, only that they _do_ work that way.




And yet may disagree with you over that, citing rules support for opposite positons as yours.  Is that not pretty much the very defintion of ambiguousness in a rules set?



			
				glass said:
			
		

> Appeal to popularity. We get a query here about number of sneak attacks per round about every other week, and that isn't ambiguous, is it?




Nope - but those queries get only one unambiguous answer.  There is no long, unsettled discussion of what the rules state and whether it is clear or not.



			
				glass said:
			
		

> Not one side or the other: the side that matches the books. Sadly they chose the other side.




Sorry, but BOTH sides match the books.  Or, perhaps more accurately, NEITHER side does because "effects" is an undefined game term (or, perhaps, a game term with mutiple meanings; same difference, really). which takes us right back to my point about what was meant by the wod "effects" *in this context*



			
				glass said:
			
		

> How magnanimous of you! Of course I am free to do that; what's more IMO I am right to do so.




Well, you are certianly free to declare yourself as correct.  That, however, has no more weight that *me* declaring *myself* as correct.  Neither of those declarations removes the ambiguity of the word "effects" as used in the context of the monk.



			
				glass said:
			
		

> And as I have said before, 'official' is meaningless. The only rules that matter for debate is the one in the books and the one in use at any given table.
> 
> glass.




And that, my friend, is where you are mistaken, unless the debate is completely restricted to a debate on what the RAW says, counting only errata.  Of what value is that, truly?  If we were to argue this case before some sort of judge them, sure, this would have some actual value.

It ought to be clear by now that:

*1.  Some folks justify a pure RAW decision that monks can take INA, some use pure RAW to say monks cannot take INA.

2.  WotC weighed in and made a decision.

End of story.  All the votes are in.  All the arguments have been stated.  At this point, any "offical" game knows to allow INA for monks (for tournaments and such) and anyone else is free to be familiar with the arguments on both sides and rule either way.

What else is there?*


----------



## Pielorinho (Sep 19, 2006)

Moderator's Notes
I would like to remind folks of a couple things:
1) Address the argument, not the board member.
2) We explicitly allow more than one approach to the rules in this forum; please read the stickies at the top of this forum if you have questions.
3) If you believe that further discussion on an issue is no longer productive, please do not post again on the issue; this does not mean that you've "lost" the thread.

This thread is getting pretty heated, unnecessarily.  Allow for differences of opinions, but do not engage in vitriol, please.

Daniel


----------



## Fortain (Sep 19, 2006)

I've got a quick question for Glass. If WotC were to include an eratta for the PHB that states "Monks of any race may take INA, but those with just IUS can't.", would that be enough for you to agree that Monks can take INA?


----------



## Legildur (Sep 19, 2006)

I'm pretty sure that Glass has already indicated that a monk's eligibility for INA would need to be reflected in errata for it to be considered raw rules (caveat: too lazy to troll through the thread to check).  Certainly I hold the same (or at least very similar) view as Glass, and whilst I would disagree with the errata (if it were issued), I would consider that RAW.


----------



## glass (Sep 19, 2006)

Fortain said:
			
		

> I've got a quick question for Glass. If WotC were to include an eratta for the PHB that states "Monks of any race may take INA, but those with just IUS can't.", would that be enough for you to agree that Monks can take INA?



Well, that wouldn't be a very well formed erratum, but I suppose it probably would, depending on where they inserted that text.

If they issued an erratum that said something like: _'Replace the text "A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons", on page (whatever) of the PHB with the following; "A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects *and for the prerequisites for feats and abilities* that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons"'_, that would certainly do it.

(I got that text from the SRD so it might not exactly match the PHB, but you get the point).

_That_ is what they should have done, according to their own rules, if they wanted monks to be able to take INA. They still could do that, then this whole debate would go away, but I'm not holding my breath!


glass.


----------



## glass (Sep 19, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> And yet may disagree with you over that, citing rules support for opposite positons as yours.  Is that not pretty much the very defintion of ambiguousness in a rules set?



People can be wrong. And the very people you are appealing to obviously also thought the rules were unambiguous too, if they thought they supported _their_ position!



> _Nope - but those queries get only one unambiguous answer.  There is no long, unsettled discussion of what the rules state and whether it is clear or not._



I have seen people stubbornly cling to the 'one sneak attack per round' position for pages, in the face of overwhelming evidence. I guess some people just get their heads around the rules not working the way they thought.



> _Sorry, but BOTH sides match the books.  Or, perhaps more accurately, NEITHER side does because "effects" is an undefined game term (or, perhaps, a game term with mutiple meanings; same difference, really). which takes us right back to my point about what was meant by the wod "effects" *in this context*_



Sorry, but re-stating your position again, without backing it up again, isn't any more compelling than the umpteen previous times. Effects is not a term of art in D&D, so we can use the plain English meaning of the word, which is prefectly sufficient to get us an answer. 



> _Well, you are certianly free to declare yourself as correct.  That, however, has no more weight that *me* declaring *myself* as correct. _



Straw man again. Obviously, I believe my position to be the correct one else I wouldn't have spent many posts arguing for it, but I have never suggested that my way is right _just because I say so_. I have posted reasoned arguments which I believe are free of logial fallacies.



> _And that, my friend, is where you are mistaken, unless the debate is completely restricted to a debate on what the RAW says, counting only errata.  Of what value is that, truly?  If we were to argue this case before some sort of judge them, sure, this would have some actual value._



The rules of this forum explicitly allow multiple approaches to the rules, but you and I are arguing about the RAW. If you think it has no value, why are you even in this debate?



> _*End of story.  All the votes are in.  All the arguments have been stated.  At this point, any "offical" game knows to allow INA for monks (for tournaments and such) and anyone else is free to be familiar with the arguments on both sides and rule either way.
> 
> What else is there?*_



Again with the declaring victory, and in *bold *this time too! You can't just say that the rules are ambiguous; you have to demonstrate with well-reasoned argument that there is another valid interpretation.


glass.


----------



## Pielorinho (Sep 19, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> Sorry, but re-stating your position again, without backing it up again, isn't any more compelling than the umpteen previous times.
> ...
> Again with the declaring victory, and in *bold *this time too!



Moderator's Notes
*glass*, this sort of sarcasm is unwelcome on the forum.  Do not post in this thread again.

Daniel


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 19, 2006)

glass said:
			
		

> ... think it has no value, why are you even in this debate?
> 
> Again with the declaring victory, and in *bold *this time too! You can't just say that the rules are ambiguous; you have to demonstrate with well-reasoned argument that there is another valid interpretation.
> 
> ...




I thought about not responding to this since glass has now been told not to post agina in this thread, and so it's a little unfair to sort of sneak in teh last wroid.

Nonetheless, I am NOT declaring victory:

(1)  I simply stated that WotC's offical position is that monks qualify for INA.

(2)  Other than that, there are arguments on both sides of the issue, certainly, and a wise DM/playing group would do well to be familiar with them all so they could rule as they wish.

I'm not sure how much more of an uncontroversial a statement I could possibly make.

I apologize to "glass" for adding in this last post since he is not allowed to respond.  Sorry about that.  Perhaps someone else who shares his views on the RAW will chime in and tell me how reasonable/unreasonable I am being here.

Does ANYONE disagree with statements (1) and (2) I made in this post?

(Arrrgh!  That be a little token pirate talk since this be international talk like a pirate day!)


----------



## BryonD (Sep 19, 2006)

There is no ambiguity.

Monks clearly are allowed to take INA.


----------



## Legildur (Sep 19, 2006)

BryonD said:
			
		

> There is no ambiguity.
> 
> Monks clearly are allowed to take INA.



I would take a guess that you haven't read the preceding pages/threads on this topic


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 19, 2006)

Legildur said:
			
		

> I would take a guess that you haven't read the preceding pages/threads on this topic




Methinks perhaps he was making a joke?


----------



## BryonD (Sep 19, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Methinks perhaps he was making a joke?



Absolutely.

Though, IMO, saying yes requires a vastly lesser amount of bending over backward.


----------



## Deset Gled (Sep 19, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> (1)  I simply stated that WotC's offical position is that monks qualify for INA.
> 
> (2)  Other than that, there are arguments on both sides of the issue, certainly, and a wise DM/playing group would do well to be familiar with them all so they could rule as they wish.
> 
> ...




I disagree with statement 1.

First, adding "WotC's official position" to the front of the statement does make the statement any different from just saying "I'm right and you're wrong", it just means you're trying to hide behind someone else's pathos and circumvent the rules of the forum.  I would appreciate it if you would stop that.

Second, the Primary Source rule is also from a WotC publication, and can be considered as "official" as the FAQ.  

Third, I disagree that WotC has an "official" position on anything.  As a game term, it is completely meaningless.  As an english word, it so loosely defined that it really has no bearing on the discussion at hand.



> So why is this even importatn? For an indiviual game, it's not, really. But for sanctioned tournament play it is important, and for that monks may take INA because that's the offical WotC ruling on the matter.




Another reason this is important: third party publishers.  Note that all of the secondary WotC sources that state INA can be taken by a monk are not OGL; they are copyrighted publications.  If it can be argued that all OGL sources (i.e the SRD) says that monks cannot take INA, a third party publisher is risking a lawsuit for copyright infringement if they publish a state block showing a monk with INA.


----------



## BryonD (Sep 19, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Third, I disagree that WotC has an "official" position on anything.  As a game term, it is completely meaningless.  As an english word, it so loosely defined that it really has no bearing on the discussion at hand.



WotC disagres with your disagreement.
And I'd find it quite silly to claim that the publisher's statements of intent are not menaingful to a true interpretation of written rules.




> Another reason this is important: third party publishers.  Note that all of the secondary WotC sources that state INA can be taken by a monk are not OGL; they are copyrighted publications.  If it can be argued that all OGL sources (i.e the SRD) says that monks cannot take INA, a third party publisher is risking a lawsuit for copyright infringement if they publish a state block showing a monk with INA.



 

Exactly what copyright would this be an infringement of?
People add non-SRD stuff to their 3rd party products all the time.  That is the point.
Not that it is even relevant to this matter.  

But are you really claiming that INA monks are covered by copyright??????


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 19, 2006)

Deset Gled said:
			
		

> I disagree with statement 1.
> 
> First, adding "WotC's official position" to the front of the statement does make the statement any different from just saying "I'm right and you're wrong", it just means you're trying to hide behind someone else's pathos and circumvent the rules of the forum.  I would appreciate it if you would stop that.




Which way would it be played for a WotC-sanctioned tournament?  That's as "offical" as it gets.

I *am* right, but *only in saying that WotC has taken a position on this issue and that's the rule as far as WotC is concerned*. 

As to whether I am right or wrong over the RAW arguments I have presented in the past, that's a different matter entirely and there is much controversery and little acknowledgement that both sides can be right due to the inexact wording in the rules.  It's all about interpretation.  But that has nothing to do with what's "official" and what is not.



			
				Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Second, the Primary Source rule is also from a WotC publication, and can be considered as "official" as the FAQ.




True, but in this case you only invoke that for one interpretation of the rules.  If one went so far as to assume the only one interpretation of Monk/INA could possibly be correct (that of disallowing it), then the FAQ would be in error.  That's one mighty hefy assumption.



			
				Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Third, I disagree that WotC has an "official" position on anything.  As a game term, it is completely meaningless.  As an english word, it so loosely defined that it really has no bearing on the discussion at hand.




Really?  Is it not "offical" if WotC states their clear and unambiguous interpretation and informs their cutomer service reps of the same? 



			
				Deset Gled said:
			
		

> Another reason this is important: third party publishers.  Note that all of the secondary WotC sources that state INA can be taken by a monk are not OGL; they are copyrighted publications.  If it can be argued that all OGL sources (i.e the SRD) says that monks cannot take INA, a third party publisher is risking a lawsuit for copyright infringement if they publish a state block showing a monk with INA.




ROFL.  A lawsuit?  That's the funniest thing I've heard in a very, very long time.  A lawsuit for interpreting the rules in a way that many find to be correct and is in accordance with the FAQ?  Oh my, that's a good one.

I am amazed that folks think this rule is so cystal clear that the FAQ is in error and should be ignored.

*Ah well, I respect your right to have that opinion, of course.*

So, in the end, here's what I present as being factual:

1.  WotC published the rules on the monk and INA that turned out to be less than crystal clear.  They leave room for two basic interpretations of the rules:  Either monks quailify to take INA or they do not.

2.  WotC published a FAQ entry to clarify the issue - they have ruled that monks qualify for INA.  ("Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack (Monster Manual, page 304) to improve his unarmed strike? 
Yes. As stated on page 41 of the Player’s Handbook, a monk’s unarmed strike “is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either” which includes feats such as Improved Natural Attack.")

3.  They have their customer service reps following that rule and, by extension, all offical game play as well unless that particular game has specifically ruled otherwise (each game is prefectly entitield to specify rules variations and interpretation of their own).

4.  Therefore, if one wishes to follow what is "official" one would allow monks to qualify for INA. 

5.  If one wants to ignore the FAQ and follow RAW as closely as possible assuming that WotC may be incorrect in the FAQ, then one may either allow or disallow INA for the monk - that argument will never, ever be truly settled, it seems.

Any argument with any statement of (1) through (5)?


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 19, 2006)

So what is "offical" and what is not?

First why does it matter?  Only for two reasons:

1.  If you care.

2.  If you run WotC-sanctioned events.

Okay so is the FAQ "official?"

From the FAQ web page:  "Do you have questions about the D&D game rules? Download the official FAQ that best suits your needs."

It seems it's official.

Now I will be the first to admit that the FAQ sometimes does present a rule change in it - which properly should be in errata, but, nonetheless, they do it and consider it "official."

Bottom line, if it is in the FAQ WotC considers it "offical" and, since they own the rule set, I guess it really is "official."

For whatever that is worth.


----------



## Legildur (Sep 20, 2006)

Just because the FAQ is official, doesn't make it right.  There are numerous errors sprinkled through the FAQ.  The 'monks and INA' Q&A are potentially one of those.


----------



## Stalker0 (Sep 20, 2006)

Legildur said:
			
		

> Just because the FAQ is official, doesn't make it right.  There are numerous errors sprinkled through the FAQ.  The 'monks and INA' Q&A are potentially one of those.




However, I would also contend this isn't one of those times when the faq says something, we all post it on enworld and get a good laugh at how stupid it is. When the faq is wrong, most of the time we come to a consensus pretty fast on it. In this case, there is a legitimate split down the middle, and noone can say for certain if the faq entry is wrong. With that being the case, the FAQ is put out by wotc who makes the game and the rules...so I think a benefit of the doubt should go to the FAQ unless the community can with consensus say its wrong.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 20, 2006)

Legildur said:
			
		

> Just because the FAQ is official, doesn't make it right.  There are numerous errors sprinkled through the FAQ.  The 'monks and INA' Q&A are potentially one of those.




Quite right, there are a few errors - at least potentially.  We know for sure there have been some and some have been corrected.

Monks & INA is one of those if, and only if, you assume that the RAW clearly, unambiguously and indisputably prohibits the monk from qualifying for INA.  Even then, it could simply be that the FAQ changed the rules - it's not *supposed* to do that, but that does not really stop WotC from using it that way.

That assumption is way too much for me, at least, to make, and I have trouble believing that anyone can say the rules clearly, unambiguously and indisputably prohibits the monk from qualifying for INA.

I have no trouble at all with folks honestly saying they are correct in saying monks should not be allowed to take INA from the Core Rules by themselves.  I think that's wrong, of course, but I have no trouble seeing the validity of the argument that opposes mine.

Where I really have trouble is with those very few (I think it's very few) who think that the view that opposes their own cannot have any validity whatsoever - which is what it takes for the FAQ to be wrong in this instance.

_It's good to keep in mind, though, that what is "official" really does not mean diddly squat for anything other than offical events, unless you want it to mean something for you and your game.

In our game, for example,  our DM is a real rules stickler and is a Customer Service rep for WotC.   So *for us*, what's official *does* matter.  We allow monks to take INA, but did not do so until after the FAQ entry was added (despite my pleas to the contrary ).  So we are an example of a group that follows what is official, mostly (we do have one house rule about negative levels being used rather than losing a level for loss of level situations).

I do not know how many groups actually care what WotC says is an offical rules interpretation through publishing a question and answer in the FAQ._


----------



## Legildur (Sep 20, 2006)

Or they could issue errata.....  If INA were intended for PCs, then it'd be in the PHB, so that monks and druids (and polymorphing spellcasters) could access it.  By putting it in the MM (similarly the Leadership feat in the DMG), then there is doubt about it's availability, notwithstanding some kneejerk response in the FAQ.

But, I can see the validity of the other side of the argument as well, I just don't think it is right....

I'm happy for a DM to allow it... but I don't believe it is legitimately available to PCs.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 20, 2006)

Legildur said:
			
		

> Or they could issue errata.....  If INA were intended for PCs, then it'd be in the PHB, so that monks and druids (and polymorphing spellcasters) could access it.  By putting it in the MM (similarly the Leadership feat in the DMG), then there is doubt about it's availability, notwithstanding some kneejerk response in the FAQ.
> 
> But, I can see the validity of the other side of the argument as well, I just don't think it is right....
> 
> I'm happy for a DM to allow it... but I don't believe it is legitimately available to PCs.




All there need be is doubt for the FAQ to be correct.  Doubt means a clarification for the FAQ is prefectly legitimate.  Thus WotC feels INA is legitimately available for PCs.  Well, monks, anyway.

Now I do agree that INA was not originally intended for PCs.  However, it ended up being useful for some PCs, and some qualify - or at least they do after the FAQ (which is sort of like "after the fact," but not ).


----------



## Legildur (Sep 20, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> Now I do agree that INA was not originally intended for PCs.  However, it ended up being useful for some PCs, and some qualify - or at least they do after the FAQ (which is sort of like "after the fact," but not ).



Agreed!!!


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 20, 2006)

Artoomis said:
			
		

> All there need be is doubt for the FAQ to be correct.




I have no doubt that monks can't take INA to increase their unarmed strike damage.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 20, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> I have no doubt that monks can't take INA to increase their unarmed strike damage.




Zero doubt?  Absolutely no validity to the opposing view whatsoever?  It's completely clear from the RAW?  No possible way to interpret the rules the opposite way?

If that's *really* the way you feel, I applaud you for your certainty.  It must be wonderful to have no doubts at all.


----------



## Legildur (Sep 20, 2006)

I think you missed the    Third Wizard threw on the end of his statement.....


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 20, 2006)

Legildur said:
			
		

> I think you missed the    Third Wizard threw on the end of his statement.....




Yes, well, it's really hard to know for sure if someone is joking or not, even with smilies.  There is always doubt.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Sep 20, 2006)

Legildur said:
			
		

> I think you missed the    Third Wizard threw on the end of his statement.....




Actually, I was completely serious. 



Okay, a little too much fun with that one.  There's always going to be some doubt, else I wouldn't have flip flopped on so many issues over the years, much to my group's displeasure.


----------



## Artoomis (Sep 20, 2006)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> Actually, I was completely serious.
> 
> Okay, a little too much fun with that one.  There's always going to be some doubt, else I wouldn't have flip flopped on so many issues over the years, much to my group's displeasure.





 

So does ANYONE honestly think there is no doubt whatsoever that monks cannot take INA per RAW (not counting the FAQ)

That is:  Zero doubt. Absolutely no validity to the opposing view whatsoever. It's completely clear from the RAW. No possible way to interpret the rules the opposite way.

If anyone truly feels that way than for that person the FAQ was inappropriate and may be ignores (though it really is still "official," for whatever that's worth).

Hmm, maybe it's time for another poll.


----------



## Piratecat (Sep 20, 2006)

Thread continued here:

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=175253


----------

