Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack? - Official answer

[Infiniti2000]

See, this is the part I don't agree with. His ruling doesn't contradict any rules, his ruling contradicts your opinion of what the text is saying. When there are two opinions regarding a matter, and an official points out which is the right one, why are you still arguing that it's not?

'Cause that's what we do, argue rules! Don't take away our fun, man!

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

'Cause that's what we do, argue rules! Don't take away our fun, man!

Yeah, 'cause if we didn't do that, this'd just turn into the Off Topic forum and, really, one Hivemind thread is more than enough for any one website.

 

[FireLance]

I think we can agree at least on that. I can't imagine us squeezing any more blood from this stone...

I think I'll just squeeze one more. The main reason given why monks cannot take Improved Natural Attack (unless they have a natural weapon) seems to be that a feat is its entirety not an effect, or that the prerequisities of a feat (at least) are not an effect.

However, the Human Heritage feat (p. 152 of Races of Destiny) states "You are treated as a humanoid with the human subtype for the purpose of adjudicating all effects. If you are not a humanoid, your type changes to humanoid and you gain the human subtype. If you are already a humanoid, you gain the human subtype" (emphasis mine).

The sidebar on p. 150 of the same book clarifies that humanoids with the human subtype "qualify as human for the purpose of meeting a prerequisite for a feat or a prestige class".

Obviously, a character with the Human Heritage feat meets the prerequisites of human-only feats or prestige classes because the feat actually makes the character a humanoid with the human subtype.

The question really is, whether the first sentence describes the intent of the feat, and the other sentences explain the implementation (i.e. this is what the feat does, and this is how the feat does it), or whether the first sentence is entirely superfluous. After all, if the feat already makes you a humanoid with the human subtype, it goes without saying that you should be treated as such for all effects.

The first interpretation implies that the whole of a feat (including its prerequisites) is an effect, or that the prerequisites of feats are also effects. The second implies that the first sentence is irrelevant and may as well be deleted as its meaning is already covered by the subsequent sentences.

I doubt this will sway anyone with a truly entrenched position, but it might persuade those on the fence.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The question really is, whether the first sentence describes the intent of the feat, and the other sentences explain the implementation (i.e. this is what the feat does, and this is how the feat does it), or whether the first sentence is entirely superfluous. After all, if the feat already makes you a humanoid with the human subtype, it goes without saying that you should be treated as such for all effects.

That's similar to Hold Person:

"The subject becomes paralyzed and freezes in place. It is aware and breathes normally but cannot take any actions, even speech."

Is "cannot take any actions" a result of the first sentence, or in addition to the first sentence?

The paralyzed condition prevents you taking any actions except purely mental actions.

So is someone under the Hold Person spell able to take purely mental actions (since the paralyzed condition allows them), or not (since the spell states, separately from the paralyzed condition, that the subject 'cannot take any actions')?

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

...You say feats are effects, I say feats provide effects. The rules back me up.

And yet they ALSO contradict you. Therefore, it's a matter of interpretation and that's now be done officially. Simple, eh?

 

[Pinotage]

'Cause that's what we do, argue rules! Don't take away our fun, man!

Heh! No, I really like the rules forum - I'm by no means a guru on the rules, so it's very insightful to read both sides of the fence, and it gives you a deeper understanding of the underlying issues and mechanics. I wouldn't give up arguing the rules, unless, as it seems to be the case here, things end up in a stalemate.

Pinotage

 

[Algolei]

Arg, I can't believe I read this whole thing--curse you, reveal, and your silly link too!

I would have to agree that a feat is not its effect, in much the same way as a 15 Strength is not its +2 modifier. As written, the monk does not qualify as having a natural attack except with regard to spells and effects, and therefore does not qualify for the feat in question (whatever the heck it even was, I dunno anymore).

And I think that sucks. :\

 

[FireLance]

I would have to agree that a feat is not its effect, in much the same way as a 15 Strength is not its +2 modifier. As written, the monk does not qualify as having a natural attack except with regard to spells and effects, and therefore does not qualify for the feat in question (whatever the heck it even was, I dunno anymore).

And I think that sucks. :\

Yeah, a 15 Strength is not its +2 modifier, but that is not the issue. The issue is, if you have a Strength of 11, and you have an ability that says "your Strength is treated as 2 points higher for the purpose of all effects", do you qualify to take the Power Attack feat?

If the whole of a feat is an effect, or the prerequisite of a feat is also considered an effect, you qualify for Power Attack. However, if only the benefit of a feat is considered an effect, or the prerequisites of a feat are not an effect, then you do not.

 

[Algolei]

Yeah, a 15 Strength is not its +2 modifier, but that is not the issue. The issue is, if you have a Strength of 11, and you have an ability that says "your Strength is treated as 2 points higher for the purpose of all effects", do you qualify to take the Power Attack feat?

But...that's exactly what I'm talking about. If it qualifies for the purpose of all effects, it doesn't qualify for the purpose of a feat--because a feat is not its effect any more than a 15 Strength is not its +2 modifier.

If the whole of a feat is an effect, or the prerequisite of a feat is also considered an effect, you qualify for Power Attack. However, if only the benefit of a feat is considered an effect, or the prerequisites of a feat are not an effect, then you do not.

Exactly. "The whole of a feat" is not an effect, because the feat itself is more than just the effect it confers.

 

[turbo]

a 15 Strength is not its +2 modifier

The +2 modifier is not an effect of the strength score. God.

The +2 modifier is just another way of representing one aspect of what a 15 strength score is.

Yes; in plain English, we say that the score gives the bonus, but, mechanically, that's not what happens: you don't cast your strength to get the score; you don't ask your strength to provide the score. The score and its bonus are just different representations of the same thing.

To suggest otherwise is to claim, for example, that a function causes its curve.

Similarly, no one burns an offering of a feat-slot to a feat-spirit to receive a feat-effect in return.

As part of level-gain, a character has the option of changing his aspects. The term 'feat' just refers to and codifies this change.

So, by taking Improved Initiative, it becomes an aspect of the character that he has a +4 to his initiative. He doesn't cast Improved Initiative on himself to receive the effect of the bonus.

No; he changes his abilities as a result of gaining in level. The changes are an effect of leveling up, and we call these changes feats.

The mistake, the huge and maddening mistake, is to regard the feats themselves as the source of the change they represent.

It's like saying that the word 'aging' causes people to grow old. Or that numbers cause things to add up.

Normally, this doesn't make any bit of difference: the reification of the feat has no consequences.

But in this case mistaking the representation for the thing itself confuses things terribly and results in absurdity. Pretending that feats generously divest themselves of their benefits at the petition of the characters is fine for ordinary language, but to try to apply that as a description of how the pieces of the game fit together is pure superstition.