Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack? - Official answer

[Scion]

As does the act of taking a feat: 'taking this feat grants...'--but the trick is not to get tricked by the grammar into a game-mechanical separation of a feat from its effect, which doesn't exist under the Rules As Written.

Hey, like I posted earlier:

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.

 

[Scion]

They stated it, the burden of proof is upon you who wants to know, to find it.

Apparently you do not know what 'burden of proof' means.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I dont think that is too much to ask. I am sorry if anyone else thinks that it is.

It's not too much to ask if you believe that such examples not only do not exist, but cannot exist. But, I'm not entirely sure that that's what you are postulating.

 

[Scion]

No doubt it would be a lot of work to produce an exhaustive list.

I dont want exhaustive, I just want a few actual examples It is always nice to have something real to look at.

Patryn gave a nice one above actually.

 

[Prince Sharam]

Oh, I do. I know that someone confident in their answer doesn't have to please someone else, and the inquisitive mind, once presented with examples of facts, if they have the zeal, will persue that to know it.

It's a casual question, admit it. Else we wouldn't have 5 pages of ping-pong like discussion going on.

 

[Artoomis]

Just for fun, here's a counter-argument to my own position.

Magical weapon effects (like paralyzations, etc., etc.) caused by creating a magical weapon clearly are "effects" that should apply to a monk's special attack, yet it seems just as clear that one cannot simply put enough time, material and xp into re-working a monk's special attack like one would do an actual manufactured weapon. Allowing that is way too much of a stretch for me and I think for anyone else reading this.

In a similar way, a feat's effects being applicable does not necessarily mean the monk qualifies for the feat. If a monk's special attack is not considered a manufactured weapon for the purpose of creating magic weapons (that is, granting effects by way of creating them in making or improving a weapon), then why should it be considered one for a feat?

Of course, I think it does - but, like I said, the rules can be made to support either position.

 

[Scion]

Oh, I do. I know that someone confident in their answer doesn't have to please someone else

If you did know then you wouldnt have made your comment.

If someone has a claim then they are under the burden of proof to prove their claim, it is not up to others to disprove it.

Although people do on occasion like to disprove things, that is not the same thing at all.


In america people are innocent until proven guilty. It is up to the prosecution to prove them guilty, it is not up to the person to prove that they are innocent. Burden of proof rests on the claimant that something exists.

Hence, someone said that there were examples, I asked them to show the examples. Choosing to not give examples would to me mean that their arguement has no founding and so is irrelevant.

Burden of proof is a very important tool. It is also very important to not use it incorrectly

 

[turbo]

Must have spell resistance from a feat, class feature, or other permanent effect.

Oh well; if a feat is only a "permanent effect", not an "effect", then I guess that the whole argument's out the window!!!

 

[Scion]

Magical weapon effects (like paralyzations, etc., etc.) caused by creating a magical weapon clearly are "effects" that should apply to a monk's special attack, yet it seems just as clear that one cannot simply put enough time, material and xp into re-working a monk's special attack like one would do an actual manufactured weapon. Allowing that is way too much of a stretch for me and I think for anyone else reading this.

Isnt the main, and possibly only, reason that monks fists cannot be enchanted is because they are not masterwork?

There is a prc that allows for a monk to enchant his attacks.. kensai maybe?

 

[Artoomis]

Isnt the main, and possibly only, reason that monks fists cannot be enchanted is because they are not masterwork?

There is a prc that allows for a monk to enchant his attacks.. kensai maybe?

Maybe so. If so, that further supports my orginal position.

And so it goes...