Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack? - Official answer

[Infiniti2000]

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

And how about if you gain a feat without a level-gain?

 

[turbo]

And how about if you gain a feat without a level-gain?

It still only represents a change in the aspects of the character--a change effected by something other than itself. By something other than the representation of the change.

Your character now knows how to make potions or has a bonus to a particular skill--well; we'll call that a Brew Potion feat or a Skill Focus feat and we'll say that the new ability has this or that limitations, but to suggest that, because it has a name or a particular form, that the change is then caused by its name or by its form, while fine for talking about the change in an ordinary way, is completely unacceptable for determining how the change takes place under the rules.

 

[Algolei]

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

My reasoning is that you only get the +2 effect when you have the appropriate Strength score, not the other way around. The +2 modifier is one of the effects of being that strong.

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

Yes, exactly: One aspect of the Strength score. One of its effects.

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.

Actually, yes, you do "ask" your Strength score to provide the bonus. Without the appropriate Strength, you do not gain the bonus; you would not say it the other way around, nor is it logical to think of it that way.

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

No, it is to claim, for example, that an Attribute causes an Effect.

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

I have no idea what that would look like.

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

Yes! Everything is "codified." However, a feat is not its effect.

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.

If I grew a pair of wings, I could fly. However, I do not grow the effect of flight--that is the effect granted by the wings.

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.

But this is a game, with mathematical mechanics. The feats are the source of their effects.

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

Nah. It's more like saying aging is an effect of the passage of time, or that reaching the wrong conclusion is the effect of jumping the wrong way.

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.

Not being spiritual myself, I'm not sure what that means.

That's why I like easily defined things.

 

[turbo]

One aspect of the Strength score. One of its effects

They're not even close to being synonyms:


Aspect: a characteristic to be considered

effect: a phenomenon that follows and is caused by some previous
phenomenon;

My reasoning is that you only get the +2 effect when you have the appropriate Strength score, not the other way around. The +2 modifier is one of the effects of being that strong.

Your reasoning is wrong: if I tell you that a character has a +2 ability bonus, it means that he has a 14 or 15 in that ability. There's a correlation between the two representations, but this does not constitute a causal relationship. The +2 ability bonus and the 14-15 ability score are just two representations of the character's inherent strength.

There is no "getting" of the bonus, in other words. There's only how we describe the same amount of strength in different contexts.

Without the appropriate Strength, you do not gain the bonus; you would not say it the other way around, nor is it logical to think of it that way.

Incorrect. Having that strength score is the same thing as having the bonus. You don't 'gain' or 'get' the bonus. You already have it when you have that score.


The moment when the strength score provides the bonus doesn't exist. Because that bonus is already there--always. The one is just a translation of the other: the bonus is just a way of saying how you apply the character's strength score to various rolls.

If I grew a pair of wings, I could fly. However, I do not grow the effect of flight--that is the effect granted by the wings.

No! This is the real crux! You grow wings as a result of something else other than the act of growing wings. 'Growing wings' is a phenomenon that results from another phenomenon. Whether you use them to fly or not is irrelevant--it doesn't matter if there's an 'effect of flight'.

But this is a game, with mathematical mechanics. The feats are the source of their effects.

Do feats come from nowhere? Are they unmotivated motivators? No; the character receives them from some other action. They are the results of, the effects of some other action.

If a character levels up and says, 'I want my guy to have the ability to brew potions,' and the DM says, 'ok', then the guy now has the ability to brew potions.

That's all that happens. There's no intermediary, no extra step. Not even when you codify that process as taking the Brew Potion feat.


Look; the problem, I think, is that people look at feats as if they were spells. They're completely different. If a feat has a parallel with any part of the spell system, it's with the numbers in spell slots.

So:

Ragnar is a character who 'can cast 4 third-level spells'.

Ragnar is a character who 'can brew potions'.

Ragnar is a character who 'adds 4 to his initiative rolls'.

 

[Infiniti2000]

It still only represents a change in the aspects of the character--a change effected by something other than itself. By something other than the representation of the change.

Huh? I'm not sure what metaphysical angle you are taking, but it don' make no sense.

 

[FireLance]

Look at it this way, then. Even if a prerequisite is not an effect, does it have an effect? If it has an effect, what is that effect? If it does not have an effect, what is the purpose of a prerequisite?

 

[RigaMortus2]

Your reasoning is wrong: if I tell you that a character has a +2 ability bonus, it means that he has a 14 or 15 in that ability. There's a correlation between the two representations, but this does not constitute a causal relationship. The +2 ability bonus and the 14-15 ability score are just two representations of the character's inherent strength.

There is no "getting" of the bonus, in other words. There's only how we describe the same amount of strength in different contexts.

Incorrect. Having that strength score is the same thing as having the bonus. You don't 'gain' or 'get' the bonus. You already have it when you have that score.


The moment when the strength score provides the bonus doesn't exist. Because that bonus is already there--always. The one is just a translation of the other: the bonus is just a way of saying how you apply the character's strength score to various rolls.

If I have a Strength of 13 and I hit level 4, what happens? I add a +1 to Str, which in turn bumps up my Str to 14, which in turn puts my Str modifier from +1 to +2... So at some point, that moment does exist. You don't work in reverse, adding a +1 bonus to your modifier (making it +2), which in turn bumps your Str up to 14. It only works one way, not the other. Your Str modifier increasing is an effect of your Strength score rising, not the other way around, right?

 

[mvincent]

Wow: 236 posts in this thread (237 now I guess).

Just noting that this question has just been answered by the Sage in the most recent Dragon magazine. If you want an offical answer, feel free to read it. If you are a firm believer that a monk cannot take improved natural attack no matter what is said, don't.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Just noting that this question has just been answered by the Sage in the most recent Dragon magazine.

That was, of course, noted in the very first of those 236 posts

-Hyp.

 

[mvincent]

239 posts in a matter of days?! (I just received it myself... and I have a subscription even) Wow.
My bad. I wasn't planning to read all of them, but I guess I coulda paid more attention to the first one