Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack?: The Poll!

[Scion]

By that logic, feats are also class features.

Umm.. no, not if we are useing english.

'I have blue, white, and red apples' does not mean that blue = white, but it does mean that I have some blue apples, some white apples, and some red apples.

In this case it says, 'feat, class feature, or other permanent effect'. This means that a feat is a permanent effect, which I dont think it takes any real leap in logic to then say that a feat is an effect.

As a corallary, it also means that class features are effects.

 

[Scion]

I like to look at the question from a few angles. Like, should there be a feat so beneficial for an entire class that anyone NOT taking it is sacrificing significant power? Or, should there be a feat that accelerates the power curve of a level dependent class feature?

To both of those I say, no. Natural Spell is at the top of my tolerance for the first, and I can't think of any examples of the second.

If we take your 'entire class' to mean 'specific type of build' then there are litereally tons of feats which would violate your conditions.

Such as improved trip being fairly necissary for those who wish to trip people. Or twf being necissary for those who want to fight with two weapons at the same time.

Even weapon focus could be said to violate the second question.

Iron will on a fighter could be said to be accelerating the save of that type and really helping out vs those will saves that they are normally weak to.

So, to me, it sounds like you are saying that there shouldnt be feats in the game

 

[Vurt]

Umm.. no, not if we are useing english.

'I have blue, white, and red apples' does not mean that blue = white, but it does mean that I have some blue apples, some white apples, and some red apples.

Your argument is slightly flawed, in that you have switched the original sentence with one that presupposes you are correct.

Now if you had written "apples, pears, or other poisonous fruit", you may have had me.

In this case it says, 'feat, class feature, or other permanent effect'. This means that a feat is a permanent effect, which I dont think it takes any real leap in logic to then say that a feat is an effect.

As a corallary, it also means that class features are effects.

Actually, I think the wording implies that effects are usually temporary. Feats can provide effects, but so can spells. This is not to imply that feats are permanent spells or that permanent spells are feats. Even a small leap of logic there is a leap of logic.

On a brighter note, it looks to me like a mantle of spell resistance, being a "permanent effect" by any stretch of words, allows me to qualify for the Improved Spell Resistance feat! Woohoo!

Still, if you wish to follow-up to this, it should probably be done in the other thread.

Cheers,
Vurt

 

[Scion]

Your argument is slightly flawed, in that you have switched the original sentence with one that presupposes you are correct.

Now if you had written "apples, pears, or other poisonous fruit", you may have had me.

As far as I know that is not grammatically correct because neither apples nor pears are designated as 'poisonous fruit'.

The logic chain you tried to make work before is just nonsense. It doesnt work that way in the english language.


I have already made a comment about this in the other thread about a very similar thing. However, your equality arguement simply does not hold.

'I have seen bears, tigers, and other mammals' does not mean that a bear is a tiger, but it does mean that they are both mammals.

 

[Nifft]

I want to rebut the lack of a silly option on the poll, like "Cheesecake!"

Forced to decide, I chose "no".

-- N

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I think they should be able to, but can't. So I voted can't.

 

[Particle_Man]

So far, over 3 to 1 in favor, and the Sage is onboard too. So what do we win?

 

[TheEvil]

So far, over 3 to 1 in favor, and the Sage is onboard too. So what do we win?

The ability to self-rigously say with firm conviction that your side is right!
I tend to pop these polls up anytime one of the rules arguments goes too far. Particularly if any side is claiming that no one supports the other view. I am also just plain curious what the majority opinion is.

 

[Vurt]

As far as I know that is not grammatically correct because neither apples nor pears are designated as 'poisonous fruit'.

Actually, it's not absolutely necessary for apples and pears to be poisonous. The sentence does still work, and grammatically so.

The logic chain you tried to make work before is just nonsense. It doesnt work that way in the english language.

No, it can work. It just usually doesn't work like this. What if the apples and pears were in fact poisonous? What if they had gone rotten, and eating them would have you running to the can?

My point is simply that in "A, B, or other X", it is implied that A and B are related to X, but this isn't actually a requirement, either grammatically in English, or logically for that matter. And yes, I agree that it shouldn't work that way, but it does.

Cheers,
Vurt

 

[Particle_Man]

"A, B, or other X" does logically and grammatically entail that A and B are both species of the genus X. The meaning of the word "other" is what makes that happen, because there has to be something to which the word "other" refers to which it can be "other than" in order for the word "other" to be meaningfully used in the sentence. Unless there is a larger sentence or paragraph in which the phrase is embedded to which the word "other" can refer to.

There is no such "embeddedness" in the following:

IMPROVED SPELL RESISTANCE [EPIC]
Prerequisite: Must have spell resistance from a feat, class feature, or other permanent effect.

Therefore, a feat is necessarily a permanent effect, and a class feature is also necessarily a permanent effect. However, a feat is not necessarily a class feature, and a class feature is not necessarily a feat. Just as "a pear, apple, or other fruit" means that a pear is necessarily a fruit, an apple is necessarily a fruit, but a pear is not necessarily an apple and an apple is not necessarily a pear.

You would have had a slightly better case trying to argue that maybe a class feature is a permanent effect but a feat is not, but the comma before the "or other" would stop that line of argument.