Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Zandel]

However you can still take a feat that gives you no imediate benefit as long as you meet the prerequisits.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Not according to the OP from the other thread.

The Sage is Andy Collins.

SIDE NOTE: About enhancing versus making things worse, please keep in mind that by the book definition of enhance, any change up or down is counted as such. A longsword -1 has a -1 enhancement. Yeah, I know it sounds silly, but it makes things simpler to keep track of at least. Anyway, that's what the book states. Enhance can be good OR bad. That's why you can have enhancement penalties.

Penalties in 3.5, with very few exceptions (most of which are cut-and-paste typos) are unnamed.

Example: "–2 Sword, Cursed: This longsword performs well against targets in practice, but when used against an opponent in combat, it causes its wielder to take a –2 penalty on attack rolls."

It's not an enhancement penalty, it's an unnamed penalty.

-Hyp.

 

[Anubis]

Don't you just love how the smarf likes to skip over posts that prove him wrong as mine do? Look, monks qualify because as per the ability, their unarmed strikes are considered natural weapons for the purposes of such effects. Saying they don't qualify for the prerequisite is a very silly interpretation of what is otherwise a clearly written rule, and even the designers say so.

Again, they made the rules, so only their interpretation matters when it comes to what's official. You may choose to go with some other interpretation at your table, but then that is a house rule. So please just get over it, you've lost. You're just a player or DM, and the designers have said you are wrong about the official rule, so you are.

EDIT: WHOA! When did Andy Collins become the Sage? Last I read Dragon the author of the column was Skip Williams. Not like it matters, though. As I said, they're both on the design team anyway.

On the cursed sword, I'm pretty certain that they figure since you already know a +1 sword have a +1 enhancement bonus, you can figure out for yourself the cursed one has an enhancement penalty. I doubt it's a typo, it's just you misinterpreting things again. There are several spells that give enhancement penalties as an attack effect, although I couldn't name them all (I rarely use status spells myself because I prefer raw damage).

Still, you keep dodging the issue. I'm guessing that means you concede, eh?

 

[Scion]

Being eligible for the benefit of a feat, and meeting the prerequisites of a feat, are two completely separate things.

Being able to 'use' the benefit is something seperate. The fighter 1 could get power attack (assuming a str 13+) but he couldnt use it for anything.

However, that does not apply to the case of the monk. The whole reason that he monk qualifies is 'because' he can gain the benefit.

 

[Dimwhit]

Being eligible for the benefit.

A Fighter with enough ranks in Spellcraft meets the prerequisites for the Practiced Spellcaster feat. However, since the benefit must be applied to 'a spellcasting class you possess', he is not eligible for the benefit.

A Fighter-2 is eligible for the benefit of Improved Critical (longsword) - there's no reason he can't improve his threat range with the weapon. But he doesn't meet the prerequisites (BAB +8, for example), so he can't take the feat.

Being eligible for the benefit of a feat, and meeting the prerequisites of a feat, are two completely separate things.

-Hyp.

Hyp, that makes no sense. The second fighter above is not eligible for the feat because he doesn't have a BAB +8. When he does, he will be eligible for it.

I don't see how you draw the conclusion that you can be eligible for a feat without meeting the prereqs. A fighter isn't eligible for Power Attack unless he has a STR 13. A Wizard isn't eligible for the Craft Wand feet unless he's 5th level. Being eligible and meeting the prereqs are synonymous terms. They serve the same purpose.

 

[Legildur]

<snip>Saying they don't qualify for the prerequisite is a very silly interpretation of what is otherwise a clearly written rule, and even the designers say so.

If you fold the poll responses from those that agree that monks can take INA AFTER the Sage said so then the results are fairly evenly split. There must be an awful lot of silly people out there......

<snip>So please just get over it, you've lost.<snip>

And you may very well be right. And I'm not 100% convinced either way. But it has been proved several times already that the Sage (and the FAQ) gets it wrong on occasions and directly contradicts the RAW. Not exactly confidence inspiring stuff. And certainly the poll results would indicate nothing conclusive about who has 'lost' or 'won'.

 

[Artoomis]

Being eligible for the benefit.

A Fighter with enough ranks in Spellcraft meets the prerequisites for the Practiced Spellcaster feat. However, since the benefit must be applied to 'a spellcasting class you possess', he is not eligible for the benefit.

A Fighter-2 is eligible for the benefit of Improved Critical (longsword) - there's no reason he can't improve his threat range with the weapon. But he doesn't meet the prerequisites (BAB +8, for example), so he can't take the feat.

Being eligible for the benefit of a feat, and meeting the prerequisites of a feat, are two completely separate things.

-Hyp.

Ah but this case is different.

If a first level fighter had some sort of template that had them considered to have the Mobility Feat and a BAB of +4 for the purposes of effects that allow moving before and after an attack, they'd meet the prerequisites for Spring Attack, right?

Do you agree or not?

The qualifier is not if you are eligible for the benefit but if you meet the prerequisites situationally because of the benefit provided by the feat. Assuming, of course that you consider the benefits of the feat (or even the feat itself) to be an "effect."

 

[Anubis]

And you may very well be right. And I'm not 100% convinced either way. But it has been proved several times already that the Sage (and the FAQ) gets it wrong on occasions and directly contradicts the RAW. Not exactly confidence inspiring stuff. And certainly the poll results would indicate nothing conclusive about who has 'lost' or 'won'.

You don't have to be convinced, this is about what the official rule is. The FAQ and the Sage and the errata are all around to clarify or correct things that is either printed wrong or disputed interpretation-wise. The FAQ, the Sage, and the errata all trump the RAW because, you know, typos happen. Sometimes there is a mistake in the RAW that isn't caught, or maybe that the designers understand but they don't realize some select readers won't understand. That's where the FAQ, the Sage, and the errata come in. The errata is for flat-out mistakes. The Sage is there is clarify things where the RAW may say something that is clear to the designers but is written in a way that some would say is incorrect if viewed a certain way, as some of you have done here. The FAQ tries to cover any other questions that arise. Since they all come from the original source (the designers), that is why their word trumps the RAW in all cases. Even then, you're in the minority in thinking the RAW don't allow the monk to take the feat, because I (and many others) see what the designers are saying and aren't confused in the least by it. What makes us right is that one of the designers personally validated our view on it and clarified it in an official way that leaves absolutely no room for dispute over the official rule.

If a first level fighter had some sort of template that had them considered to have the Mobility Feat and a BAB of +4 for the purposes of effects that allow moving before and after an attack, they'd meet the prerequisites for Spring Attack, right?

Do you agree or not?

If the fighter has Dex 13 and Dodge as well, then yes, he could then take Spring Attack, no doubt about it.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The second fighter above is not eligible for the feat because he doesn't have a BAB +8.

There are situations in which someone can acquire a feat without needing to meet the prerequisites. Racial bonus feats; the monk's bonus feats like Improved Trip; etc.

But I didn't say he's eligible for the feat. I said he's eligible for the benefit of the feat. He doesn't get the benefit unless he has the feat, but if he has the feat, the benefit can apply.

Contrast this with Practiced Spellcaster, where even if the fighter has the feat, he isn't eligible for the benefit - it cannot apply to him.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

You don't have to be convinced, this is about what the official rule is...

Actually not. I think we all know what the offical rule is, due to the ruling by the Sage.

The question is:

Does the RAW contradict the Sage, support him, or leave it ambiguous? If the question was only, "What is the offical rule?" then this would be a very short thread indeed.

To re-phrase. What is the posiiton of the RAW on the question of whether a monk qualifies for the feat Improve Natural Attack. I think that is the question we are debating.