Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Artoomis]

...I'd consider that a poorly worded template, if the intention was to allow them to qualify for Spring Attack.

If I'm wearing a cloak that gives a +10ft. enhancement bonus to speed, a +2 competence bonus to initiative, and a +1 competence bonus to Dex checks and Dex-based skill checks, what is the 'effect that increases speed'? Is it the cloak, or the enhancement bonus?

-Hyp.

1. My assumption was that (perhaps) the template was designed WITHOUT Spring Attack in mind but for some other purpose and it just so happened to line up with the effects of Spring Attack as well. You did not answer as to whether or not this fighter would qualify for Spring Attack.

2. It don't think it matters. Wearing the cloak gives you an effect of an increase in speed or an effect of a enhancement bonus to speed which gives you an increase in speed. Either way should lead to the same result.

 

[Anubis]

If the Sage is one of the designers, how pray tell can he be wrong about what it means? I think he knows better than you do what the rules are. I have no idea what you're talking about the one-handed/two-handed crap, so I'll refrain from that.

Any which way, though, you're in the minority in thinking the RAW disagree with the Sage's ruling. I think you just don't understand the words properly either because you don't like the result or you look way too deep into things. There's an old saying that fits this. Always take the simplest explanation, because that's usually the right one. This means that although you read the rules one way, the fact that one of the writers of said rules is saying it works this way should eliminate all confusion as to what the RAW mean. Sometimes the RAW are ambiguous or wrong, that's where the Sage and errata come in.

Either way, when the Sage says something is official, it is unless a greater number of other designers refute him. No matter how stupid you think his rulings are, it's the word of law in the official D&D world, and if you wanna play otherwise, then house rule it. You aren't in any place nor do you have any right to say he's wrong, though, because you aren't one of the designers and he is.

 

[Artoomis]

If the Sage is one of the designers, how pray tell can he be wrong about what it means? I think he knows better than you do what the rules are. I have no idea what you're talking about the one-handed/two-handed crap, so I'll refrain from that.

Any which way, though, you're in the minority in thinking the RAW disagree with the Sage's ruling. I think you just don't understand the words properly either because you don't like the result or you look way too deep into things. There's an old saying that fits this. Always take the simplest explanation, because that's usually the right one. This means that although you read the rules one way, the fact that one of the writers of said rules is saying it works this way should eliminate all confusion as to what the RAW mean. Sometimes the RAW are ambiguous or wrong, that's where the Sage and errata come in.

Either way, when the Sage says something is official, it is unless a greater number of other designers refute him. No matter how stupid you think his rulings are, it's the word of law in the official D&D world, and if you wanna play otherwise, then house rule it. You aren't in any place nor do you have any right to say he's wrong, though, because you aren't one of the designers and he is.

Well, now, the whole point of this debate is really an academic one, not a practical one about official intepretations. I think it's all about having a fun debate on what the rules really say irrespective of the Sage's ruling. At that level, it's a fun (albeit pointless, perhaps) debate.

So, I am sure most will agree you are right on the mark about the official ruling and I, for one, agree with you about what the RAW says, but others do not and the fun is in trying to convince them that my position is correct while they try and convince me that they have the correct view.

What fun! I love a good debate!

 

[Hypersmurf]

Feats both are effects and they have effects at the same time. The effect that they have is themselves.

From what I can see, the feat is Power Critical, and the effect of the feat is a +4 bonus to attack rolls to confirm a critical. The feat is not a +4 bonus; the feat provides a +4 bonus.

It stacks with itself, the effects stack, those are synonimous phrases.

I see a subtle distinction.

-Hyp.

 

[Legildur]

If the Sage is one of the designers, how pray tell can he be wrong about what it means? I think he knows better than you do what the rules are. I have no idea what you're talking about the one-handed/two-handed crap, so I'll refrain from that.

I'm not disputing that he SHOULD know better, but the one-handed/two-handed thing (and others) was so contradictary to the rules that it can throw doubt on other clarifications he has made.

Any which way, though, you're in the minority in thinking the RAW disagree with the Sage's ruling.

That's a very liberal interpretation. One of the poll options is 'Yes, because of the Sage's ruling'. You'll note that it neither says 'Yes, because of the Sage's ruling, which agrees with the RAW' or 'Yes, because of the Sage's ruling, even though it disagrees with the RAW'. And if you ignore the responses to the 'Yes, because of the Sage's ruling' as it is unclear what the underlying position was before that ruling was (but I would think it was 'No' given it took a Sage's response to bring them to that position), then you have 43 no, and 75 yes. If you include the excluded group, then I believe that the no case would be 76 - about an even split. In either case not very conclusive, particularly as the sample may be biased (though which way I could not say).

There's an old saying that fits this. Always take the simplest explanation, because that's usually the right one. This means that although you read the rules one way, the fact that one of the writers of said rules is saying it works this way should eliminate all confusion as to what the RAW mean. Sometimes the RAW are ambiguous or wrong, that's where the Sage and errata come in.

Occam's Razor is the name of the saying you are referring to. And it would equally leave the result that Monks don't qualify.

And contrary to your (continued) speculation, as a monk player, I in fact like the ruling. I'm just not convinced that the ruling is right. And there seems to be plenty of people in the same position.

Now on this part I am speculating (based on vague recollections of interviews with designers of some of the books) - maybe not each of the designers worked on the entirety of each of the books? [edit: and since confirmed below by Hypersmurf] If that were the case, then that would undermine the argument of 'designer's intent'.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If the Sage is one of the designers, how pray tell can he be wrong about what it means?

Firstly - it may be a section he didn't design. 'One of', as you note.
Secondly - if what was written is not what was intended, it's not 'interpretation' to change it back. If I intend to write that the threat range of a dagger is 20, and I write 19-20, I can't interpret it to be 20 again. I can only correct it in errata.

Either way, when the Sage says something is official, it is unless a greater number of other designers refute him.

And what happens when one designer says "X" and another says "Y"?

For example, Skip Williams says changing grip from one hand to two hands on a weapon is a free action; Andy Collins says it's a move action. Which is official?

The FAQ says on one page that acid and sonic damage ignore hardness, and on another page that hardness applies to acid and sonic damage. Which is official?

If one designer says that invisible creatures cannot flank, and a week later two more designers say "No, that's wrong - there's nothing in the rules that prevents it", does that mean that for one week, invisible creatures could not flank, or does it mean that for one week, the first designer was incorrect about his interpretation?

-Hyp.

 

[Scion]

From what I can see, the feat is Power Critical, and the effect of the feat is a +4 bonus to attack rolls to confirm a critical. The feat is not a +4 bonus; the feat provides a +4 bonus.

The feat both is and provides the +4 bonus.

What provides the bonus? the feat.
What part of the feat provides the bonus? This question makes no sense, it has no meaning. The feat is the feat.

The feat is the bonus, the bonus is the feat. One is the other. There is no seperation.

I see a subtle distinction.

Which, as far as I can tell, is not supported by the rules and it creates problems in other parts of the rules set.

If you look under what the parts of the feat are you get this:

FEAT NAME [TYPE OF FEAT]
Prerequisite: A minimum ability score, another feat or feats, a minimum base attack bonus, a minimum number of ranks in one or more skills, or a class level that a character must have in order to acquire this feat. This entry is absent if a feat has no prerequisite. A feat may have more than one prerequisite.
Benefit: What the feat enables the character (“you” in the feat description) to do. If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.
In general, having a feat twice is the same as having it once.
Normal: What a character who does not have this feat is limited to or restricted from doing. If not having the feat causes no particular drawback, this entry is absent.
Special: Additional facts about the feat that may be helpful when you decide whether to acquire the feat.

This 'is' the feat. All of these parts are the feat. If you take away or change some part of it then it becomes a different feat.

Hence, the prereqs are part of the feat, the benefit is part of the feat, etc. These all make up the overall feat.

Which, according to the raw, is an effect.

The feat provides a benefit, the feat 'is' an effect.

There is no seperation that I can find in the rules. Saying that there is without proof seems a bit off.

Plus, if such a thing were true it would cause problems in the rules set, as we have seen.

As such, I currently see nothing to support the 'seperate' distinction.


As for power critical do you agree that the feats stack? Do you also agree that the effects of the feat stack?

They are the same question, especially in this case. You can have the feat 3 times and you will get +12. It doesnt matter if you say that you have the feat three times or that you have an effect three times and they stack, both mean exactly the same thing.

 

[Hypersmurf]

1. My assumption was that (perhaps) the template was designed WITHOUT Spring Attack in mind but for some other purpose and it just so happened to line up with the effects of Spring Attack as well. You did not answer as to whether or not this fighter would qualify for Spring Attack.

All right. I'd say that as written, if the fighter were utilising an effect that allowed moving before and after the attack - like the benefit of the Spring Attack feat - he would gain a +4 Dodge bonus to AC against AoOs provoked by that movement, and for that attack, his BAB would be +4 (instead of whatever it is normally).

I wouldn't consider the template to allow him to meet the prerequisites for the feat.

2. It don't think it matters. Wearing the cloak gives you an effect of an increase in speed or an effect of a enhancement bonus to speed which gives you an increase in speed. Either way should lead to the same result.

But in neither case is the cloak considered to be the effect, yes?

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

What provides the bonus? the feat.
What part of the feat provides the bonus? This question makes no sense, it has no meaning.

The benefit of the feat provides the bonus.

You listed the parts of the feat in your quote - Prerequisites, Benefit, Normal, Special.

The Benefit of Power Critical provides the bonus. The Prerequisites don't. The Normal section doesn't.

Hence, the prereqs are part of the feat, the benefit is part of the feat, etc. These all make up the overall feat.

Absolutely. And the part of the feat that provides the bonus is the Benefit.

As for power critical do you agree that the feats stack? Do you also agree that the effects of the feat stack?

The effects of the feat stack. The feat is not a numeric quantity - it doesn't 'stack' because there's no way to add feats together, only the effects of feats.

It's not accurate to say "When using a Hammer of Thunderbolts, Gauntlets of Ogre Power stack with a Belt of Giant Strength". It's accurate to say "When using a Hammer of Thunderbolts, the bonus from Gauntlets of Ogre Power stacks with the bonus from a Belt of Giant Strength".

-Hyp.

 

[Scion]

But in neither case is the cloak considered to be the effect, yes?

The cloak produces the effect in this case. If you take away the bonus to movement it is still a cloak.

If you take away something from the feat it is no longer the feat, it may not even be a feat any longer.

They are completely seperate beasts. They work under different rules.

And really, one is a physical object with something put onto it, it does exist as a seperate entity while the other is a metaphysical something that ceases to exist if you take away what it does, because that is all that it is.