Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Borlon]

And I claim that a feat doesn't grant anything. It's simply the name given to an ability that is gained as a character levels, provided that character qualifies for the feat. It's like saying a Level grants more hit points, etc. A level is just a way of measuring a character's power and experience. It is nothing in and of itself. Feats are the same.

You could say the same thing about ability scores and hit points, couldn't you? That they are nothing but an abstraction representing the character's competence in a particular area of expertise. Ability scores represent the ability to engage in different kinds of mental and physical activities, hit points to avoid harm in combat situations (which are also highly abstract) and so on. Spell slots too; they are just a mechanic for book-keeping. But then you could say that combat, magic, and all other mental and physical activities are just abstractions and book-keeping aids, not real in themselves, ...

Where do you stop? If for any element of the game you could say that it is nothing in itself, then the content of the rules-set is completely vacuous, and you would have no reason to bother arguing about it.

If, on the other hand, there are game elements which are basic, real, and irreducible, what are they? And if feats can be understood in terms of these basic elements, are they not themselves also real?

Neither alternative is particularly appealing; it seems to be a genuine dilemma.

 

[Scion]

Best evidence for you to date, though it is more evidence of poor rule-writing than anything else, I think. Of course, with excellent rules-writing we wouldn't get to have the really cool debates, now, would we.

I dont think that stating 'too much' information is bad generally.

They could have even said, 'orcs, halforcs, or any creature with the 'orcs blood' feature' to be even more thorough.

But, having said that would not suddenly mean that other parts of the raw are incorrect, merely that they said more than was needed (or were redundant, if you prefer).

 

[Zandel]

I still say some feats are effects and others are NOT effects.....

scion could you explain how craft construct for example could possibly be an effect?

 

[Scion]

It is a pile of knowledge and training. The effect is that you are able to make constructs. The feat is merely a representation of that training in a convinient form.

So, instead of saying, 'I am able to make constructs useing process X over Y through Z' you can simply say, 'I have craft construct' and people know what you mean. You have the ability to make constructs.

In much the same way that a skill is representative of training in some skill or knowledge.

 

[Zandel]

My point exactly skills are not effects. they allow you to make use of certain effects but they themselves are not effects. Some feats are like that too, such as craft construct.

 

[Dimwhit]

Zandel, I think you're getting hung up on what an 'effect' is. In D&D, it has no real meaning. All an effect is is something that changes or occurs as a result of an action or some other cause (dictionary definition). D&D doesn't give 'effect' any in-game meaning. Skills are effects because, for example, your character can tumble better because he gained a level. Or he can figure out what spell is being cast because of his spellcraft skill. The effect is that he got better at something as a result of leveling up. There's really nothing more to it than that. I think our debate over feats being effects have confused that issue.

 

[Hypersmurf]

So you are saying that being thorough in listing, possibly trying to keep down questions of this nature, is evidence 'against' them being effects?

So does a half-orc, in your opinion, qualify for Blood of the Warlord?

The two prerequisites ('Orc' and 'Orc or Half-Orc') are written differently.

-Hyp.

 

[Scion]

Feats are effects though.

If you dont feel that gaining knowledge through leveling is not an effect of leveling I cannot help you.

If you do not feel that being able to make a construct is not an effect I cannot help you.

Feats both are effects and have effects. They 'are' what they 'do'. One cannot be divorced from the other.

When you take that feat you are able to craft constructs. The effect of having the feat is that you can craft constructs. The effect is being able to craft constructs. That means that the effect 'is' the feat.

You are able to craft constructs, that is the effect, which is the feat, which is the effect, which is the feat, which is the effect.. etc etc.

 

[Legildur]

Nope. My analysis showed the MAXIMUM possible votes for "no" was 40% because the TOTAL number of votes is shown - even if all 33 were "no" it can only add 19 to the "no" vote column at the most. Some folks chose not to vote "yes" or "no" - 19 of them, in fact.
We are trying yo guess which way they would have voted, whihc is a bit silly, perhaps, but even still cannot sway the total to more than 40% of the total voters to the "no" side, but likely not that many.

Funny, I come up with a different conclusion. The poll (as I write this) stands at:

No, not per the Rules as Wriiten (RAW). 29
Yes, per the RAW. 71
Yes, because of the Sage's recent ruling. 33
No, but I'll allow it in my games. 16
Yes, but I'll disallow it in my games. 6

To me, the 33 are people that would have voted No, except that the Sage has come out and said that it is okay, otherwise they just would have polled 'Yes, per the RAW'.

So, if we accept that the Sage's answer is potentially flawed, then the No case has 78(29+33+16) votes, and the Yes case with 77 votes.

However, I will entertain the possibility that SOME of the 33 votes may have thought 'Yes, per the RAW', but felt that the 'Yes/Sage' was a more affirmative position. Although I suspect that there would not be many cases.

Either way, I dispute the claim that there is a clear majority either way.

And while Anubis has taken his 'problems' elsewhere, I will agree with him that Hypersmurf's line of argument (and the counterarguments) hurts my head, too!

And just to restate for the record, I like the ruling, but disagree with it.

 

[Scion]

So does a half-orc, in your opinion, qualify for Blood of the Warlord?

The two prerequisites ('Orc' and 'Orc or Half-Orc') are written differently.

I do not have this book. What do you mean by 'written differently'?