Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Artoomis]

...3. DM: The context matters. Does the ability say you have a natural weapon for the purposes of meeting prerequisites? No? Then you don't have a natural weapon for the purposes of meeting prerequisites even though you have one for the purposes of effects...glass.

A prerequisite for WHAT? Context matters.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Good catch!

What most people don't realize is that Hyp has a team of high school students doing rules research for him 24/7.

 

[glass]

A prerequisite for WHAT? Context matters.

But it only matters when it suits your arguments, but not when it suits mine?

I have demonstrated why I don't think a prerequisite is an effect. Unless you can bring a counter argument as to why it is, then it doesn't matter what it is a prerequisite for because it is not an effect (or a spell), and the monk's ability deals with spells and effects.


glass.

 

[Borlon]

3. DM: Hmmm… the prerequisite is for getting an effect that enhances a natural weapon AND grants a natural armor bonus. Since you have a natural weapon for the purpose of an effect that enhances a natural weapon and do not have a natural weapon for the purpose of an effect that enhances a natural armor, I'm going to rule you do not qualify as qualifying would grant you an effect that your character is not entitiled to have.

From A&B you may validly deduce A. If an effect enhances a natural weapon and grants a natural armor bonus, then it enhances a natural weapon. The effect is therefore an effect that enhances a natural weapon. The monk therefore is treated as having a natural weapon by the effect. There is no relevant difference between this example and INA.

If the rule was that the monk's unarmed attacks count as natural weapons for spells and effects that do nothing else except enhance natural attacks, then the reasoning quoted above would be correct. But I don't think the underlined text can be legitimately read in.

 

[glass]

I am uneasy about the feat as a whole being considered an effect. An effect of leveling up. I wouldn't dispute the fact that INA enhances natural weapons, though. I take it, then, that you share my discomfort with taking feats as effects. Could you share the reasons for your discomfort? I haven't been able to get beyond the feeling stage, myself, and I can't find solid (or even tenuous) arguments for feats not being effects.

I would say that gaining a feat is an effect of levelling up, not the specific feat. After all, you could have levelled up but not chosen that particular feat.

If a feat is an effect, what causes it?


glass.

 

[glass]

What most people don't realize is that Hyp has a team of high school students doing rules research for him 24/7.

He does give that impression, doesn't he?


glass.

 

[Artoomis]

But it only matters when it suits your arguments, but not when it suits mine?

I have demonstrated why I don't think a prerequisite is an effect. Unless you can bring a counter argument as to why it is, then it doesn't matter what it is a prerequisite for because it is not an effect (or a spell), and the monk's ability deals with spells and effects.


glass.

A prerequisite is clearly, to me, not an effect. I grant you that, although it does not matter because a prerequisite is NOTHING by itself - it is only an expression of qualifications for receiving the effects of a feat. They can ONLY be taken in context. Normally, the context does not matter. For example, do you have BAB for the purpose of getting an effect that enhances natural armor could be asked, but it's silly because you either have BAB +4 or you do not. Not so for a monk's natural weapon.

Since a monk specifically has a natural weapon for qualifying for effects that enhance natural weapons, they meet the prerequisite.

 

[Artoomis]

From A&B you may validly deduce A. If an effect enhances a natural weapon and grants a natural armor bonus, then it enhances a natural weapon. The effect is therefore an effect that enhances a natural weapon. The monk therefore is treated as having a natural weapon by the effect. There is no relevant difference between this example and INA.

If the rule was that the monk's unarmed attacks count as natural weapons for spells and effects that do nothing else except enhance natural attacks, then the reasoning quoted above would be correct. But I don't think the underlined text can be legitimately read in.

Well, perhaps so. I only mean to point out that if the feat granted more than just an enhancement to a natural weapon the whole debate shifts.

 

[Artoomis]

...If a feat is an effect, what causes it?

glass.

Leveling combined with a choice by a player causes it.

Of course, I don't think it matters if one considers a feat an effect or not. I do understand the reasoning of those who think it is critical to this argument, I just do not agree and think that it is good enough if a feat grants effects.

 

[Lamoni]

A prerequisite for WHAT? Context matters.

Well the prerequisite to be considered an elf is that you are an elf.
The prerequisite to being an elf is to have elvish parents.
The prerequisite of having elvish parents is to have elvish grandparents.

We could go on and on. You can state that there are prerequisites for the prerequisites for the prerequisites. Is a prerequisite a seperate and unique term in D&D? Or is it just describing what is required.

The prerequisite for a fictitional feat is that you must be an elf.
You are a human, but as part of a prestige class you are considered an elf for spells and for effects.
Hmm... the word prerequisite doesn't sound like the word effect. So no. That won't work for feats.
Wait, couldn't you also say that the prerequisite for the ficticious spell 'alter elf' is that the subject be an elf? Let's see, you are considered an elf for the spell or the effect, but you can't have the spell cast on you because you aren't really an elf and the prestige class ability doesn't count for prerequisites. Isn't that ridiculous?

Moving closer to home. The prerequisite for a spell that improves a natural weapon is that the subject must have a natural weapon. The spell won't work if you try to cast it on a sword. The monk's ability counts as a natural weapon for spells and effects, BUT it didn't really count for a prerequisite. Therefore, the spell can't be cast on the monk because the monk doesn't fulfill the prerequisite. However, everyone is in agreement that if the spell was able to be cast, it would benefit the monk.

In conclusion, I see the difference in the arguments as how people are viewing the prerequisites. Is a prerequisite a D&D term? Or can we just replace it with its english definition?

prerequisite: Required or necessary as a prior condition, as a course that is required prior to taking an advanced course.

If we replace it with its definition, there is no problem. The feat works fine. If prerequisite has a different and distinct meaning like feat, skill, or spell, then there is a problem. The feat can't be taken.