Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Artoomis]

...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.

Exactly. And, of course, a prerequisite does not have a different and distinct meaning like feat, skill, or spell, so there is no problem and a monk can take INA.

 

[Infiniti2000]

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.

If you replace 'prerequisite' with it's definition, the feat INA in fact doesn't work fine for a human monk. Good argument, false conclusion. Note that in your definition example, context does not even matter. Your definition itself proves our position unless you mean to say that you cannot take the prerequisite course unless you are planning to take the advanced course (but obviously that can't be guaranteed and therefore is not necessarily true).

 

[Dimwhit]

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?

I've been saying that for pages, Lamoni. You are absolutely correct, but others just can't see it.

 

[Artoomis]

If you replace 'prerequisite' with it's definition, the feat INA in fact doesn't work fine for a human monk. Good argument, false conclusion. Note that in your definition example, context does not even matter. Your definition itself proves our position unless you mean to say that you cannot take the prerequisite course unless you are planning to take the advanced course (but obviously that can't be guaranteed and therefore is not necessarily true).

Extending tnat further, you would fail to quaify for potentially pretty much ANY spell or effect because you don't actually have a natural weapon until AFTER the effect is in place, but it can't be put in place because it requires one to have a natural weapon for it to work upon.

This is known as a "catch-22" and is what your side of the argument seems to be proposing is the case.

 

[Pinotage]

Given that a lot of the debate around here centers on the word 'effect' which is not a game term, I thought I'd search the SRD to see where the word effect is used. These are the things you learn about effects:

Spells have effects
Fear is an effect
Non-spell effects exist
A decrease in an ability score is considered an effect
A reduction in attacks, saves, ability checks and skill checks is an effect
Effects can be permanent
Effects can be created
Dazed, paralyzed, weakened and killed are all effects
Effects can be cumalative
Force effects exist
Effects can be affected by spell effects
Creatures can be immune to effects
Gaining deflection bonus or resistance bonuses to saves is considered an effect
Gaining concealment is an effect

And so on and so forth. An effect isn't defined. It can be anything. Just based on the above list I can't see how within the core rules you can even argue if anything is or is not an effect, because quite obviously, the word effect is used to describe so many things it has absolutely no firm definition within the core rules. So, is a feat an effect - there cannot possibly be an answer to that question, given that wild use of the word 'effect' in the core rules. If you say a feat is an effect, then you have to consider the word effect against all the criteria that defines what an effect is. The same goes if you say a feat is not an effect. The only thing you can admit is that the benefit of the feat is an effect, but that's an admittance based simply on a seeming similarity between a feat's benefit and what is typically an effect.

Pinotage

 

[Infiniti2000]

Extending tnat further, you would fail to quaify for potentially pretty much ANY spell or effect because you don't actually have a natural weapon until AFTER the effect is in place, but it can't be put in place because it requires one to have a natural weapon for it to work upon.

No, because none of them have 'natural weapon' as a prerequisite. If the Target were 'natural weapon' I'd agree that that spell wouldn't work on a human monk. But, e.g. magic fang does not have that as a Target and thus has no limiting prerequisite.

I swear this was already covered, but this is only the 3rd or 4th revolution of similar arguments.

 

[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.

How can it be nothing, and be 'an expression of qualifications for receiving the effects of a feat'? Surely that's something?

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.

Are you saying that it is impossible to consider a feats prerequisites seperately from it's effects? So is it impossible to consider a cars tyres separately from it's steering wheel?

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

You are adding in extra words that aren't there. It doesn't say anything about 'qualifying'. If it did, we wouldn't have been arguing about this for 16 pages. Or at least, I'd have been on a different side.


glass.

 

[Lamoni]

Sorry I didn't read all the pages. I started the thread late, then jumped to the last page to see how the argument could have possibly gone on for so long.

Exactly Artoomis. If you use prerequisite as an English word and not a D&D term, you will either say that the monk ability is completely useless and NEVER works for anything... or you can reason that it MUST work for something or they wouldn't have written it in the rules. If that is the case, you have to make the exact same jump for it to work for the feat as you have to for it to work for spells since the spells also have prerequisites.

I don't want the Monk's ability to be completely useless, so I say it also works for taking feats. You are perfectly within your right to argue that the Monk's ability IS useless and should be scratched from the rules in the next eratta/next edition.

 

[Artoomis]

..You are adding in extra words that aren't there. It doesn't say anything about 'qualifying'. If it did, we wouldn't have been arguing about this for 16 pages. Or at least, I'd have been on a different side.


glass.

Okay, you got me on that one. I didn't really think that would slide by.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Exactly Artoomis. If you use prerequisite as an English word and not a D&D term, you will either say that the monk ability is completely useless and NEVER works for anything...

Disagree.

Magic Fang
Transmutation
Level: Drd 1, Rgr 1
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Living creature touched
Duration: 1 min./level
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless)

Magic fang gives one natural weapon of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon. (The spell does not change an unarmed strike’s damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage.)

Magic fang can be made permanent with a permanency spell.

EDIT:

The target is a living creature. A human monk is a living creature and is therefore a valid target for the spell.

The effect of the spell is "+1 enhancement bonus to a natural weapon." This is an "effect which improves ... a natural weapon." Therefore, a monk qualifies to receive this bonus.

A vampire monk, similarly, would qualify for the effect - he's still got all his monk abilities - but would not qualify as a valid target of the spell. He doesn't "meet the prereqs."

Similarly, a human monk would qualify for the effect of the INA feat, but does not qualify to take the feat. He doesn't "meet the prereqs."