Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Scion]

Assumption of implications that might be something within part of the RAW somewhere seem to be much less useful than something that is stated explicitly in the RAW

 

[FireLance]

Oh, alright. After posting my dwarven thrower questions, I went to check the Stoneblessed PrC. At 3rd level, it gains the Stoneborn ability, which states:

"At 3rd level, a stoneblessed completes the bond with her chosen race. The stoneblessed gains a permanent +2 increase to her Constitution score. In addition, for all effects related to race, a stoneblessed is considered a member of the race to which she is bonded. For example, dwarf-bonded stoneblessed are just as vulnerable to effects and abilities that affect dwarves as actual dwarves are (such as a ranger's favored enemy ability), and they can use magic items that are usable only by dwarves. The stoneblessed meets any racial prerequisites for prestige classes and feats as if she were a member of her bonded race. Finally, the stoneblessed gets an ability based on her type of racial bond:"

Again, it's not explicitly clear, but the text strongly suggests that meeting prerequisites for prestige classes and feats are effects. The structure of the paragraph, "The stoneblessed... In addition... Finally..." suggests that "The stoneblessed meets any racial prerequisites for prestige classes and feats as if she were a member of her bonded race" is an elaboration of "for all effects related to race, a stoneblessed is considered a member of the race to which she is bonded". If it was not, and it was a function of the Stoneborn ability, the text should have said "The stoneblessed also meets any racial prerequisites for prestige classes and feats as if she were a member of her bonded race" to distinguish it from the previous point. So in this case, at least, it seems that the RAW considers meeting prerequisites for a prestige class or feats to be an effect.

Of course, as was previously discussed with Hyp, the RAW are occasionally inconsistent about what it means to be considered a member of a race for the purpose of meeting prerequisites, and this argument hinges on a fine point of writing and communication. So, I don't think it's going to sway anybody with an entrenched position, but it might persuade those who are undecided.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The structure of the paragraph, "The stoneblessed... In addition... Finally..." suggests that "The stoneblessed meets any racial prerequisites for prestige classes and feats as if she were a member of her bonded race" is an elaboration of "for all effects related to race, a stoneblessed is considered a member of the race to which she is bonded".

I'm going to disagree there

From the PHB:

Elven Blood: For all effects related to race, a half-elf is considered an elf. For example, half-elves just as vulnerable to effects and abilities that affect elves as their elf ancestors are, and they can use magic items that are usable only by elves.

Orc Blood: For all effects related to race, a half-orc is considered an orc. For example, half-orcs just as vulnerable to effects and abilities that affect orcs as their orc ancestors are, and they can use magic items that are usable only by orcs.

Based on that, I'd divide the paragraph as follows:

At 3rd level, a stoneblessed completes the bond with her chosen race.

• The stoneblessed gains a permanent +2 increase to her Constitution score.
• In addition, for all effects related to race, a stoneblessed is considered a member of the race to which she is bonded. For example, dwarf-bonded stoneblessed are just as vulnerable to effects and abilities that affect dwarves as actual dwarves are (such as a ranger's favored enemy ability), and they can use magic items that are usable only by dwarves.
• The stoneblessed meets any racial prerequisites for prestige classes and feats as if she were a member of her bonded race.
• Finally, the stoneblessed gets an ability based on her type of racial bond.

... keeping the "for all effects" bullet point identical to those in the PHB.

-Hyp.

 

[moritheil]

But his MATURITY LEVEL is not counted as 16, nor does a methododolgy exist for his maturity level to be counted as 16. His age is never considered 16, only his ability level, perhaps.

Maturity level doesn't enter into the specifics of the example, except as the nebulous reason why Congress, somewhere far off, passed the law. It doesn't matter.

What we are dealing with is age and effective age.

Age: 14. Cannot go in.

Effective Age For Gaming: 16. He wouldn't have a problem if he could go in, but he can't go in, so he's stuck.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Yep - I'm sticking with Hyp on this one.

 

[moritheil]

I also do not think it constitutes an elaboration.

 

[FireLance]

Which is fine. Like I said, it hinges on a fine point of writing and communication.

What it does mean, however, is that for the dwarven thrower example at least, the character does counts as a dwarf for the purposes of the determining, as well as the purposes of the effect.

From there it is a small step to say that for the purposes of feats, if something counts as a natural weapon for the purposes of the effect, it should also count as a natural weapon for the purposes of the determining - determining whether you can take the feat, in particular.

Apparently, not all of us are prepared to make that small step, though.

 

[Dimwhit]

I was planning on drawing that correlation, too.

 

[glass]

Thanks, at least now I'm clear on that. So, in other words, your argument has no basis in the RAW given the need to invoke a dictionary reference?

The RAW are written in English. Where else would I go for the definition of a word which is not a D&D term of art?

Whereas the other side has at least some evidence that it is an effect given a rules quote that states feats are permanent effects. Is that correct?

No, they state nothing of the sort. There is one phrase on an unrelated subject which implies that feats are effect, but doesn't have to be read that way. As I have said before, that is far from conclusive proof!

EDIT: Pinotage has since clarified that the post I replied to did not say what he inteded to say. Therefore please ignore my response to it.


glass.

 

[glass]

I say we line up everyone in the No camp on one side and the Yes camp on the other and play Red Rover.

What's 'Red Rover'?


glass.