Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Dimwhit]

You are correct, FoxWander. Well said.

 

[Borlon]

I think Hypersmurf is very careful in his wording. If the rest of us were equally careful, this topic might have been resolved several hundred posts ago.

The conclusion you are arguing for is

A monk's unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for the purpose of INA's prerequisites

The first step in your argument, the key rule to which we are continually referring, may be stated as the Natural Weapon Equivalency rule.

NWE:A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for the purpose of an effect that enhances or improves a natural weapon.

Now what phrase, related to INA, should be substituted for the cyan words of the NWE? If INA has an effect that enhances etc. then you could write that the effect that INA has is an effect that enhances etc., and the indicated phrase could be substituted in the monk's equivalency rule. If INA is an effect that enhances etc. then you could write that the effect that INA is is an effect that enhances etc.. And so on for all of Hypersmurf's examples. What you say about INA determines what is substituted in the NWE rule.

You are proposing a new phrase. You say that what INA does is an effect etc.. Substituted it becomes

A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for the purpose of what INA does.

Now you infer that a monk's unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for the purpose of INA's prerequisites. This would be a valid inference if the following were true:

INA's prerequisites is (some of) what INA does.

But, unfortunately, this does not seem to be true. So the critical step to arrive at your conclusion does not follow.

Suppose you try each of the parts of INA as the initial substitution in the NWE rule. i.e.

A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for the purpose of each of the parts of INA.

Then you could reason that

INA's prerequisites is a part of INA.

and therefore you could infer

A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for the purpose of INA's prerequisites.

However, your premise is shaky. NWE states that a monk’s unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for the purpose of an effect that enhances or improves a natural weapon.

How could you justify plugging in each of the parts of INA for an effect that enhances or improves a natural weapon? You would have to show that each of the parts of INA is an effect that enhances or improves a natural weapon.

In other words, although you could say that an effect that enhances or improves a natural weapon is among the parts of INA, you can't claim the converse to be true for each of the parts.

A third possibility is to say that the INA feat as a whole is an effect that enhances or improves a natural weapon. Then you might say that the INA feat as a whole means all the parts of the INA feat and since INA's prerequisites is among all the parts of the INA feat, then the desired substitution follows.

But that argument is fallacious; it rests on an equivocation in the meaning of the phrase "all the parts" which first means "all the parts taken together" and then is taken to mean "each of the parts taken separately."

The statement that INA as a whole enhances etc., is true only for INA as a whole; it does not follow that it is therefore true for each of the parts of the feat. A bag of sugar (as a whole) might weigh 2 pounds, but it does not follow that each of the grains of sugar also weighs two pounds.

My position is that, without an additional rule (such as my proposed PPC), you can't justify your conclusion on the basis of the RAW; more precisely, arguments justifying your conclusion collapse under careful scrutiny. I think if you try to carefully present each step of your argument, you will find that there is gap somewhere along the way. It may seem like a small gap, but unless you can argue your way across it, it is an unbridgeable chasm.

 

[Borlon]

So the 'doorman' of the feat looks at the monk and says "got the +4 BAB, but no natural weapons- sorry, you can't get in."

Then the monk asks "Does being in your club improve natural weapons?", and the doorman says "Yes." So, the monk pulls out his special NWE coupon and says "Well then, for the purpose of what's in your club, I do have natural weapons."

The doorman shakes his head and says "That's a drink coupon. It's good at the effects bar, but show me where it says it is good for admission."

The monk is silent for a moment, then shakes his head and steps aside so the lizard man (who is next in line) can go in.

 

[FireLance]

Point 2 seems to be that "counts as race X" applies to effects that apply differently based on race. Point 3 says the "counts as race X" applies to prerequisites that specify a particular race.

This argument makes the distinction between "effects that apply differently based on race" and "prerequisites that specify a particular race". When a determining whether a dwarf (or a character who is considered a dwarf), gets extra benefits from a dwarven thrower, isn't he satisfying a prerequisite that specifies a particular race? Yet, it seems to be covered by point 2.

If they were really the same point, I would think they would be together. But since they are separate, it suggests that qualifying for a race-specific effect is not the same as qualifying for a race specific pre-requisite.

The points were not enumerated separately in the text. The original text was a single paragraph which stated:

"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:"

I had previously argued that 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. It's a fine point of writing and communication, and perhaps I should have also mentioned it my argument in post #416.

I would venture that it is really point 3 which allows them to take racial substitution levels. I know it doesn't say "racial substitution level" but I think people would just read the part that says "racial prerequisites." If they noticed that the racial prerequisites are only for feats and prestige classes, they would probably just claim that racial substitution levels are analagous.

And that's the crux of the argument. The ability to qualify for racial substitution levels should be analogous to the ability to qualify for racial feats and prestige classes. However, the Rules As Written only specify feats and prestige classes. Hence, the ability to qualify for racial substitution levels must be a granted by the ability to be treated as a member of the race "for all effects related to race". And by analogue, the ability to qualify for racial feats and prestige classes must also be granted by the same ability, making point 3 an elaboration of point 2 instead of a separate point in itself.

You mean what the PHB says about half-elves and racial effects, right? That it counts for effects, but not for prerequisites? That would explain why feats specify "elf or half-elf" but sometimes exclude half-elves. But I thought that half-elves couldn't take elf racial substitution levels? Can they? (I don't have the books, so I can't just look them up.)

So if you have a collection of feats and prestige classes, and some of them say "elf or half-elf" in the prerequisites, and others say "elf" in the prerequisites, you would say that half-elves would meet the racial prerequisites of all of them?

Yes half-elves qualify to take elf racial substitution levels, feats and prestige classes based on my interpretation of the Rules As Written. You might find it odd, but that's what I think the rules say.

 

[Muaythaidaddy]

*rolls eyes*

Yes, monks can take the feat. It's even addressed in this month's Dragon Magazine.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It's even addressed in this month's Dragon Magazine.

If you'll note in Post 1:
Keep in mind the recent Sage ruling that monks can take Improved Natural Attack and discuss what you think is the actual position on that issue in the rules.

All eleven pages of the thread have been taking that into account.

-Hyp.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

To continue with that analogy...

The doorman shakes his head and says "That's a drink coupon. It's good at the effects bar, but show me where it says it is good for admission."

Then that doorman sure as s**t better find someone to bring that monk his drink!

After all, what good is a coupon that lets you get something at the bar if you can't get to the bar?

I'm sure if you showed a judge a coupon that said "free drink at X-Bar" after being denied entry to GET said drink, the remedy would at least be a drink from the bar, either delivered or subsequent to admission- assuming, of course, that the coupon's bearer was legally entitled to have the coupon.

Unless there is a condition on the face of the coupon to the contrary, the implication of the coupon is that the bearer will be allowed to obtain it by normal means. A "contrary condition" would be something like "Only club members, may not be transferred to non-club members" and "Normal" in the case of the analogy would be admission to the bar to get the drink- especially if the municipality had laws against public consumption of alcohol (aka drinking on the sidewalk or streets).

Here, the monk was given his coupon by the terms of his class.

 

[Hypersmurf]

After all, what good is a coupon that lets you get something at the bar if you can't get to the bar?

If a club has a $10 cover charge to get in, and someone has a coupon for a free drink from the bar inside the club, but doesn't have $10, they can't use the coupon.

I can't see how a judge could stretch the terms of the coupon to include either the entry to the club, or a delivery service...?

-Hyp.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If a club has a $10 cover charge to get in, and someone has a coupon for a free drink from the bar inside the club, but doesn't have $10, they can't use the coupon.

A cover charge, an age limit...they are all the same- prerequisites for admissions. That would be something that would be in the normal course of admissions into the bar. You don't meet the prereqs, no admission. No shirt, no shoes, no service.

Bars, at least around here, also have a prerequisite that you aren't carrying any firearms- you'll see the little gun circumscribed by a barred red circle everywhere. However, lawmen have special permission to carry firearms, even into these bars. Their badge is their trump card.

The assumption was (that is, as the analogy was initially stated) that the monk was being denied admission for 1 reason- the lack of natural weapons, not an inability to pay.

His "Monk's local 453" union card says that he has natural weapons, even if he doesn't have them in the conventional sense (claws, fangs, horns, etc.). Obviously, his union worked out a special deal.

He gets in...and his buddy, the Kensai, is going in with him.

 

[Hypersmurf]

His "Monk's local 453" union card says that he has natural weapons, even if he doesn't have them in the conventional sense (claws, fangs, horns, etc.).

Only under certain circumstances.

The associate membership card only considers you a member (and thus eligible for drinks) while inside the bar. Until you get inside, it doesn't consider you such, so you can't use it for the purpose of getting inside.

-Hyp.