Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[FireLance]

If a prerequisite is an effect, then a prerequisite of 'Orc' is an 'effect related to race', which means a half-orc qualifies for that prerequisite by virtue of Orc Blood...

... so the distinction between prerequisites of 'Orc' and 'Orc or Half-Orc' raises its head once more...

Yes it does, and it can possibly be explained by a designer wanting to restrict that particular feat to pure-blooded orcs only, without realising that subsequent changes to the rules as written could be interpreted so that a prerequisite of "Orc" in itself allows half-orcs to take the feat as well.

Newer material sometimes creates unexpected implications for older material. In the Player's Guide to Faerun, one regional feat granted proficiency with all martial weapons, and allowed pure-classed wizards and sorcerers to qualify for the Eldritch Knight prestige class. Complete Arcane has a feat which arguably allows a 1st-level wizard to cast a 2nd-level spell and qualify for the Mystic Theurge prestige class after taking 3 levels of cleric.

Alternatively, the "official" interpretation may have changed in between the publication of Races of Faerun and the other Races books. Races of Stone, in particular, seem to imply that "considered to be race X" is sufficient to qualify for racial substitution levels, and arguably, racial feats and prestige classes as well.

Yeah, it would be nice if the rules as written were absolutely clear and perfectly non-contradictory, but I don't expect it to happen any time soon . In the meantime, I guess I'll stick to my interpretation and argue for it whenever I get the chance .

 

[Hypersmurf]

In the Player's Guide to Faerun, one regional feat granted proficiency with all martial weapons, and allowed pure-classed wizards and sorcerers to qualify for the Eldritch Knight prestige class.

Where's the problem?

-Hyp.

 

[FireLance]

If a non-actual feat or prestige class can have effects, then what prevents a character from taking a feat or class whose prerequisites can be met only by effects of that feat or class?

Sorry, but I'm not sure how this relates . Improved Natural Attack doesn't turn a monk's unarmed strike into a natural weapon. It merely enhances it as if it was a natural weapon. My argument is that for the purpose of qualifying for the feat, the monk's unarmed strike should similarly be treated as if it was a natural weapon.

The main position I am arguing against says, "When it comes to prerequisites, there is no 'as if'; you either are or are not." My position is, "'As if' is 'as if'. It applies even to prerequisites."

I don't think it is a catch-22. It just means that he has to satisfy the natural weapon requirement some other way.

For example, by successfully persuading the zoning commission that the rules can be interpreted to say that his unarmed strike is a natural weapon for the purpose of starting the club, even if strictly speaking, it is not.

 

[FireLance]

Where's the problem?

No problem as such, just an illustration of how a new rule creates implications for previous rules.

 

[RigaMortus2]

So, then, in your opinion, clearly the monk cannot make iterative attacks with his unarmed strike (fist)? Though, he could with, say, unarmed strike (headbutt) or unarmed strike (kick), etc.

This line of reasoning has already been handled and despite any wording in the Kensai PrC to the contrary (I don't have the book so I cannot comment), an unarmed strike is not a natural weapon.

I would be alright with that ruling. I will just have him make unarmed stike (knuckles) instead

 

[RigaMortus2]

Yes it does, and it can possibly be explained by a designer wanting to restrict that particular feat to pure-blooded orcs only, without realising that subsequent changes to the rules as written could be interpreted so that a prerequisite of "Orc" in itself allows half-orcs to take the feat as well.

What changes? Orc-blooded (and Elf-blooded for Half-Elves) were in 3.0. There is no change here from 3.0 to 3.5.

 

[FoxWander]

Aaack, I fell into the trap. In my first return to this post a couple of pages ago, I said we didn't need analogies and hypothetical feats to solve this, and then I dove right into analogies and pretend feats. :\

So let's return to the question in the subject of this post: Can human monks take INA?

I, of course, believe they can. The 'gist' of the core argument against seems to be: No, because the prereqs must be considered first before the effect applied by INA and so monks don't have natural weapons to take the feat. [If any of the "no" group has a different reason (and before you reply, please analyze your position to see if it actually is different), please respond with a succinct, core reason for saying no. I'd just like to cut through the confusion and get to the exact points we're trying to counter to each other. ]

My core reason for saying YES is this: INA improves natural weapons, therefore by the monk's NWE rule he has natural weapons, satisfying the "natural weapons" prereq, and can take the feat.

Now here's the real world example (not an analogy) of why the effect of the feat CAN (and must be, in the case of monks and NWE) be considered before you take it to satisfy the prereqs...

Me (playing a monk who just hit 6th level): Hey, can I take INA?
DM: Well, you're 6th level so you have a +4 BAB, but humans don't have natural weapons. [let's lay aside for the moment arguments, which I also agree with, that humans DO have natural weapons, ie. fists]
Me: But I'm a monk with NWE and INA improves natural weapons. If the feat improves natural weapons, then I have natural weapons as far as the feat is concerned.
DM: But you have to have a natural weapon first, before you can even take the feat.
Me: But I do. That's what NWE is. I have the equivalent of natural weapons (and manufactured ones) ALL THE TIME, for anything that improves natural weapons. Since INA improves natural weapons it "sees" my unarmed strikes AS natural weapons. In other words, I DO have the equivalent of natural weapons before I take the feat because it's a feat that improves natural weapons.
DM: Alright, you meet the prereqs and can take the feat.

 

[Hypersmurf]

No, because the prereqs must be considered first before the effect applied by INA and so monks don't have natural weapons to take the feat.

Where we went in this last page - even if one allows that feats are effects, can a feat be considered an effect before it has been taken?

Just like a spell only comes into effect when it is cast, surely a feat that has not yet been taken is not an effect.

INA 'sees' NWE... but until it is taken, it is not an effect, and therefore cannot be an effect that improves natural weapons.

"A monk's fists are considered natural weapons" would satisfy the prerequisite; "A monk's fists are considered natural weapons for the purposes of effects" cannot satisfy the prerequisite for something that is not yet an effect.

Now, I'm still not sold on the idea that feats are effects anyway; I still feel that a feat has an effect. Which is where I would disagree with your player in his example - he isn't considered to have natural weapons for the purpose of anything that improves natural weapons (which INA does); he's considered to have natural weapons for the purpose of any effect that improves natural weapons (which, I maintain, INA has).

It's why it's still key to the interpretation to determine whether INA is an effect that improves natural weapons, or whether INA has an effect that improves natural weapons.

-Hyp.

 

[FoxWander]

For example, by successfully persuading the zoning commission that the rules can be interpreted to say that his unarmed strike is a natural weapon for the purpose of starting the club, even if strictly speaking, it is not.

No, no- he needs to convince the zoning commission he is, in fact, an orc-blooded, stone-blessed pseudo-dwarf, lizardman kensai/monk with a breath weapon in order to start his club.

 

[FireLance]

What changes? Orc-blooded (and Elf-blooded for Half-Elves) were in 3.0. There is no change here from 3.0 to 3.5.

Yes, but there may have been a change in the official position on what it means to have orc blood or elf blood. We're unlikely to get any confirmation on that, so it's just idle speculation. Let's get back to interpreting what the rules actually say, please.