Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Scion]

A prerequisite is not an effect

I am afraid that here is one of the main points I see your arguement breaking down.

This part simply makes no sense. It isnt necissary for the prereq to count as an effect, it is part of the feat. The only thing that matters is whether or not the 'feat' which the prereq is 'part of' counts as an effect, and I have shown that the rules do indeed count feats as effects.


As for the other example, which I believe was alignment descriptors, those only work for natural weapons as well. It is 'exactly' the same thing, just written in a slightly different format.

To me, to say that one works while the other does not is to be ignoring the rules of the game.

The feat requires a natural weapon on which to impart its effect, which is itself, and the monks unarmed strikes count as a natural weapon for that effect. So it works.

I feel that you are trying to draw lines that not only do not exist, they simply 'cannot' exist in a logical fashion.

 

[Dimwhit]

Patryn. Ahem...

Magic fang gives one natural weapon...

If the creature doesn't have a natural weapon, the spell is ineffective. Hence, a natural weapon is required in ordre to benefit from the spell. The target being one living creature touched is irrelevant. That's what you cast it on, nothing more. The creature must still have a natural weapon.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Yeah, this just baffles me. Of course a prereq isn't an effect. It isn't anything!

Then, if it isn't an effect, the monk's unarmed strike does not count as a natural weapons for purposes thereof.

Accordingly, human monks may not take INA. Thank you for finally agreeing with me.

Note, however, you're still wrong about Magic Fang. Check my above post.

Magic Fang does not require that the creature have a natural weapon. It merely provides an effect which improves a natural weapon - one which, therefore, a monk may apply to his unarmed strike.

 

[Zandel]

in the magic fang point PoE is right. You can cast magic fang on a human Com1...it wont have any effect other than give them a magic aura for the duration of the spell but you can do it anyway.

 

[Scion]

Fortunately, I don't depend upon your "feelings" when discussing the rules.

That is fine. But it definately seems like you are destroying logic while simultaneously ignoring the rules.

That is what I am having trouble with.

Your arguement simply makes a distinction that cannot, and as far as I can tell, does not exist.

 

[Scion]

I don't understand how a prereq not being an effect has anything to do with this argument.

As far as I can tell it doesnt.

The point has no basis that I can see. There is nothing to suggest that the prereqs are not part of the feat, which itself is an effect, and so can be qualified for directly.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I am afraid that here is one of the main points I see your arguement breaking down.

Whereas I see that your inability to account for this in your argument is the place where your argument breaks down. It simply makes no sense, etc.

To me, to say that one works while the other does not is to be ignoring the rules of the game.

To me, to say that they both work is to be ignoring the rules of the game.

I feel that you are trying to draw lines that not only do not exist, they simply 'cannot' exist in a logical fashion.

Ditto, etc.

EDIT:

To expand, regurgitating the fact that you don't understand, comprehend, etc., my position isn't going to get us anywhere.

I've explained my reasoning.

Succinctly, a prerequisite is not an effect in and of itself. Accordingly, a human monk does not possess a natural weapon for purposes of prerequisites, as he is only considered to have a natural weapon for purposes of spells, effects, etc., that improve natural weapons. Therefore, a human monk cannot take the INA feat because he does not meet the prerequisites.

If he somehow met the prereqs, he could take the feat and apply its benefits to his unarmed strike.

A lizardman monk has no such problems.

Whether or not you like, understand, comprehend, agree with, etc., my reasoning, there it is.

Further discussion seems like it will be rather unproductive, so why don't we agree to disagree?

 

[Dimwhit]

Then, if it isn't an effect, the monk's unarmed strike does not count as a natural weapons for purposes thereof.

Accordingly, human monks may not take INA. Thank you for finally agreeing with me.

Nice try. See Scion's post, because he explains it well. The prereq doesn't NEED to be an effect.

Note, however, you're still wrong about Magic Fang. Check my above post.

Magic Fang does not require that the creature have a natural weapon. It merely provides an effect which improves a natural weapon - one which, therefore, a monk may apply to his unarmed strike.

For the effect of Magic Fang to manifest, it does require a natural weapon. Yes, you can cast it on anyone, but you only get the benefit if you have a natural weapon.

I admit, it's not the strongest of examples, since we're comparing a spell to a feat. But if the spell was written as a feat, I'd bet you anything it would have a prereq of needing a natural weapon. Again, though, it's not the best example.

 

[Scion]

*snip*

::shrugs:: I could simply say that pink bunnies prevent monks from ever gaining level 2.

That doesnt make it so.

If you can show how the prereqs are not part of a feat then maybe you will start to have an arguement. The prereqs simply state what is needed to be able to use the feat, and the monk qualifies, as per his description.

Until then however, pink bunnies prevent monks from ever gaining level 2 has an equal rules basis as your arguement as near as I can tell.

 

[Dimwhit]

Patryn, I'm just baffled as to what role you think a prereq has in all this.