Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Scion]

There are situations in which someone can acquire a feat without needing to meet the prerequisites. Racial bonus feats; the monk's bonus feats like Improved Trip; etc.

this is both true and not true.

While the character does not meet the prereqs listed in the feat he 'does' have an ability which says he gets to ignore those prereqs.

So, in essence, the special ability takes away the prereqs. Or, in another way, qualifies him automatically whether he normally qualifies or not.

 

[Hypersmurf]

On the cursed sword, I'm pretty certain that they figure since you already know a +1 sword have a +1 enhancement bonus, you can figure out for yourself the cursed one has an enhancement penalty. I doubt it's a typo, it's just you misinterpreting things again.

That's incorrect. Making penalties unnamed in 3.5 was a deliberate design decision.

As Artoomis says, I've no argument with the fact that the Sage stated that monks qualify for the INA prerequisite. I won't even contest that this is 'official', in the same way that the rulings in the FAQ that acid damage ignores hardness and that hardness applies to acid damage are 'official'.

My position is that, as written, monks don't qualify for the INA prerequisite, and that the Core Rules and the Sage's ruling are in disagreement on the matter.

If a first level fighter had some sort of template that had them considered to have the Mobility Feat and a BAB of +4 for the purposes of effects that allow moving before and after an attack, they'd meet the prerequisites for Spring Attack, right?

I'd consider that a poorly worded template, if the intention was to allow them to qualify for Spring Attack.

If I'm wearing a cloak that gives a +10ft. enhancement bonus to speed, a +2 competence bonus to initiative, and a +1 competence bonus to Dex checks and Dex-based skill checks, what is the 'effect that increases speed'? Is it the cloak, or the enhancement bonus?

-Hyp.

 

[Legildur]

You don't have to be convinced, this is about what the official rule is. The FAQ and the Sage and the errata are all around to clarify or correct things that is either printed wrong or disputed interpretation-wise. The FAQ, the Sage, and the errata all trump the RAW because, you know, typos happen. Sometimes there is a mistake in the RAW that isn't caught, or maybe that the designers understand but they don't realize some select readers won't understand. That's where the FAQ, the Sage, and the errata come in. The errata is for flat-out mistakes. The Sage is there is clarify things where the RAW may say something that is clear to the designers but is written in a way that some would say is incorrect if viewed a certain way, as some of you have done here. The FAQ tries to cover any other questions that arise. Since they all come from the original source (the designers), that is why their word trumps the RAW in all cases. Even then, you're in the minority in thinking the RAW don't allow the monk to take the feat, because I (and many others) see what the designers are saying and aren't confused in the least by it. What makes us right is that one of the designers personally validated our view on it and clarified it in an official way that leaves absolutely no room for dispute over the official rule.



If the fighter has Dex 13 and Dodge as well, then yes, he could then take Spring Attack, no doubt about it.

Well, Hypersmurf has already quoted one example where the Sage was CLEARLY wrong:

Firstly, some of Skip Williams' interpretations are extremely loosely-connected to what's written. I'm not sure how you can take something that's written as a one-handed weapon, say "It's a two-handed weapon", and call it 'interpretation'.

So forgive me if I don't jump on the Sage bandwagon without hesitation.

I see where you are coming from, and why you are so adamant about your position, but I think refusing to acknowledge that there may be an alternate view or interpretation is not particularly respectful in a an obviously unclear case (and the many pages of discussion are direct evidence of the lack of clarity).

I'm not saying that the Sage's response aren't official rules in some capacity (but certainly down on the list of merit), I'm just saying there is a possibility that they are wrong. And there are quite a number of people also holding a similar view.

 

[Hypersmurf]

this is both true and not true.

"Sometimes a creature has one or more bonus feats, marked with a superscript B (B). Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat. If this is so, the creature can still use the feat."

It's reasonably clear-cut, no?

-Hyp.

 

[Scion]

yes, and that is exactly what I said, glad you posted the rule I was talking about.

 

[Borlon]

I'm presuming that the rules designers had a reason for giving the interpretation they gave. Based on their understanding of the way that rules and definitions interact, they said that a human monk qualifies for INA. What I am interested in is how this judgment can be justified. I suspect that the only way of justifying from the RAW is to adopt the principle that a feat is considered an effect.

I'm not saying that it is a bad principle, or that it contradicts a principle already given in the RAW (though I might change my mind about this); right now I just think it is a new principle. I want to understand it so I can see how it will apply in other situations. That way I can anticipate what the FAQ might say on other questions.

I am not arguing that the designers are wrong. I am trying to understand how they came to the conclusion they did.

 

[Borlon]

There are situations in which someone can acquire a feat without needing to meet the prerequisites. Racial bonus feats; the monk's bonus feats like Improved Trip; etc.

this is both true and not true.

How is it not true?

I can see how it is true. Hypersmurf quotes the rule about bonus feat that says "Creatures often do not have the prerequisites for a bonus feat [but] the creature can still use the feat." You agreed that this is the rule you are thinking of.

So how is Hypersmurf's statement not true?

(Some background: Statements that are both true and not true are rare, if they exist at all, and usually involve self-reference. "This sentence is false" is probably the best example. More often someone is just being careless when they say a statement is both true and false. Could that be the case here?)

 

[Hypersmurf]

yes, and that is exactly what I said, glad you posted the rule I was talking about.

You asked earlier for a quote showing that feats have effects (vs feats are effects)?

You can gain Power Critical multiple times. Each time you take the feat, it may be with a different weapon or the same weapon. If you take it with the same weapon, the effects of the feats stack.

-Hyp.

 

[Scion]

As the rest of my post stated it is true in that they do not qualify for the prereqs.

But it is also wrong in that the nature of how the feat is gotten allows one to gain the feat anyway. So, in essence, it gets rid of the prereqs. Or, in another way, it makes the person qualify even though they would normally not.

I could have also said that it was true but not the whole story, but I feel that my actual statement was closer to the real fact.

 

[Scion]

You asked earlier for a quote showing that feats have effects (vs feats are effects)?

You can gain Power Critical multiple times. Each time you take the feat, it may be with a different weapon or the same weapon. If you take it with the same weapon, the effects of the feats stack.

Feats both are effects and they have effects at the same time. The effect that they have is themselves.

As was shown several times throughout the various threads this has been on.

I am not sure whether you think this is new information or not, but it was already stated in several different places.

I guess it is good to have the information on a new page for those who have missed it before though.

The feat you are quoting however does not contradict anything I have said. It stacks with itself, the effects stack, those are synonimous phrases.