Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Artoomis]

<no delete button?>

 

[Rystil Arden]

The feat is the effect, the effect is the feat, there is no seperation.

So if my character gets some Exalted feats (from the BoED) and then fails to follow the Exalted code, losing the effects of the feats, are you saying that he doesn't have the feats anymore Scion?

 

[Scion]

So if my character gets some Exalted feats (from the BoED) and then fails to follow the Exalted code, losing the effects of the feats, are you saying that he doesn't have the feats anymore Scion?

??

A character who willingly and willfully commits an evil act loses all benefits from all of his exalted feats

So, he still has the feats, but he no longer gains any benefit from them.

Much like loseing the prereq from any feat. You still have it, it is just nonfunctional.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

For the record (in case it matters at this point):

I'm with the crowd that says monks qualify. The PHB says a monk's unarmed strikes count as natural weapons for spells & effects- that's all I need to know when I see a Feat that applies to natural weapons.

HOWEVER, I would limit this to a monks-only (or equivalent class, should any be published) rule: mere martial artists (PCs with IUS feat) don't get to qualify. Think of it as an extraordinary ability- if the class says its unarmed strikes count as blah blah blah...then they do, end of story.

After all, Rangers qualify for certain feats even if they don't have all the prereq's, as long as they don't wear heavy armor. Its the same kind of thing- a class-specific benefit.

That the Sage (one of the game's designers) has weighed in on this just reinforces my reading. When you are trying to interpret a law, your first guide is the law as it is written. Your second guide is the legislative intent. Here, we have one of the "legislators" speaking fairly clearly.

Can a legislator or designer be wrong? Of course- any form of cooperative rules-making is fraught with differing understanding.

 

[Rystil Arden]

So, he still has the feats, but he no longer gains any benefit from them.

Exactly. Thus proving that the feat is not the same as the effect.

Much like loseing the prereq from any feat.

It is somewhat similar to losing a prereq, but unfortunately for the feat==effect line of thought, this is not listed in the prerequisites, nor is it listed anywhere in the feat. Thus, it is an instance of losing the effects of the feat while keeping the feat, which undisputably proves that they are not the same. Also, importantly, unlike losing a prerequisite, you can still take non-Exalted feats with the Exalted feat as a prerequisite.

 

[Artoomis]

So if my character gets some Exalted feats (from the BoED) and then fails to follow the Exalted code, losing the effects of the feats, are you saying that he doesn't have the feats anymore Scion?

See, this is the whole problem of trying to argue that feats are effects, which is not necessary for monks to qualify.

If the effect of the feat would meet a trigger condition that allowed one to be considered to meet the prerequisite, then one meets the prerequisite.

It is not correct to think that one must look at the prerequisite independent of whether the feat effects might cause one to be considered to meet the prerequisites. When a character has conditional properties, then one must look to see if the effect granted would allow one to be considered to have that prerequisite - that is, does the effect for which you need the prerequisite meet the condition for the character to be considered to have that prerequisite?

Whew - that sounds much more complicated than it is. In this case, it means that for a monk to meet the prerequisite of having a natural weapon then one must look to see if the effect for which they are attempting to qualify is one than enhances natural weapons.

In other words, I again submit that the question of whether a monk has a natural weapon is meaningless out of context. The context here is whether they have it to meet the prerequisite for an effect that will enhance a natural weapon. The answer to that query is that the effect does indeed enhance a natural weapon, so the monk meets the requirement of having a natural weapon for that effect.

Note that it makes no difference whether you consider a feat an effect or whether it grants an effect, so long as an "effect" is involved.

I wonder if I've managed to put that any better than I have before.

 

[Rystil Arden]

See, this is the whole problem of trying to argue that feats are effects, which is not necessary for monks to qualify.

I disagree with you, but I do agree that while your position is based on a different interpretation than the one I use, it does not include a claim that is patently false. I'll agree to disagree with you on this, and I respect your opinion (especially since I picked the choice where I would allow this one even though I don't think it's allowed by the RAW).

I was only arguing against the feat==effect crowd, really with that post.

 

[Hypersmurf]

See, this is the whole problem of trying to argue that feats are effects, which is not necessary for monks to qualify.

No, no, no! It is absolutely necessary! It is only if the feat as a whole, including the prerequisite, is an 'effect that improves or enhances a natural weapon', that the unarmed strike can be considered a natural weapon for the purpose of the feat as a whole, and hence for the prerequisite.

If the feat as a whole is not an effect, and rather the benefit is the effect, then the unarmed strike is not considered a natural weapon for the purpose of the prerequisites.

When a character has conditional properties, then one must look to see if the effect granted would allow one to be considered to have that prerequisite - that is, does the effect for which you need the prerequisite meet the condition for the character to be considered to have that prerequisite?

That's backwards.

That's like saying "I need BAB +5 to enter this PrC, and the first level will give me one more point to make +5, therefore I satisfy the requirement."

You can't gain the effect unless you already meet the prerequisite before the effect is granted.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

If you fold the poll responses from those that agree that monks can take INA AFTER the Sage said so then the results are fairly evenly split. There must be an awful lot of silly people out there......

And you may very well be right. And I'm not 100% convinced either way. But it has been proved several times already that the Sage (and the FAQ) gets it wrong on occasions and directly contradicts the RAW. Not exactly confidence inspiring stuff. And certainly the poll results would indicate nothing conclusive about who has 'lost' or 'won'.

Okay, Poll anaylsis time, such as it is.

Total votes: 118

Not per RAW: 28
Per RAW: 71

Leaving 19 votes unnaccounted for.

There is no way to know how the other 19 would have voted here - they apparently did not realize the intent was to vote Yes or No AND vote again on another choice.

This makes the range of "No" votes to be from 47 to 28, or between 40% and 24%, a clear majority for "Yes, per the RAW" For what it's worth.

It's interesting to note the 33 "Yes, because of the Sage's ruling." I would normally assume that to mean that 33 of the "No" votes agree that the Sage is offical but that the RAW does not support him, but I hesitate to draw that conulsion here.

It is also interesting no note that there seem to be quite a few folks who think the rules disallow it but they'll allow it anyway - of course that could partially be because of the Sage's ruling, so the survey is too flawed there to make any real conclusions.

 

[TheEvil]

And bowing out early makes the other side correct?

Unequivocally.

I do apologize for my statement. It was uncalled for an added nothing to the debate.

Slight highjack of possible relavence:

Does a goliath monk strike as a medium or large creature?