Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Scion]

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

Umm.. no.. it proves that if you lose the benefit that you no longer have the benefit.

The feat is the effect, by the raw, but if you no longer qualify then you no longer gain the benefit from the feat.

much like if you picked a feat with no benefit line for some reason. Or being in a situation where the feat cannot, or does not, apply.

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.

It is part of the [exalted] descriptor of the feat.

So, it is indeed listed as part of the feat.

 

[Artoomis]

...
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.

You are both right and wrong here. You are right as far as the BAB example, but, in this case, if the effect (the feat's effect, in this case) grants a bonus to natural weapons then a monk is considered to have natural weapons for the effect (or for qualifying for the effect, same thing, really). That's practically the wording from the class description and has nothing to do with having to have the effect before you meet the prerequisite, which seems to be what you think is required, which of course would be disallowed.

This has ONLY to do with considering the prerequisite in context. The context being a monk who gets to be considered as having a natural weapon for effects that enhance natural weapons.

This is completely different than the BAB +1 example you bring out. There is NO CONTEXT in which you get to be considered as having a BAB +1 before you actually have a BAB +1. Well, none that I know of, anyway.

I fail to be even a little bit swayed by the argument that you get to get the effects of this feat only if you somehow qualify as having a natural weapon by some other means than being a monk. Either the special attacks is considered to be with a natural weapon for teh purpose of this feat or it is not. Simple as that.

So, thw questions go like this:

Q. Does this feat grant an effect that enhances a natural weapon?
A. Yes

That's it. A monk is considered to have a natural weapon for effect granted.

If a monk is considered to have a natural weapon for the effect that is granted, then logically they must also be considered to have it for meeting the prerequisite for that effect. If not, then it has no meaning to say they are considered to have a natural attack for these spells and effects, at least for any that states the obvious "you must have a natural attack before you can have this effect."

 

[Scion]

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

They have this right?

Powerful Build: The physical stature of half-giants lets them function in many ways as if they were one size category larger.
Whenever a half-giant is subject to a size modifier or special size modifier for an opposed check (such as during grapple checks, bull rush attempts, and trip attempts), the half-giant is treated as one size larger if doing so is advantageous to him.
A half-giant is also considered to be one size larger when determining whether a creature’s special attacks based on size (such as improved grab or swallow whole) can affect him. A half-giant can use weapons designed for a creature one size larger without penalty. However, his space and reach remain those of a creature of his actual size. The benefits of this racial trait stack with the effects of powers, abilities, and spells that change the subject’s size category.

It is pretty clearly laid out. He can use weapons designed for a creature of a larger size, but it does not say that his natural weapons or unarmed strikes or anything else like that are treated as being larger.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Umm.. no.. it proves that if you lose the benefit that you no longer have the benefit.

The feat is the effect, by the raw, but if you no longer qualify then you no longer gain the benefit from the feat.

much like if you picked a feat with no benefit line for some reason. Or being in a situation where the feat cannot, or does not, apply.



It is part of the [exalted] descriptor of the feat.

So, it is indeed listed as part of the feat.

I think that your post had enough internal inconsistency that there is nothing more I need to say here. It is clear that you are never going to change your mind on this issue, and the evidence is there (from Hypersmurf's posts, my own, and even yours) for anyone else to see. I see no need to continue an argument here. More interesting and of note is Hypersmurf and Artoomis's conversation.

 

[Scion]

If a monk is considered to have a natural weapon for the effect that is granted, then logically they must also be considered to have it for meeting the prerequisite for that effect. If not, then it has no meaning to say they are considered to have a natural attack for these spells and effects, at least for any that states the obvious "you must have a natural attack before you can have this effect."

Definately. I do not understand how one can have something for purposes of but not be counted as having it for purposes of.

 

[Dimwhit]

I think that your post had enough internal inconsistency that there is nothing more I need to say here. It is clear that you are never going to change your mind on this issue, and the evidence is there (from Hypersmurf's posts, my own, and even yours) for anyone else to see. I see no need to continue an argument here. More interesting and of note is Hypersmurf and Artoomis's conversation.

You can say it's clear all you want, but that doesn't make it so. You guys are giving feats same imaginary sentience that makes no sense.

But yeah, it's been interesting...

 

[Scion]

I think that your post had enough internal inconsistency that there is nothing more I need to say here. It is clear that you are never going to change your mind on this issue, and the evidence is there (from Hypersmurf's posts, my own, and even yours) for anyone else to see. I see no need to continue an argument here. More interesting and of note is Hypersmurf and Artoomis's conversation.

::shrugs::

So far the only arguements against my reading of the rules are people making up rules that not only do not exist, but also go against other rules that have have been quoted.

If you feel that saying that if you have something that counts as X for purpose Y and yet when purpose Y comes up you do not have something that counts as X.. well... Something is so horrible inconsistant with that it just defies logic.

Which is apparently what others are stating. Something that is so nonsensical that it defies all rational thought.

I am still waiting for them to have any rules to back up their statements.

Usually hypersmurf is good at coming up with rules. It is very odd for him to use none.


If people want to claim that the prereq line is somehow not part of the feat that they are called out for then they should provide rules to back it up.

 

[FireLance]

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?

As one of the "feats are effects" camp, I'll try and answer this.

To me, at least, the effects listed under the benefits section of a feat are only part of the overall effect that is the feat. So, even if you no longer gain the effects listed under the "benefit" section of the feat, the feat can still have other effects - serving as a prerequisite for other feats, for example. Say, a pure-classed bard takes the Silent Spell feat. He cannot use it to modify his spells, but he can use it to qualify for a metamagic feat that has "any another metamagic feat" as a prerequisite.

Would it make a difference if we consider magic items? Let's say you have an ability that allows you to be treated as a dwarf for the purpose of all spells and effects. Can you use a magic item as if you were a dwarf, e.g. get the additional enhancement bonus and returning special ability from a dwarven thrower? Is the prerequisite being a dwarf to get extra benefits from the magic item an effect or not?

 

[Hypersmurf]

So, thw questions go like this:

Q. Does this feat grant an effect that enhances a natural weapon?
A. Yes

That's it. A monk is considered to have a natural weapon for effect granted.

That's true. But that question doesn't answer the other question, which is "Does the monk satisfy the prerequisites of the feat?"

If the feat is an effect that enhances a natural weapon, then for purposes of the feat, the monk's unarmed strike is a natural weapon.

If the feat grants an effect that enhances a natural weapon, then for purposes of what the feat grants, the monk's unarmed strike is a natural weapon.

Prerequisites are part of the feat, but they are not part of what the feat grants.

Scion maintains the feat is an effect that enhances; I claim the feat grants an effect that enhances.

-Hyp.

 

[Scion]

Scion maintains the feat is an effect

Well, that is what the rules say.