Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Dimwhit]

I claim the feat grants an effect that enhances.

-Hyp.

And I claim that a feat doesn't grant anything. It's simply the name given to an ability that is gained as a character levels, provided that character qualifies for the feat. It's like saying a Level grants more hit points, etc. A level is just a way of measuring a character's power and experience. It is nothing in and of itself. Feats are the same.

 

[Artoomis]

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...
-Hyp.

Wait a minute here... If, "for purposes of what the feat grants, the monk's unarmed strike is a natural weapon," then how can they not meet the prerequisite of having a natural attack for the purposes of getting the effect that the feat grants?!?

 

[Borlon]

Hypersmurf,

Couldn't both alternatives be true? That the feat is an effect (of leveling up) that enhances a natural attack by means of a granted effect (the benefit line of the feat?)

In the same way a magic item (like the cloak you mention) would be the effect of an item creation feat, but would itself have an effect; an enhancement movement to speed, perhaps.

 

[Legildur]

<snip>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.

Which is a very similar comment to my later post (you quoted one of my earlier posts where I was too lazy to crunch the results). Let's assume, for the sake of argument (and I think we both agree the following is a reasonable conclusion), that the 33 votes were 'no' votes, then the numbers become a whole lot more interesting and don't provide a clear majority to either side!

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.

I feel a new, revised poll coming on

 

[Zandel]

You know hyp I think dimwit does have a point there but i'm sure there are exceptions to the feat=effect thought........Craft feats for example are not in them selves effects but knowledge and experience like skills.

There are some feats that are effects such as toughness that feat is an effect that adds 3 hp to your character.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Let's say you have an ability that allows you to be treated as a dwarf for the purpose of all spells and effects.

Excellent question!

Half-orcs have the 'Orc Blood' racial feature, that states that "For all effects related to race, a half-orc is considered an orc".

In Races of Faerun, there are two feats. Blood of the Warlord has a prerequisite: Orc. Headlong Rush has a prerequisite: Orc or Half-Orc.

Satisfying a "be this race" prerequisite for a feat is apparently not an "effect related to race".

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

Which is a very similar comment to my later post (you quoted one of my earlier posts where I was too lazy to crunch the results). Let's assume, for the sake of argument (and I think we both agree the following is a reasonable conclusion), that the 33 votes were 'no' votes, then the numbers become a whole lot more interesting and don't provide a clear majority to either side!

I feel a new, revised poll coming on

Nope. My analysis showed the MAXIMUM possible votes for "no" was 40% because the TOTAL number of votes is shown - even if all 33 were "no" it can only add 19 to the "no" vote column at the most. Some folks chose not to vote "yes" or "no" - 19 of them, in fact.
We are trying yo guess which way they would have voted, whihc is a bit silly, perhaps, but even still cannot sway the total to more than 40% of the total voters to the "no" side, but likely not that many.

 

[Anubis]

MOderator's Notes:
Anubis, the idea behind your three-day vacation was that you'd have a chance to cool down and review board rules. If three days wasn't enough, we're happy to make this vacation longer.

Everyone else, I'd appreciate it if you'd edit his comments out of your posts where you responded to them. I don't want this thread going down in flames, too.

Daniel

 

[Artoomis]

Excellent question!

Half-orcs have the 'Orc Blood' racial feature, that states that "For all effects related to race, a half-orc is considered an orc".

In Races of Faerun, there are two feats. Blood of the Warlord has a prerequisite: Orc. Headlong Rush has a prerequisite: Orc or Half-Orc.

Satisfying a "be this race" prerequisite for a feat is apparently not an "effect related to race".

-Hyp.

Best evidence for you to date, though it is more evidence of poor rule-writing than anything else, I think. Of course, with excellent rules-writing we wouldn't get to have the really cool debates, now, would we.

 

[Scion]

Half-orcs have the 'Orc Blood' racial feature, that states that "For all effects related to race, a half-orc is considered an orc".

In Races of Faerun, there are two feats. Blood of the Warlord has a prerequisite: Orc. Headlong Rush has a prerequisite: Orc or Half-Orc.

Satisfying a "be this race" prerequisite for a feat is apparently not an "effect related to race".

So you are saying that being thorough in listing, possibly trying to keep down questions of this nature, is evidence 'against' them being effects?

I disagree.