Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[glass]

EDIT: Quote removed at moderator's request.

You haven't proved anything. Restating the same position over and over again and calling anyone who disagrees 'silly' does not constitute proof.


glass.

 

[moritheil]

(deleted justification that Skip and Andy wrote the rules and are thus infallible)

If I write a poem, I get asked to recite it before a school, and I misquote the poem, does the written poem change? I think not. My being the author of the poem has no bearing on whether or not I am in fact reciting it correctly. It only changes whether or not people believe I am reciting it correctly.

Similarly, Skip and Andy may be on the design team - but so what? The rules are already written, and it is therefore possible for them to be right or wrong.

 

[moritheil]

Hyp, that makes no sense. The second fighter above is not eligible for the feat because he doesn't have a BAB +8. When he does, he will be eligible for it.

I don't see how you draw the conclusion that you can be eligible for a feat without meeting the prereqs. A fighter isn't eligible for Power Attack unless he has a STR 13. A Wizard isn't eligible for the Craft Wand feet unless he's 5th level. Being eligible and meeting the prereqs are synonymous terms. They serve the same purpose.

No, you think of being eligible as one thing. Hyp is showing that there are two logical parts to being eligible "for" a feat - being eligible to TAKE the feat, and being eligible to BENEFIT from the feat.

 

[moritheil]

2. It don't think it matters. Wearing the cloak gives you an effect of an increase in speed or an effect of a enhancement bonus to speed which gives you an increase in speed. Either way should lead to the same result.

This is incredibly imprecise. If someone is killed by fire, there's still a difference between getting hit by a fireball and getting hit by a scorching ray. Either way, the dead guy may not care - he's dead - but that doesn't render the distinction nonexistent.

 

[moritheil]

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

That's the fundamental problem. Suppose I have arcade tokens. They count as money for the purposes of paying for games. They do not count as money for the purposes of paying, say, my taxes. So they are not really money, they just sometimes can be used as money, when in the arcade. Does this make sense?

 

[moritheil]

So close, but wrong analogy.

The right analogy is if you are considered a member of a bar if the bar grants benefits to you. If the bar does not give members benefits, then you are not considered a member of that bar - not that it really matters to you.

Essentially, you are given a free membership. This is quite similar - essentially, the monk is given a "natural weapon" without the drawbacks that having a natural weapon might bring - no iterative attacks for high level, etc.

There are two stages to this, though. The stage at which the benefit is getting inside the bar - where you fail - and the stage at which you would be able to get free drinks - where you would pass, if only it weren't a moot point.

You're cramming the two things together because they are both benefits, and that's where the problem arises.

Let's try another example.

In FFTA, the "swordbreaker" weapon grants a thief the "Steal Weapon" ability.

My character is a thief. He can therefore benefit from the swordbreaker.

But, I can't buy the swordbreaker early in the game. I only run across it being wielded by enemies.

If I could only GET the swordbreaker, I could benefit from it and gain the "Steal Weapon" ability. Alas, I cannot get the ability, because I cannot get the swordbreaker. Getting the swordbreaker would mean that I would have to steal the weapon from an enemy, and I do not have the Steal Weapon ability.

I am "cleared" for the benefit of the ability if I have the Thief job. However, it's a moot point, because I lack the means to obtain the swordbreaker.

Is it obvious, in THIS example at least, how it is conceptually possible to benefit from something and yet be unable to attain it?

 

[FireLance]

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.

Good catch!

However, there seems to be some inconsistency about what it means to have orc or human blood, or the orc or human subtype, when it comes to qualifying for feats and prestige classes.

The sidebar on p. 150 of Races of Destiny states that humanoids with the human subtype "qualify as human for the purpose of meeting a prerequisite for a feat or a prestige class".

Either this is a special case that applies only for humanoids with the human subtype, or it is possible to generalize this rule so that humanoids with the orc subtype (including half-orcs) also qualify as orcs for the purpose of meeting a prerequisite for a feat or a prestige class.

My admittedly hazy recollection of the phrasing of the sidebar inclines me toward the second interpretation, as think it was something along the lines of "humanoid with the human subtype ... means ... you qualify as human for the purpose of meeting a prerequisite for a feat or a prestige class" - I will need to check this against the book.

In the meantime, I'll re-state my original question: If 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 of being a dwarf for the purpose of gaining extra benefits from the magic item an effect or not?

EDIT: Just to clarify, the description of the dwarven thrower in the SRD states:

Dwarven Thrower: This weapon commonly functions as a +2 warhammer. In the hands of a dwarf, the warhammer gains an additional +1 enhancement bonus (for a total enhancement bonus of +3) and gains the returning special ability. It can be hurled with a 30-foot range increment. When hurled, it deals an extra 2d8 points of damage against giants or an extra 1d8 points of damage against any other target.

 

[moritheil]

In the meantime, I'll re-state my original question: If 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 of being a dwarf for the purpose of gaining extra benefits from the magic item an effect or not?

Is the enhancement bonus a spell or effect? Is the special ability a spell or effect?

Note, however, that being treated as a dwarf for ALL spells and effects is different from being treated as a dwarf for ONLY spells and effects that, say, increase your damage.

EDIT: A prerequisite is not an effect, so by a more careful reading, you are not actually a dwarf, and as such, issues arise. I was reading "all spells and effects" as "for all intents and purposes," when it doesn't say that.

 

[Pinotage]

Wee! That took a long time to wade through. Go to bed and the whole world explodes with three pages of debate. Excessive literalism is making my head hurt!

Pinotage

 

[moritheil]

Wee! That took a long time to wade through. Go to bed and the whole world explodes with three pages of debate. Excessive literalism is making my head hurt!

Pinotage

When bad writers create rules and situations, literalism is the only resort. Otherwise you don't have "What do the rules say?" discussions, but rather, "What is a sane, logical way to run my game?"