Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Artoomis]

I don't feel that accurately reflects the IUS situation.

Let me elaborate: IUS is not fundamentally a natural attack.

It's like the door guard is saying, "This arcade is not for kids, because it includes graphic violence. You're 14, and you need to be 16 according to the law that Congress just passed. Go to the other arcade down the street."

And you're saying, "But, I'm in advanced math, with all the 16 year olds! I game just as well as 16 year olds, too!"

The guard will say, "Yeah, but, you're not actually 16. Sorry."

That is not similar because the boy is NOT 16 for the purpose of playing arcade games.

Bad analogy.

I really like the one about tokens, because tokens are fundamentally NOT money, but only count as money in the arcade. If they can count as money to get past a requirement to have money to get in, that's just like using IUS to count as a natural weapon to take INA.

If they did not count (sorry, you must have actual money only, not just tokens that count as money once you enter), I think there would be court cases ove the legaility of that move.

 

[moritheil]

That is not similar because the boy is NOT 16 for the purpose of playing arcade games.

He is, where the games themselves are concerned. That is, when he plays, say, Tekken, the game cannot tell that he is not 16 because his skill level and ability are commensurate with that of a 16 year old.

 

[Artoomis]

He is, where the games themselves are concerned. That is, when he plays, say, Tekken, the game cannot tell that he is not 16 because his skill level and ability are commensurate with that of a 16 year old.

But his MATURITY LEVEL is not counted as 16, nor does a methododolgy exist for his maturity level to be counted as 16. His age is never considered 16, only his ability level, perhaps.

 

[Pinotage]

... is also an oversight?

If it is, it's a lot more specific than the implied reference which could've been added simply as additional clarification, as Scion remarked a page or two earlier.

Pinotage

 

[Artoomis]

If it is, it's a lot more specific than the implied reference which could've been added simply as additional clarification, as Scion remarked a page or two earlier.

Pinotage

Yes, well, even though I am on your side, this is hardly covincing evidence, now, is it?

 

[Scion]

Yes, well, even though I am on your side, this is hardly covincing evidence, now, is it?

Wasnt it the exotic weapon master who had some of his rules state that he was allowed to do 1.5x weapon damage while weilding an exotic weapon in two hands or something like that?

Basically something that could be done anyway.

Should we then assume that the implication is that you could not actually do it before and it is only a special talent of that prc?

Or should we assume that they were giving extra information where it wasnt needed?

 

[Artoomis]

Wasnt it the exotic weapon master who had some of his rules state that he was allowed to do 1.5x weapon damage while weilding an exotic weapon in two hands or something like that?

Basically something that could be done anyway.

Should we then assume that the implication is that you could not actually do it before and it is only a special talent of that prc?

Or should we assume that they were giving extra information where it wasnt needed?

Actually I was also refering to the reference about "permanent effect." I think both cites of the rules are a bit weak in supporting their respective arguments.

This is NOT a criticism of the arguments being made, but merely pointing out that defintive proof within the rules does not exist to support either side of this argument - though the side that supports allowing INA is the stronger argument, naturally

 

[Scion]

well, the rule does specifically state vs the others 'it might imply this', so yeah..

Much like the handcrossbow rule from 3.0 in my mind

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Or should we assume that they were giving extra information where it wasnt needed?

Or, should you assume that the creator / editor of that particular PrC just didn't know the rules very well?

 

[Dimwhit]

Or, should you assume that the creator / editor of that particular PrC just didn't know the rules very well?

Now you're just talking crazy...