Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Borlon]

I am starting to wonder if a feat is an effect at all. I wonder if passing references in the rules might be examples of synecdoche- a figure of speech in which the part stands for the whole (or vice versa). When I look at the text of Improved Spell Resistance, it seems plausible that, to save space, they used "class feature" and "feat" to refer to the effects of class features and feats, etc.. For reference, here's the exact wording:
[sblock]IMPROVED SPELL RESISTANCE [EPIC]
Prerequisite: Must have spell resistance from a feat, class feature, or other permanent effect.
Benefit: The character’s spell resistance increases by +2.
Special: A character can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects stack. [/sblock]

It has been pointed out by Patryn of Elvenshae (post 353 of this thread) that "effect" is such a loose term that *everything* could be considered an effect. Even rules (caused by the designer). Even the designer (caused by the designer's parents). "That way lies madness" says PoE.

Even if you limited the madness by saying that we are talking about effects that have in game causes, there would still seem to be cases of where a feat is not an effect. If INA is assigned by default to a breed of particularly vicious dogs (as a regular feat, not a bonus feat), then the feat is an effect of DM (or designer) fiat, not an in game cause like leveling up. And I would hate to have a rules distinction between feats that are due to in game causes and those that aren't.

However, even if a feat is an effect, I'm starting to wonder how it follows that its parts are (specifically the prerequisites). I mean, if your car is orange, it doesn't follow that your tires are orange. If a bag of sugar weighs 2 pounds, it doesn't follow that each grain of sugar inside weighs 2 pounds. If the public overwhelmingly supports a particular policy, it doesn't follow that each segment of the population overwhelmingly supports that policy.

Now maybe there is something about the property "treats a monk's unarmed attack as a natural weapon" that means that if a part of something has this property, the whole has it too, and that if the whole has it, all the parts have it. If this were the case, then you could deduce that the INA feat "as a whole" treats a monk's unarmed attack as a natural weapon, because its benefit line does. Then you could deduce that the prerequisite line has this property too. But we could also deduce that the monk herself treats her unarmed attack as a natural weapon, which means that when it comes time to determine iterative attacks and such, she would (at least at her option) use the rules for natural weapons. Which is not the case. So the property "treats a monk's unarmed attack as a natural weapon" is not transitive in the way I described.

What I think right now is that the FAQ has, in effect, issued a stealth erratta that adds "qualifying for" to the rule that a monk's unarmed attack is considered a natural weapon for the purpose of qualifying for spells and effects that enhance a natural weapon. "Qualifying for" refers to being a valid target and/or a valid prerequisite.

So now I am almost ready to vote!

No, per the RAW
Yes, because of the Sage's recent ruling

Now I have to think about whether I would allow it in a game I DM'd. I'll have to think about that one some more.

 

[Borlon]

...for the dwarven thrower example at least, the character does counts as a dwarf for the purposes of the determining, as well as the purposes of the effect.

From there it is a small step to say that for the purposes of feats, if something counts as a natural weapon for the purposes of the effect, it should also count as a natural weapon for the purposes of the determining - determining whether you can take the feat, in particular.

Two possibilities. Either you can read the rule for monks as if it said (italics added)

A monk's unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of qualifying for spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons

or you could make it a general rule that if something "counts as X" for the purpose of being the target of a spell or effect, it also "counts as X" for the purpose of meeting prerequisites.

The first possibility is better in the sense that it has fewer possible implications. The latter would imply that a monk could qualify for a monstrous prestige class that requires members to have a natural attack; something which AFAIK is not currently the case.

The second possibility is better in that it construes the Sage as offering a principle of interpretation, which is better than issuing stealth erratta.

Maybe another poll should be started to see which option is preferable? I'm leaning towards the first one, myself.

 

[glass]

I am starting to wonder if a feat is an effect at all. I wonder if passing references in the rules might be examples of synecdoche- a figure of speech in which the part stands for the whole (or vice versa).

Ah thank you, that's what I was trying to get at, but I was hampered by not knowing what it was called.


glass.

 

[Artoomis]

If INA was an effect of levelling up, it wouldn't exist unless you levelled up and selected it. Since it plainly does exist right there in the PHB, whether it is selcted or not, it can not be an effect of feat selection or levelling.

The feat's effects don't exist for a given character unless he takes the feat, but the feat itself still does, waiting to possibly be taken at a later date, or acquired as a bonus feat by shapechanging, or whatever.


glass.

A feat "exists" (sort of) by virtue of it being written down, I suppose, but it does come into existence as a reality until a character takes it from leveling up, thus it's an "effect" of leveling up.

Anyway, it's all semantics, isn't it?

My real point to all my arguments is that taken as a whole, a monk qualifies for INA. It is possible, though to view the rule in such a way as to have them not qualify. (The other side of the argument is free to turn that sentence around, it won't affect my conclusion in the next sentence). Therefore, there is no "official" way to look at this from the RAW themselves that is conclusive, so a ruling from WotC was required to create an "official" stance for use at RPGA tournaments and the like. Of course, this makes no difference to anyone's own game where the DM is free to rule on this either way.

I wonder if, other than maybe turning the first sentence around, anyone really disagrees with THAT statement?

 

[Borlon]

Well, semantics means "the meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form" (dictionary.com) so, yeah, we are arguing about semantics; how to interpret the rules about natural weapons.

I think you are right about the RAW not giving a conclusive answer to this question. IMHO many rules are not written precisely enough to bear the weight of close scrutiny. The variance in the feats with orc/half-orc prerequisites are due, I think, to a lack of precision by the writers and editors of some feats, and not to the fact that "counts as race X" applies only to the race specific effects and not racial prerequisites. The phrasing of Improved Spell Resistance might mean that feats are effects, or it might be a (space saving) figure of speech that says only that feats have effects. My point being that an argument based on these texts isn't going to be 100% convincing.

Add the strong suspicion of imprecise language to the fact that ISR is from the epic section of the SRD, and not from the core books; and the orc/half-orc feats are from a Faerun sourcebook, and so wouldn't be authoritative for a "core only" campaign (by core I mean MM, DMG, PHB).

I would think a strict reading of the three core books would say that a human monk would not qualify for INA because they qualify only for the benefits of the feat, but not for the feat's prerequisites. The arguments for this don't have to be rehashed; suffice to say that they are based on a fine distinction between counting as a valid target and counting as a valid prerequisite. I made the argument using magic fang as a contrasting example to INA.

However, I don't think the Sage means to say that this distinction should never be made, he's just eliminating the distinction in a rather special case.

Would it be fair to generalize the ruling as follows?

If X counts as Y for the purposes of checking the validity of targets of effects that do Z, then X also counts as Y when checking the prerequisites for effects that do Z.

The recent ruling would be a special case of this general ruling, with X = "a monk's unarmed attack", Y = "a natural weapon" and Z = "enhance or improve a natural weapon".

[edit]I think a better wording would be

When X counts as Y for the purposes of effects that mention Y, then X also counts as Y for the purpose of prerequisites that mention Y.

X and Y as before. When an effect enhances a natural weapon is when X counts as Y; it doesn't have to be listed in the rule, since it determines when the rule is looked up.

Note that if Y is among the prerequisites of something but is *not* mentioned in the effect, then this principle does not apply. It applies only when effects mentioning Y kick in. [/edit]

 

[Artoomis]

...

If X counts as Y for the purposes of checking the validity of targets of effects that do Z, then X also counts as Y when checking the prerequisites for effects that do Z.

The recent ruling would be a special case of this general ruling, with X = "a monk's unarmed attack", Y = "a natural weapon" and Z = "enhance or improve a natural weapon".

That's the essence of my core position (the argument about whether the feat as a whole, including prerequisites, is an effect is secondary for me and, I think, somewhat silly).

I think it might be fair to say that this is what is happening with the Sage's ruling.

 

[Pinotage]

Therefore, there is no "official" way to look at this from the RAW themselves that is conclusive, so a ruling from WotC was required to create an "official" stance for use at RPGA tournaments and the like. Of course, this makes no difference to anyone's own game where the DM is free to rule on this either way.

I agree with this.

I'd still like to see the other side's comment regarding the Human Heritage feat from Races of Destiny. The text there, to me, indicated quite clearly what's considered an effect (see post #398), and meeting the prerequisites of a feat is considered an effect. You meet the prerequisites of the feat which causes a result in that you gain the benefit of the feat which causes a result of whatever that benefit might be. Both meeting the prerequisites and the benefit of the feat are effects.

Pinotage

 

[Dimwhit]

I agree with this.

I'd still like to see the other side's comment regarding the Human Heritage feat from Races of Destiny. The text there, to me, indicated quite clearly what's considered an effect (see post #398), and meeting the prerequisites of a feat is considered an effect. You meet the prerequisites of the feat which causes a result in that you gain the benefit of the feat which causes a result of whatever that benefit might be. Both meeting the prerequisites and the benefit of the feat are effects.

Pinotage

I think it's spot on. Probably why you haven't heard a response.

 

[Borlon]

I think Human Heritage (and sidebar) is an instance of the "Principle of Prerequisite Conversion" (PPC) which is as follows:

If X counts as Y for the purposes of checking the validity of targets of effects that do Z, then X also counts as Y when checking the prerequisites for effects that do Z.

In the case of the Human Heritage feat, it has X = "the character with the Human Heritage Feat", Y = "human" and Z = "anything".

What distinguishes the "other side" (which I think I am on) is not that the PPC is a bad principle (I think it is kind of elegant, myself), but that it is neither found in nor implied by the rules of the three core books.

 

[Pinotage]

I think Human Heritage (and sidebar) is an instance of the "Principle of Prerequisite Conversion" (PPC) which is as follows:

If X counts as Y for the purposes of checking the validity of targets of effects that do Z, then X also counts as Y when checking the prerequisites for effects that do Z.

In the case of the Human Heritage feat, it has X = "the character with the Human Heritage Feat", Y = "human" and Z = "anything".

What distinguishes the "other side" (which I think I am on) is not that the PPC is a bad principle (I think it is kind of elegant, myself), but that it is neither found in nor implied by the rules of the three core books.

I can live with this.

Pinotage