Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Borlon]

This argument makes the distinction between "effects that apply differently based on race" and "prerequisites that specify a particular race". When a determining whether a dwarf (or a character who is considered a dwarf), gets extra benefits from a dwarven thrower, isn't he satisfying a prerequisite that specifies a particular race? Yet, it seems to be covered by point 2.

It's the dwarven thrower which is bestowing the extra benefits. It is the source of the effects, but what the effect is varies according to the nature of the wielder. I think of prerequisites as being for things which are non-actual until a character selects them; feats and levels, mostly.

The points were not enumerated separately in the text. The original text was a single paragraph which stated:

"At 3rd level, a stoneblessed completes the bond with her chosen race. The stoneblessed gains a permanent +2 increase to her Constitution score. In addition, for all effects related to race, a stoneblessed is considered a member of the race to which she is bonded. For example, dwarf-bonded stoneblessed are just as vulnerable to effects and abilities that affect dwarves as actual dwarves are (such as a ranger's favored enemy ability), and they can use magic items that are usable only by dwarves. The stoneblessed meets any racial prerequisites for prestige classes and feats as if she were a member of her bonded race. Finally, the stoneblessed gets an ability based on her type of racial bond:"

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. But you know, if the two were meant to be the same point, what is the example doing between the two sentences? Shouldn't examples follow the complete statement of an idea? The fact that there is an illustrative example separating them suggests that the two points are separate.

The ability to qualify for racial substitution levels should be analogous to the ability to qualify for racial feats and prestige classes. However, the Rules As Written only specify feats and prestige classes. Hence, the ability to qualify for racial substitution levels must be a granted by the ability to be treated as a member of the race "for all effects related to race". And by analogue, the ability to qualify for racial feats and prestige classes must also be granted by the same ability, making point 3 an elaboration of point 2 instead of a separate point in itself.

Except the wording of many prerequisites is oddly inconsistent if this is true. I agree it is a more straightforward interpretation of the rules, but the exceptions that have been pointed out leave me unconvinced that this is what the designers and editors are actually implementing. I don't have many of the books, though, and I have to rely on what people tell me is in them. It may be that the inconsistencies with elves/half-elves and orcs/half-orcs is due to rules gaffes by some of the designers, compounded with some editing mistakes. But it might also mean that the rules were written in a misleading manner to suggest that prerequisites count as effects. Either way, something was written down poorly, and the RAW won't tell which something.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Ah, thanks for clearing that up. But you know, if the two were meant to be the same point, what is the example doing between the two sentences? Shouldn't examples follow the complete statement of an idea? The fact that there is an illustrative example separating them suggests that the two points are separate.

Here's my reasoning for why the two should be separate points...

-Hyp.

 

[Trainz]

Is it just me or...

... this adds up to 130.47 % ?????

 

[Pinotage]

Is it just me or...

... this adds up to 130.47 % ?????

It's a multiple choice poll. You can select more than one option.

Pinotage

 

[Borlon]

I'm going to try this again. Consider the following argument:

1. Having a natural weapon satisfies the prerequisites of INA.
2. Having something that counts as a natural weapon satisfies the prerequisites of INA.
3. If you do not count as having something that counts as a natural weapon you do not satisfy the prerequisites of INA.
4. Having a monk’s unarmed strike counts as having a natural weapon if its counting as a natural weapon enhances a natural weapon.
5. Having a monk's unarmed strike does not count as having a natural weapon if its counting as a natural weapon does not enhance a natural weapon.
6. Merely having a monk's unarmed attack does not enhance a natural weapon.
7. Merely having a monk's unarmed attack does not count as having a natural weapon.
8. Merely having a monk's unarmed attack means does not satisfy the prerequisites of INA.

Q.E.D.

7 follows from 6 and 5. 8 follows from 7 and 4. You also need a premise that says that merely having is a kind of having, but that shouldn't be controversial.

The convoluted wording of 4 is intended to represent a situation such as when a monk is the target of a magic fang spell. If his unarmed attack counts a natural weapon, it is enhanced. And so it is true to say that some natural weapon is enhanced; the monk's unarmed attack. But this ability kicks in only when there is an effect that enhances a natural weapon; that's what 5 means.

The stilted phrasing facilitates checking the soundness of the argument.

 

[Borlon]

Thanks, Hypersmurf, for the link. The thread is starting to get unwieldy.

And while it might seem as if we have done this topic to death, I think there are important points that have not been addressed. For example, would it be correct to say the following:

You cannot use a feat's effects to satisfy the prerequisites of that feat.​

If so, then the fact that INA improves a natural weapon is irrelevant. You can't use its effect (which results in the monk's unarmed attack being considered a natural weapon) when you check to see if the monk qualifies for the feat.

I think this observation forestalls the most likely objection to the argument in my previous post, namely that statement 6 misstates the situation; the monk is not just hanging around, he is about to take the INA feat, and since the feat enhances a natural weapon, he is treated as having a natural weapon for the purpose of taking the feat. I'm saying he is not allowed to consider the feat's effects when taking the feat.

Imagine there's a feat called "Extra Breath Weapon". It allows a living creature who has a breath weapon use a breath weapon 3 times per day as a supernatural ability; either a 30 foot cone of fire or cold, or a 60 foot line of acid or electricity. Damage is 1d6/2 hit dice, reflex save for 1/2, save DC is 10 + 1/2 creature's HD + creature's Con modifier. The details of the effect aren't important, but the feat has, among its prerequisites the following: must have a breath weapon usable at least 1/day.

Could a human monk take the feat? If he took it, he would have a breath weapon usable more than 1/day, and would meet the prerequisites. But I don't think anyone would say he could take it unless he had a breath weapon from another source.

The situation with INA is similar. If he took it, his taking of the feat would enhance his unarmed attack if his unarmed attack were considered a natural weapon, and so, arguably, his unarmed attack would be considered a natural weapon for the purpose of taking the feat. But he has to take the feat to satisfy the prerequisite, and that is as illegitimate as using the effect of Extra Breath Weapon to satisfy EBW's prerequisite.

Has this point been raised before and I just didn't notice? Is there a flaw in my logic, or is this an important argument against the thesis that the RAW allows a human monk to take INA?

[edit]Yep. Hypersmurf made it in post 208 of this very thread. [/edit]

 

[FoxWander]

Thanks, Hypersmurf, for the link. The thread is starting to get unwieldy.

And while it might seem as if we have done this topic to death, I think there are important points that have not been addressed. For example, would it be correct to say the following:

You cannot use a feat's effects to satisfy the prerequisites of that feat.​

If so, then the fact that INA improves a natural weapon is irrelevant. You can't use its effect (which results in the monk's unarmed attack being considered a natural weapon) when you check to see if the monk qualifies for the feat.

<snip>

Imagine there's a feat called "Extra Breath Weapon". It allows a living creature who has a breath weapon use a breath weapon 3 times per day as a supernatural ability; either a 30 foot cone of fire or cold, or a 60 foot line of acid or electricity. Damage is 1d6/2 hit dice, reflex save for 1/2, save DC is 10 + 1/2 creature's HD + creature's Con modifier. The details of the effect aren't important, but the feat has, among its prerequisites the following: must have a breath weapon usable at least 1/day.

Could a human monk take the feat? If he took it, he would have a breath weapon usable more than 1/day, and would meet the prerequisites. But I don't think anyone would say he could take it unless he had a breath weapon from another source.

The situation with INA is similar. If he took it, his taking of the feat would enhance his unarmed attack if his unarmed attack were considered a natural weapon, and so, arguably, his unarmed attack would be considered a natural weapon for the purpose of taking the feat. But he has to take the feat to satisfy the prerequisite, and that is as illegitimate as using the effect of Extra Breath Weapon to satisfy EBW's prerequisite.

In regards to the bit I've underlined above... WHAT!?!?!?!?!
The fact that INA improves a natural weapon is, in fact, the ONLY things that's relevant!! The feat improves a natural weapon, then for the purposes of the feat a monk HAS a natural weapon. This is all very clear according to the monk's NWE rule. (Nicely named, by the way. Writing out that whole bit was getting cumbersome. )

It is just that simple! Does A improve B, then monk's have B for the purpose of A. That's it! Why is this even being argued?

Can monk's benefit from Magic Fang- it only works on natural weapons? The answer is- of course they benefit from it. Magic Fang improves natural weapons then by NWE monk's have natural weapons and benefit from the spell.

Can monk's benefit from Magic Weapon- it only works on manufactured weapons? But because of MWE monk's have manufactured weapons too, at least for things that improve manufactured weapons. So monk's benefit from the spell.

It is exactly the same for INA as it is for Magic Fang. You have to have a natural weapon to "get" either one, but since both are effects that improve natural weapons the monk's NWE kicks in, and he qualifies- he CAN get either one!

In fact, concerning your EBW feat. If the monk had a class ability which stated "A monk’s [non-existant breath weapon] is treated as [having a breath weapon usable at least 1/day] for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve [breath weapons]", then yes, he could take the EBW feat because the monk would have BWE (Breath Weapon Equivalency).

 

[Borlon]

I'm glad you like the NWE TLA (three letter acronym). I like how you've generalized it for manufactured weapons and breath weapons. How do you like my numbered proof? It's a lot easier to follow than the color coded stuff, isn't it?

Anyways, back to the question at hand....

NWE kicks in after magic fang is cast on the monk. Not before.

NWE is not activated until there is an actual effect that is looking for a natural weapon. Then it kicks in. Not before.

INA doesn't have any effect until you take it. INA doesn't trigger NWE until you take it. Until NWE is triggered, the monk is not considered to have a natural weapon. To take INA you need to meet the prerequisites. Having a natural weapon is one of the prerequisites of INA. If NWE is not triggered, the monk can't take INA. Before the monk takes INA he can't take INA. In other words, the monk can't take INA.

The example of EBW is to illustrate the fact that an effect of a feat cannot be used to satisfy the prerequisites of the very same feat.

 

[Hypersmurf]

In fact, concerning your EBW feat. If the monk had a class ability which stated "A monk’s [non-existant breath weapon] is treated as [having a breath weapon usable at least 1/day] for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve [breath weapons]", then yes, he could take the EBW feat because the monk would have BWE (Breath Weapon Equivalency).

Is a feat that grants a breath weapon an effect that enhances or improves breath weapons? The feat doesn't alter an existing breath weapon in any way.

The other question, of course, goes back pages and pages... is a feat that grants a breath weapon an effect?

-Hyp.

 

[Borlon]

The other question, of course, goes back pages and pages... is a feat that grants a breath weapon an effect?

-Hyp.

If a feat is an effect, surely it is not an effect until you take it. And so before you take it, you can't use it to satisfy any prerequisites.

I thought that was *your* point back on 208. Did I misunderstand, or did you just let that line of argument drop?