Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[frankthedm]

I feel it is in the spirit of the rules to let monks benefit from the feat. But these are the same Bullfeces rules that let monks claim magic fang AND magic weapon spells. But that steaming pile of manure is still closer to the spirit of the rules than the flurry comboed with 2 weapon fighting the sage let monks claim.

I would not allow it because In my own game, improved natural attack represents a larger natural weapon. And i have at least one player who would take the Popeye fists and clown feat for the damage bonus.

 

[Artoomis]

Are you still argueing that they are natural weapons, or that they considered natural weapons for certain purposes?


glass.

It doesn't matter - ti comes out to be the same thing.

Either:

They are natural weapons with special rules that mean the don't follow the normal natural weapon rules but can be enhanced as natural weapons.

or

They are special (neither natural nor manufactured weapon) with some characteristics of manufactured weapons (iterative attacks, etc.) and are treated as natural weapons for any sort of enhancement (including feats, spells, etc.) .

Comes out to be the same thing, really.

 

[glass]

It doesn't matter - ti comes out to be the same thing.

Either:

They are natural weapons with special rules that mean the don't follow the normal natural weapon rules but can be enhanced as natural weapons.

or

They are special (neither natural nor manufactured weapon) with some characteristics of manufactured weapons (iterative attacks, etc.) and are treated as natural weapons for any sort of enhancement (including feats, spells, etc.).

Comes out to be the same thing, really.

But which are you actually arguing as supported by the rules? The end result may be the same, but the counter-arguments are different.

You can't keep two positions, and hop between them to avoid any arguments that come your way.


glass.

 

[Artoomis]

Sure I can.

Seriously, it does not make any difference which way you view it - either way makes all the rules work together.

Do you not see how both views are essentially the same? Both approaches counter the counter-arguments identically. They are just two different ways of saying the same thing.

It makes no difference to think of unarmed attacks as natural weapons with very special rules, or to think of them as a "special" thing (neither natural not manufactured) that follows a special set of rules that includes lumping them in with "natural weapons" for feats, spells, etc., including prerequisites of them.

Same thing. Either way they are "special" and are "natural weapons" when it comes to anything involving feats, spells, etc. to enhance them.

But which are you actually arguing as supported by the rules? The end result may be the same, but the counter-arguments are different.

You can't keep two positions, and hop between them to avoid any arguments that come your way.


glass.

 

[glass]

Sure I can.

Seriously, it does not make any difference which way you view it - either way makes all the rules work together.

Do you not see how both views are essentially the same?

They have essentially the same results in this case, but they are still mutually contradictory positions. We are not arguing about 'which way you view it', we are arguing about what the rules say. They may say one or the other, or neither. They can't possibly say both!


glass.

 

[Artoomis]

They have essentially the same results in this case, but they are still mutually contradictory positions. We are not arguing about 'which way you view it', we are arguing about what the rules say. They may say one or the other, or neither. They can't possibly say both!


glass.

Ah, but you see, they are NOT contradictory views, they are merely two ways of saying the same thing. One is simply a restatement of the other coming at it from a different viewpoint.

Both are fully supported by the rules (of course, my position is if one is supported, so is the other since they are mere restatements of each the same thing.

Therefore, BOTH ways of stating my position are supported by the rules as they aren't contradictory at all, but, rather, merely two different ways of saying the same thing.

Obviously, you do not agree .

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Ah, but you see, they are NOT contradictory views,

In what way could they possibly not be contradictory?

Position 1: US are natural weapons, and have some special rules

Position 2: US are not natural weapons, and have some special rules

 

[Artoomis]

In what way could they possibly not be contradictory?

Position 1: US are natural weapons, and have some special rules

Position 2: US are not natural weapons, and have some special rules

Postion 1: US are natural weapons (NW), and have some special rules diffentiating them from other NWs and where they, in effect, are often NOT considered NW.

Position 2: US are not NW, but have some special rules where they effectivewly are NW under ciertain conditions.

Same thing, really. Either way, under the right set of circumstances they are NW, under other sets of circumstances they are not.

Same thing, right?

Either way, for enhacement, etc., (Feats, Spell, etc., that enhance NW) they are NW, for other purposes they are special and not NW.

See? It does not matter if you consider US to be NW that somtimes are not NW or are not NW that are sometimes NW.

 

[Storm Raven]

They have essentially the same results in this case, but they are still mutually contradictory positions. We are not arguing about 'which way you view it', we are arguing about what the rules say. They may say one or the other, or neither. They can't possibly say both!

Sure they can. Where did you ever get the idea that the rules cannot contradict themselves?

 

[Infiniti2000]

Same thing, right?

No, because as glass said, "You can't keep two positions, and hop between them to avoid any arguments that come your way."

See? It does not matter if you consider US to be NW that somtimes are not NW or are not NW that are sometimes NW.

It matters a lot because defining them one way makes some of those special cases change. Yet, as glass points out, you're redefining it as you see fit without regard for a clear definition in the rules. Basically, you're trying to paint yourself in a situation where no matter what interpretation or rules bring to bear, you can't possibly be considered wrong because you'll just revise your definition as needed.

The rest of us aren't allowing it.