Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Artoomis]

No, what I mean by totally misrepresenting is the use of phrases like "silly argument" and "phenomenal hair-splitting." While you may feel that way, don't try to present your opponent's view by using obviously belittling statements. If you really want to make a "high-level summary", don't do it disingenuously. You obviously didn't mean to present both sides in a fair manner so don't try.

Oh, I see. I did NOT misrepresent your position, you just don't like the way I phrased my counter-arguments - which I clearly represented as being my counter-arguments.

I can live with that.

 

[Artoomis]

Wrong and wrong. First, define 'effect.' Because I guarantee you there is no definition you can give for it that will show feats are not effects. Don't give me an example of another effect. I want you to define it and show where it is you are getting that definition....

Just to be clear - I was stating the position of my opposition, NOT my position.

I agree that it is not possible to define "effects" in D&D terms other than using the dictionary.

I agree that if one has a natural attack for the purposes of gaining the benefits of some feat that one obviously has a natural attack for the purposes of the prerequisites of that feat as well.

 

[Caliban]

I agree that if one has a natural attack for the purposes of gaining the benefits of some feat that one obviously has a natural attack for the purposes of the prerequisites of that feat as well.

And to many people, it's equally obvious that it is two different things.

 

[glass]

Nah. It had only been dead a few weeks. Well within the limits of raise dead.

raise thread?

glass.

 

[glass]

Wrong and wrong. First, define 'effect.' Because I guarantee you there is no definition you can give for it that will show feats are not effects. Don't give me an example of another effect. I want you to define it and show where it is you are getting that definition.

I already posted dictionary.com's definition about 20 pages back, which showed that a feat does not fit the definition of an effect.

As for prereqs, I can almost understand some arguments against all this, but the 'prerequisites are not effects' argument is the most irrelevant one I've heard. You don't qualify for prereqs, you qualify for a feat. Saying prereqs need to be an effect before you can take INA makes no sense whatsoever.

You are correct that you don't qualify for the prereqs, you qualify for the feat. But how do you qualify for the feat? You meet the prerequsites.

Far from irrelevant, it is the very heart of the question. If prerequisites are not effects (and by the definition above, I don't see how you can argue that they are), then a monks ability has no power to meet prereqs. This is true, even if you think feats as a whole are effects (which they aren't).


glass.

 

[glass]

Actually, there are two distinct, technical arguments for why monks, per RAW, may take INA.

1. "Effects" is NOT a defined term in D&D (except for spells) and is used to mean MANY things in the RAW. Feats are, in fact, included in that list:

... a feat, class feature, or other permanent effect.

1. Feats are not effects (disproved many times - see point 1 above).

That counter argument has been itself countered 'many times': Synecdoche


glass.

 

[glass]

I agree that it is not possible to define "effects" in D&D terms other than using the dictionary..

And yet, you keep trying to define it in a way that bears no resmblance to the dictionary definition!


glass.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

I'm not going to enter into this argument long-term. I just thought I'd post a short analogy that illustrates my own position on the matter.

Furniture guy: Here you go, Jere, a fine plastic chair. It's made of a special plastic, though, so if you want to get it painted, you should treat it like wood or steel.

Me: But it's not wood or steel!

Furniture guy: That's the beauty of this plastic. Take it easy.

Me: All right, to the paint guy!

Paint guy: So you want some of this red paint, huh?

Me: Yes, sir!

Paint guy: Do you have a wooden chair?

Me: No, I have a plastic chair, but...

Paint guy: Sorry, no can do.

Me: What? But that paint will work just fine on my chair once I have it!

Paint guy: Don't care. I only sell this stuff to folks with wooden chairs. Come back to me when you've got one. Have you considered a nice coat of blue? I'll sell that crap to anyone.

Me: ...

=================================

RAW, the monk can't take the feat.
But in my game, I'd probably let him have the red paint.

 

[Borlon]

glass made the point earlier, but you don't qualify for prerequisites, you meet them.

The most succinct way of expressing the "prerequisites are not effects" argument is, I think, as follows: A feat does not have effects before it is taken, but it does have prerequisites that must be met before the feat is taken; therefore prerequisites are not effects.

Feats aren't effects. The synecdoche argument applies against some quoted rules text. But there is also the argument that a feat is an "effect" of leveling up. This employs a flexible definition of feat that renders the word meaningless. If a feat is an effect of leveling up, well, leveling up is an effect of the character overcoming challenges. The character's actions are an effect of the player's choices. The player's choices are an effect of the player. The player is an effect of the player's parents. And so on. Leveling up is also an effect of the experience point rules. The experience point rules are an effect of the game designer. And so is anything else that the game designer wrote; every rule, every item, every spell, everything; all are effects. One poster (I forget who) said "that way lies madness."

I don't have a comprehensive in game definition of effect, but I include the benefit section of a feat, and the text of spells and special abilities. I exclude prerequisites for the reason I outline above; namely, that prerequisites have to be met before something has an effect.

Finally, I reject the "unarmed strikes are natural weapons" argument. I contend that unarmed strikes are what people use when they are unarmed; that is when they don't have weapons. In other words, unarmed strikes aren't weapons at all. They aren't manufactured weapons, and they aren't natural weapons. However the rules that apply to unarmed strikes overlap with the rules for both kinds of weapons. The iterative attacks work like manufactured weapons, and enhancements that apply to natural weapons apply to them too.

But really, they aren't weapons. They are a last resort for someone who is unarmed, has no natural weapons, but still needs to fight. If they resort to unarmed strikes they have to cope with nonproficiency penalties, low damage, the inability threaten an area or do lethal damage; unarmed strikes are a desperate last resort of someone without weapons.

In any event, the Sage's response refers to special monk rules as a basis for granting a monk access to INA. He doesn't refer to the "fact" that unarmed strikes are natural attacks. Even if the ruling could be justified on the grounds that unarmed strikes are natural attacks, the Sage's ruling could be criticized. If his ruling is justified, it is justified on the basis of the monk's weapon equivalency rules. And it is here that I criticize him.

It seems clear to me that the Sage has conflated meeting prerequisites with qualifying for benefits, and that this is an innovation. Specifically, the principal that "unless otherwise stated, if something counts as X for the purpose of qualifying for benefits, it also counts as X for the purpose of meeting prerequisites" is a new rule, something that he is adding to the RAW. Now maybe that is something that is well within his power to do; that's for a different thread. All I want to say in this thread is that the Sage is in fact making a new rule, not simply applying the old ones.

 

[Dimwhit]

I already posted dictionary.com's definition about 20 pages back, which showed that a feat does not fit the definition of an effect.

Yeah, I read it. Showed pretty clearly that feats are "Something brought about by a cause or agent; a result." Not sure how you're reading that, but it seems clear to me.

I'm not going to enter into this argument long-term. I just thought I'd post a short analogy that illustrates my own position on the matter.

Furniture guy: Here you go, Jere, a fine plastic chair. It's made of a special plastic, though, so if you want to get it painted, you should treat it like wood or steel.

Me: But it's not wood or steel!

Furniture guy: That's the beauty of this plastic. Take it easy.

Me: All right, to the paint guy!

Paint guy: So you want some of this red paint, huh?

Me: Yes, sir!

Paint guy: Do you have a wooden chair?

Me: No, I have a plastic chair, but...

Paint guy: Sorry, no can do.

Me: What? But that paint will work just fine on my chair once I have it!

Paint guy: Don't care. I only sell this stuff to folks with wooden chairs. Come back to me when you've got one. Have you considered a nice coat of blue? I'll sell that crap to anyone.

Umm...

Furniture guy: Here you go, Jere, a fine plastic chair. It's made of a special plastic, though, so if you want to get it painted, you should treat it like wood or steel.

Me: But it's not wood or steel!

Furniture guy: That's the beauty of this plastic. Take it easy.

Me: All right, to the paint guy!

Paint guy: So you want some of this red paint, huh?

Me: Yes, sir!

Paint guy: Do you have a wooden chair?

Me: No, I have a plastic chair, but...

Paint guy: Sorry, no can do.

Me: What? But that paint will work just fine on my chair since it can be painted as if it were wood or steel!

Paint guy: OK then.

...that analogy can mean anything if you word it the right way.