Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Artoomis]

...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.

That’s a reasonable position. Although I can defend the position that unarmed strikes are natural weapons, really, in truth, they are a special category that sometimes are treated like natural weapons. This is very ill-defined in the rules.

...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.

No, I don't think so. He is applying common sense - very much like the painting the plastic chair example above. In fact, I'm going to re-phrase that example to make it even more applicable:

1. A monk's special plastic chair counts as wood for effects that enhance it appearance.
2. Paint exists that allows one to change the color of a chair (enhancing its appearance).
3. The paint requires, as a prerequisite, that the chair be wood before this paint may be used.

By the logic the anti-INA side would apply, this chair CANNOT be painted with the paint in questions because it's not wood.

By the logic the pro-INA side (and the Sage) is using, it's a no-brainer and the chair can be painted. This side of the debate, I think, feels that a little common sense goes a long way here. If the chair could be painted only if it was wood, but it counts as wood for effects that enhance it's appearance (like painting), then a wood-only paint can, in fact, be used on the chair.

Or, to replace a few words:

If the monk's attack could be enhanced only if it was a natural weapon, but it counts as natural weapon for effects that enhance it (like doing damage as one size category larger), then a natural-weapon only increasing-size effect, in fact, be used on the attack.

The very thought of somehow splitting out prerequisites (or even feats) as though they existed totally separate from the feat (or the feat’s effects) is silly – if you have something that let's you qualify for the feat ONLY in the context of the benefits of the feat, then it's tortured logic to say you don’t qualify.

In other words, "effect," in this context, includes feats and their prerequisites even if one would normally state that feats produce effects and are not effects themselves.

This is true partly because "effect" is not a defined D&D term, and so, to know what is meant by any particular mention of the word, one must look to context.

I realize that the other side of this argument is having a great deal of trouble of accepting the concept that prerequisites need to be taken in context in this case, and not a completely separate logical entity all their own.

 

[Caliban]

The very thought of somehow splitting out prerequisites (or even feats) as though they existed totally separate from the feat (or the feat’s effects) is silly

And some people think it's silly to say that the things you need get something are the same as the thing you're trying to get.

If the prerequisites where the same thing as the feat, wouldn't I have the feat as soon as I met the prerequistes? Why would I need to spend a feat slot?

– if you have something that let's you qualify for the feat ONLY in the context of the benefits of the feat, then it's tortured logic to say you don’t qualify.

Some people think it's tortured logic to say that you do.


Artoomis, your arguement seems to have come down to calling the other side silly for not accepting your basic premise.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

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

Then it's not that analogy, it's a different analogy...your analogy. I was providing an analogy to express how I see things working, not prove anything. As I see it, the paint guy only sells the red stuff to folks with wooden chairs, not chairs that are treated like wood.

I'm not arguing the point, as I said. I don't have the stamina to match up to the very zealous debate going on in here.

 

[Borlon]

Artoomis,

Do you see the difference between "being the eligible target for an enhancement" and "meeting a prerequisite for an enhancement"?

If so, would you agree with this description of the difference?

To be the eligible target for an enhancement, you have to have the thing that is being enhanced. An undead can't benefit from an item that gives a +4 to Constitution, since it lacks a Con score. Someone without ranks in Spellcraft cannot benefit from a +3 bonus to Spellcraft checks, since Spellcraft checks can't be made untrained. To be the beneficiary of a magic fang spell you have to have a natural weapon. To benefit from a +1 to all attack rolls with a dagger, you need to be able to make attacks with a dagger.

To meet the prerequisite for an enhancement, you have to satisfy any listed requirements. You need to possess all the enumerated features. For example, to take weapon focus you need a +1 BAB.

Now the two paragraphs are different, and are checked separately. Imagine DnD takes place inside a giant computer program (like "the Matrix"). One subroutine checks to see if something or someone is an eligible target for an enhancement, and a seperate subroutine checks to see if all prerequisites are meant. If someone is wielding a dagger, they are eligible to benefit from an effect that gives +1 to all attack rolls made with a dagger. However, to see if they can take the Weapon Focus (dagger) feat, the program checks to see if they have a +1 BAB. Alternatively the program would conclude that a barbarian meets the prerequistes for Skill Focus: Spellcraft even if he has no ranks in Spellcraft (it has no prerequisites) but it would not allow him to qualify for the benefit wince he can't make spellcraft checks (it is a trained only skill). It is a useless feat for him.

Now since qualifying as a target is separate from meeting the prerequisites, if a rule refers to the one it does not refer to the other. If one rule talks about BAB it is not talking about strength modifiers. If a class ability says a character counts as having a BAB of +4, that doesn't change what the character's strength modifier counts as. If a class ability says that a character qualifies to be a target of a certain effect, that doesn't change whether the character meets the prerequisites of the effect.

In the case of INA, to qualify as a target you need to have a natural weapon. A monk has a special rule that allows him to qualify. (Assume, for the sake of argument, that unarmed strike <> natural attack; that the weapon equivalency rule is needed here.) That's fine. The monk's special rule applies in cases when an effect enhances natural weapons, and that is certainly the case for INA.

But it is a different thing to meet a prerequisite than to qualify as a target for an effect. You can have either without the other. If a rule mentions one it does not apply to the other. The weapon equivalency rule mentions qualifying as a target for an effect, but it does not mention meeting prerequisites. So the weapon equivalency rule doesn't apply to meeting prerequisites.

What are the prerequisites of INA? BAB +4 and a natural weapon. Let's say that the BAB +4 isn't a problem. What about the natural weapon? The monk doesn't have one (as per our assumption). Can the monk's special weapon equivalency rule help out? No. We just concluded that the rule doesn't apply to meeting prerequisites.

So the monk is in the circumstances of the 1st level rogue who wants to take weapon focus. He'd benefit from the effect, but he can't meet the prerequisites.

Now all this hinges on acknowledging the difference between "being the eligible target for an enhancement" and "meeting a prerequisite for an enhancement"? Add to this the principle that if two things are such that you can have either without the other, then a rule that refers to one doesn't refer to the other.

I'd be interested in hearing your take on how and where this analysis goes wrong.

 

[Artoomis]

Artoomis,

Do you see the difference between "being the eligible target for an enhancement" and "meeting a prerequisite for an enhancement"?......

So the monk is in the circumstances of the 1st level rogue who wants to take weapon focus. He'd benefit from the effect, but he can't meet the prerequisites.

Now all this hinges on acknowledging the difference between "being the eligible target for an enhancement" and "meeting a prerequisite for an enhancement"? Add to this the principle that if two things are such that you can have either without the other, then a rule that refers to one doesn't refer to the other.

I'd be interested in hearing your take on how and where this analysis goes wrong.

Your analysis is mostly correct except for one thing. There is a special case where the prerequisite is merely a re-statement that you need to be eligible for the effect to qualify for it and is entirely superfluous.

For example:

You need to be a wood chair to be allowed to have paint designed for a wood chair. A plastic chair designed to take paint just like would should qualify. Why? Because the prerequisite is merely a restatement of the eligibility for the effect and is basically meaningless and entirely superfluous. Instead of a prerequisite of the chair being wood, it simply should state no prerequisite but the pain only works on wood. In a case like this, the two statements are really the same – do you see that?

INA: You need a natural weapon - but without one gain no benefit anyway, so it's a superfluous prerequisite and if you qualify for the effect (which is to say, you have a natural weapon on which to apply the feat) you can take it. (Disregarding the BAB requirement for the moment).

Essentially, what I am proposing is that the rules were not written with anywhere near the precision you imply above, so that any prerequisites that are superfluous and one only needs to qualify for the effect.

Now, I readily admit that you ALSO have a valid way of looking at this, and thus a rule clarification was needed, which was done in the FAQ.

What REALLY has me dumbfounded is folks who won't admit that there are two very valid ways of looking at this, and thus the FAQ entry was needed to clarify this matter.

Mind you, I think my position is more reasonable and your is more technical (I'd say over-technical), but both are correct, in their own way. Do you agree?

 

[Borlon]

Let me paraphrase your argument:

[bq]The prerequisites repeat the targeting requirements. Since repetition is typically used for emphasis, many people will be disposed to read the prerequisites as emphasizing the target requirements, not as being additional requirements. This is a somewhat loose reading of the rules, but since the rules are occasionally imprecise, such looseness is sometimes the best approach. The FAQ clarifies areas where the rules are imprecise, or where people could read the same rules in different ways. This is one such area, and the FAQ is appropriately used to state whether this is the correct reading. Errata would also clarify issues, but you would only need errata if you insisted that the strict reading (the "over-technical" reading) has to match up with the common sense ("more reasonable") reading.[/bq]
Am I stating your position correctly?

If so, I have to admit that it is a very interesting argument. It seems to hang together nicely. I'll want to let it sit for a while before I say anything definite, but it seems to establish your position nicely; that there is a valid way of construing the RAW to support the pro-INA side.

Did you present it earlier? The failure of the No side to admit that there is validity to the Yes side might largely be due that a valid argument for the Yes side was never presented to them. And if this argument was presented before, I missed it.

Of course, sheer stubborness might play a role too in explaining why the No side doesn't admit the Yes side has a valid case. But the effect of stubborness is usually to repeat one's arguments over and over again. That's something that both sides have been doing, and while I might have missed your argument if you presented it only once, or in an understated fashion, I would be very embarassed if you had been presenting it over and over again, and that I was just really slow to catch on.

Hopefully there are a few No people following the thread, and they can weigh in on what they think of this new(?) argument.

 

[Artoomis]

Let me paraphrase your argument:

[bq]The prerequisites repeat the targeting requirements. Since repetition is typically used for emphasis, many people will be disposed to read the prerequisites as emphasizing the target requirements, not as being additional requirements. This is a somewhat loose reading of the rules, but since the rules are occasionally imprecise, such looseness is sometimes the best approach. The FAQ clarifies areas where the rules are imprecise, or where people could read the same rules in different ways. This is one such area, and the FAQ is appropriately used to state whether this is the correct reading. Errata would also clarify issues, but you would only need errata if you insisted that the strict reading (the "over-technical" reading) has to match up with the common sense ("more reasonable") reading.[/bq]
Am I stating your position correctly?

Pretty much. That's the essence of it, I think.

If so, I have to admit that it is a very interesting argument. It seems to hang together nicely. I'll want to let it sit for a while before I say anything definite, but it seems to establish your position nicely; that there is a valid way of construing the RAW to support the pro-INA side.

Did you present it earlier?

I don't think I pulled it together quite this way before - I think this is a bit of a new spin on it.

The failure of the No side to admit that there is validity to the Yes side might largely be due that a valid argument for the Yes side was never presented to them. And if this argument was presented before, I missed it.

Of course, sheer stubborness might play a role too in explaining why the No side doesn't admit the Yes side has a valid case. But the effect of stubborness is usually to repeat one's arguments over and over again. That's something that both sides have been doing, and while I might have missed your argument if you presented it only once, or in an understated fashion, I would be very embarassed if you had been presenting it over and over again, and that I was just really slow to catch on.

I've repeated myself quite a bit while trying to rephrase my argument, certainly.

Hopefully there are a few No people following the thread, and they can weigh in on what they think of this new(?) argument.

I hope so.

 

[Legildur]

<snip>What REALLY has me dumbfounded is folks who won't admit that there are two very valid ways of looking at this, and thus the FAQ entry was needed to clarify this matter.<snip>

Hear! Hear! While a 'no' man at heart, I recognise that there is a valid argument on the 'yes' side.

PS I wonder if we can we keep this thread alive until 1000 posts is reached?

 

[Dimwhit]

PS I wonder if we can we keep this thread alive until 1000 posts is reached?

Postcount +1

 

[Borlon]

Hear! Hear! While a 'no' man at heart, I recognise that there is a valid argument on the 'yes' side.

PS I wonder if we can we keep this thread alive until 1000 posts is reached?

Which argument was that? Cuz I have to admit that until today I wasn't really impressed by any of the reasons stated for the Yes side. I won't rehearse my counterarguments; they are not too far up thread.

I think there is a danger in these kind of threads that the discussion gets polarized. To say that one's own side has all the evidence and logic, and that the other side are evil and stupid. Good vs evil and all that. People can get very defensive and picky and intolerant. The danger is that the thread flames out and gets closed. But if it stays below the flame point you can have hundreds of posts without very much getting accomplished. I think htat is part of the secret of how this thread (and related threads) have become so long.

But once there's a breakthrough, and people start to understand where the other person is coming from... well, then the defensiveness goes away (at least partially) and progress can be made a lot more quickly.

So I don't think we can reach 1000 unless we get some polarized people back in here.