Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[Artoomis]

1. Feats are effects (and if you are considered to have a natural weapons for the feat you automatically also are considered to meet teh prerequisite of having a natural weapon.)

or

2. Feats have effects and if you are considered to have a natural weapons for the feat's effects you automatically also are considered to meet the prerequisite of having a natural weapon.

2 is what RM is using the PrC analogy to illustrate; if taking a PrC would allow you to qualify for that PrC, but you do not already qualify for the PrC, you cannot take the PrC.

Just because you're eligible for a benefit if you take a feat, does not mean you automatically qualify for the feat.

I reject 2 as simply wrong.

1, on the other hand, is perfectly logical, as long as one accepts that feats are effects. But I don't, so I reject 1, not because it evinces no logic (like 2), but because I disagree with its basic premise.

-Hyp.

Ah but I differ in that I do not necessarily expect it to make sense logically, I just look for what is true and then try and make sense out of it.

What is true, per the FAQ, is that monks may take INA. This seems to mean that when WotC uses the word "effects" they are using it very sloppily like they did in the "Keen Edge" spell.

What is really clarified is that in the monk class description "effects" is used in the same sense as it is in the "Keen Edge" spell.

It not good logic, it is an abuse of the word "effects," and yet that's what they are doing, and thus that's the rules.

 

[KarinsDad]

What is true, per the FAQ, is that monks may take INA. This seems to mean that when WotC uses the wrod "effects" they are using it very sloppily like they did in the "Keen Edge" spell.

A does not follow B.

Just because WotC screwed up in the terminology of effects in Keen Edge does not mean that they did it anywhere else.

 

[Artoomis]

A does not follow B.

Just because WotC screwed up in the terminology of effects in Keen Edge does not mean that they did it anywhere else.

You are absolutely, positively 100% correct.

However, it also does not mean they did not (intentionally or otherwise) screw up the definition of the word "effects" for monk just like they did with "Keen Edge." "Keen Edge" sets a possible precedent and the FAQ confirms the they really did mean it that way.

Even without the FAQ, the possibility of a "Keen Edge" precendent should be enough for a less than 100% certainty of either position on monks and INA.

The FAQ indicates what they meant to do - screw up the defintion of "effects." (who'd have thunk it? )

 

[Hypersmurf]

Even without the FAQ, the possibility of a "Keen Edge" precendent should be enough for a less than 100% certainty of either position on monks and INA.

I was on a jury a while back, for an Assault case.

The guy who got hit said "He hit me."
The two witnesses said "He was kneeling on the guy's chest, punching him in the face."
The defendant said "I didn't hit him."

In our discussions, some of the jurors said "What if he thought he was threatened? That would make it self defence."

"What?" we said. "He didn't mention feeling threatened. His lawyer didn't mention feeling threatened. He didn't say 'I hit him in self defence', he said 'I didn't hit him'. We've got two witnesses who said he hit him. How can he claim self defence, if he's saying it never happened?"

"But how can we know?" they pressed. "We weren't there, so we can't. And that's reasonable doubt."

I'm having horrible flashbacks to that line of reasoning.

-Hyp.

 

[KarinsDad]

I'm having horrible flashbacks to that line of reasoning.

I'm lucky. My sister is a District Attorney (i.e. in law enforcement). I never get on a jury (course, it's usually the Prosecution that drops me, not quite sure why that is).

 

[pawsplay]

I'm lucky. My sister is a District Attorney (i.e. in law enforcement). I never get on a jury (course, it's usually the Prosecution that drops me, not quite sure why that is).

You probably know better than to trust eye witness testimony.

 

[Artoomis]

I was on a jury a while back, for an Assault case.

The guy who got hit said "He hit me."
The two witnesses said "He was kneeling on the guy's chest, punching him in the face."
The defendant said "I didn't hit him."

In our discussions, some of the jurors said "What if he thought he was threatened? That would make it self defence."

"What?" we said. "He didn't mention feeling threatened. His lawyer didn't mention feeling threatened. He didn't say 'I hit him in self defence', he said 'I didn't hit him'. We've got two witnesses who said he hit him. How can he claim self defence, if he's saying it never happened?"

"But how can we know?" they pressed. "We weren't there, so we can't. And that's reasonable doubt."

I'm having horrible flashbacks to that line of reasoning.

-Hyp.

In this case, if WotC was wrong in one place, how can we be reasonably sure they are not wrong in another?

If fact, in the FAQ they confirm they meant to be wrong.

Wrong in the sense they they are expanding upon the common definiton of "effects."

Of course they are right in the sense that they wrote the rules and so if they say that's what they meant to do, who are we to say otherwise? It's not like they had no precedent for the FAQ ruling - they have, at a minimum, the "Keen Edge" spell to use as precendent.

In truth, my very first reading of "spells" and effects" had me thinking they did not really mean "effects;" they really meant that for pretty much everything that improves unarmed weapons, the monks attacks count as natural weapons. It turns out I was right and that's what they meant (well, as much as we can use the FAQ to discern orginal intent).

I do not ever assume the rules are written with a lot of precision - that way lies madness! Instead I try and figure out what they meant to do - which , when they screw up the use of common English words, can be challenging.

 

[Artoomis]

I was on a jury a while back, for an Assault case....-Hyp.

As aside, did you know that a jury can find someone "not guilty" no matter the amount of overwhelming evidence?

There is a rather well-known case wher a very, very nasty, evil man was gunned down in the middle of the street in a small town with lots of witnesses.

There obviously was not much of a defense. Nonetheless the jury found him "not guilty" because the guy he killed was such a blight on the town.

The verdict was not appealable by the prosecution.

Interesting stuff.

The best part is that the defense attorney is prohibited from telling telling the jury they have this kind of power.

 

[Hypersmurf]

As aside, did you know that a jury can find someone "not guilty" no matter the amount of overwhelming evidence?

We didn't find him not guilty; we didn't find him anything, because the "But how can we know?!" faction were intractable.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

We didn't find him not guilty; we didn't find him anything, because the "But how can we know?!" faction were intractable.

-Hyp.

Apparently they did not listen to the "reasonable doubt" part of the instructions.

Unreasonable doubt = guilty.

That must have been very painful to go through.