Tashalatora: Requires monk levels or not?

[Crake]

Pretty simple topic. I want to hear people's opinion's regarding whether or not tashalatora requires a level of monk and why/why not. Me and my DM are trying to decide if we should require monk levels initially to stack.

[Extra Anchovies]

Neither Monastic Training nor Tashalatora require monk levels. I say, let them stay that way. You're burning two feats on a Psion; you don't get a huge amount out of it, since your BAB is poor, your HD is a d4, and you aren't Wisdom-based. (And if you're an unarmored/unarmed PsyWar, you're kind of doing it wrong)

[Fax Celestis]

While I'd let it work, it probably shouldn't. The absence of something in D&D is not 0, but instead Ø. Ø+1=Ø.

[A_S]

While I'd let it work, it probably shouldn't. The absence of something in D&D is not 0, but instead Ø. Ø+1=Ø.
What are some (less ambiguous than Tashalatora) examples of this principle in work? And/or an explicit callout of this rule?

I don't know that I disagree with you, just wondering what the bits of rules text are that lead you to this conclusion.

[Rubik]

While I'd let it work, it probably shouldn't. The absence of something in D&D is not 0, but instead Ø. Ø+1=Ø.Maybe yes, maybe no. After all, it's that way with ability scores, but it's not defined that way with anything else, to my knowledge, and Barkskin, (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/barkskin.htm) for instance, goes the other direction with its explanation.

[Crake]

While I'd let it work, it probably shouldn't. The absence of something in D&D is not 0, but instead Ø. Ø+1=Ø.

This is the same stance my DM holds, but I somewhat agree with A_S, where does that assumption come from?

[Fax Celestis]

Amulet of natural armor goes out of its way to clarify that a creature without a natural armor bonus has an effective natural armor bonus of +0, which means that without that clarifying text it would be nonexistent.

There are other examples, but I am on my phone and I can't look them up.

[Rubik]

Amulet of natural armor goes out of its way to clarify that a creature without a natural armor bonus has an effective natural armor bonus of +0, which means that without that clarifying text it would be nonexistent.Or zero.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

[Fax Celestis]

Or zero.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

"A creature without a natural armor class bonus" (as defined by the spell) does not have a +0. It has no bonus. The spell then says that you should treat that as a +0, even though it isn't.

[Rubik]

"A creature without a natural armor class bonus" (as defined by the spell) does not have a +0. It has no bonus. The spell then says that you should treat that as a +0, even though it isn't.Actually, the spell defines "no bonus" as 0.

[A_S]

Amulet of natural armor goes out of its way to clarify that a creature without a natural armor bonus has an effective natural armor bonus of +0, which means that without that clarifying text it would be nonexistent.
I'm not sure it really means that. There are a lot of cases in 3.5 rules text where something is specifically called out even though it would have been the case anyway. Off the top of my head, the Mobility feat specifies that Dodge bonuses stack with each other (even though they do anyway). No shortage of other cases like that.

Nonabilities are an interesting case, but it's not immediately obvious to me that not having any levels in Monk should be treated as having a "non-level" in Monk, rather than as "0 levels" of Monk.

Another case I can think of where this question applies is whether Anima Mage gets you effective Binder levels by advancing Soul Binding after you qualify for it using the Bind Vestige feat line. Of course, that doesn't really help us since people can't agree on that one either (here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?319899-Anima-Mage-Early-Entry)'s an old thread on it that went...nowhere).

Interested to see what else the rules have to say about this.

[Fax Celestis]

Actually, the spell defines "no bonus" as 0.

No, it defines the effective bonus for no bonus as +0. It doesn't say "a creature without a natural armor bonus has a natural armor bonus of +0", it says "a creature without a natural armor bonus has an effective natural armor bonus of +0."

[Rubik]

No, it defines the effective bonus for no bonus as +0. It doesn't say "a creature without a natural armor bonus has a natural armor bonus of +0", it says "a creature without a natural armor bonus has an effective natural armor bonus of +0."And yet it says nothing about being null, effective or otherwise.

[Fax Celestis]

And why would monk's belt need special text for what to do with someone with no monk levels unless the absence of something is Ø and not 0?

[Fax Celestis]

And yet it says nothing about being null, effective or otherwise.

"A creature without a bonus" is the very definition of a null value. It is not a value of zero: there is no value at all.

[Rubik]

And why would monk's belt need special text for what to do with someone with no monk levels unless the absence of something is Ø and not 0?Because clarification.

That's what rules do, really.

[Gwendol]

It looks like they were intending to require monk levels, but the requirement is certainly not present. DM call.

[Rubik]

"A creature without a bonus" is the very definition of a null value. It is not a value of zero: there is no value at all.A creature with 0 is also without a bonus, since a bonus indicates a positive numerical integer of some sort.

[bekeleven]

A modifier is any bonus or penalty applying to a die roll. A positive modifier is a bonusTechnically speaking, there's no such thing as a bonus of +0: It's a non-sequitur in D&D Parlance.

Which is why semantic debates lead to madness.

[Curmudgeon]

Pretty simple topic. I want to hear people's opinion's regarding whether or not tashalatora requires a level of monk and why/why not.

Benefit: Your levels in the psionic class you selected for Monastic Traning stack with your monk levels to determine your AC bonus, flurry of blows attacks, and unarmed damage from the monk class.
So, without Monk levels, what are your "AC bonus, flurry of blows attacks, and unarmed damage from the monk class"? Those don't exist, because Tashalatora doesn't grant you AC Bonus, Flurry of Blows, or Unarmed Damage class features. Taking Tashalatora without Monk levels is just like taking a PrC which grants "+1 level of existing spellcasting class" when you don't have any spellcasting class feature.

[darksolitaire]

Look, do you really want to force any prospective Tashalatora Psion to take Monk levels? :smallamused:

[Curmudgeon]

Look, do you really want to force any prospective Tashalatora Psion to take Monk levels? :smallamused:
Absolutely, because that's the benefit of the feat: enhancing your existing Monk abilities. If they don't want that single qualifying Monk level, they can take Superior Unarmed Strike and buy a Monk's Belt instead of taking Tashalatora: most of the returns yet with no class level cost.

[Gwendol]

So, without Monk levels, what are your "AC bonus, flurry of blows attacks, and unarmed damage from the monk class"? Those don't exist, because Tashalatora doesn't grant you AC Bonus, Flurry of Blows, or Unarmed Damage class features. Taking Tashalatora without Monk levels is just like taking a PrC which grants "+1 level of existing spellcasting class" when you don't have any spellcasting class feature.

That is what I read into it as well. Still not clear why they didn't require X feature from the monk class though (see Daring Outlaw, or Swift Hunter).