The Tattooed Monks says (Monk abilities: a tattooed monk’s levels stack with his monk levels for determining his AC and unarmed damage and unarmored speed bonus)
So if my player has 3 levels of TATTOOED Monk and no levels of monk does that mean he should get all the abilities of a 3rd level monk.
Or just a 3rd levels monk AC and unarmed damage and unarmored speed.
Edit: I can be conditional, for example if he had some levels of Ninja it would stack for determining AC bonus. If he had levels of Shaman from OA his unarmed progression would follow as if he was continuing to level Shaman. However, if he does not have these abilities from somewhere already then he will not get them just for taking the class.
if you can get your DM to allow you to get this class ability (as i think it does anyway -- 0+3=3 -- but that's another issue), it would only apply to those 3 things.
even if he did have levels in monk, his tattooed monk levels would ONLY increace his unarmed damage, AC, and unarmored speed bonus -- nothing else.
if you can get your DM to allow you to get this class ability (as i think it does anyway -- 0+3=3 -- but that's another issue), it would only apply to those 3 things.
Nope, the Tattooed Monk's entry on Monk Abilities:
A tatooed Monk's class levels stack with his monk levels for determining his unarmed damage, ac bonus, and unarmored speed bonus.
Meaning if you don't already have these abilities then you have nothing to stack on.
Nope, the Tattooed Monk's entry on Monk Abilities:
A tatooed Monk's class levels stack with his monk levels for determining his unarmed damage, ac bonus, and unarmored speed bonus.
Meaning if you don't already have these abilities then you have nothing to stack on.
hence the qualifying phrase "if you can get your DM to allow".
just out of curiousity -- where can I find the precedent for that?
hence the qualifying phrase "if you can get your DM to allow".
just out of curiousity -- where can I find the precedent for that?
The precedent for not getting abilities based on a prior class? I doubt you will find one, because it is logically implied.
For example, PrCs that give +1 level of existing arcane/divine/whatever spellcasting class. If you don't have any existing class which does this then what would you use to figure out your spells per day other than nothing?
The same is true of something which says "this stacks with your monk/whatever levels for determining unarmed damage/whatever." If you have nothing which progresses these abilities to speak of, then you aren't getting anything from it.
The precedent for not getting abilities based on a prior class? I doubt you will find one, because it is logically implied.
For example, PrCs that give +1 level of existing arcane/divine/whatever spellcasting class. If you don't have any existing class which does this then what would you use to figure out your spells per day other than nothing?
The same is true of something which says "this stacks with your monk/whatever levels for determining unarmed damage/whatever." If you have nothing which progresses these abilities to speak of, then you aren't getting anything from it.
i see what you're saying. i've just never read it like that.
for the most part, PrC that advance a certain class abilities either a) have taht ability as a prereq, or b) say something to the affect of "if you don't already have this ability, this class does not grant it". since neither is true with TaMo, i just assumed it to be a matter of "0 + 'X' = 'X'". granted, it's not as detailed as, say, AH's wildshape; but anyway - i digress.
So if my player has 3 levels of TATTOOED Monk and no levels of monk does that mean he should get all the abilities of a 3rd level monk.
Or just a 3rd levels monk AC and unarmed damage and unarmored speed.
Neither. He gets nothing, since it doesn't grant Monk abilities. It only stacks with existing.
So your player would get zilch in terms of Monk AC, Speed, unarmed etc.
i see what you're saying. i've just never read it like that.
for the most part, PrC that advance a certain class abilities either a) have taht ability as a prereq, or b) say something to the affect of "if you don't already have this ability, this class does not grant it". since neither is true with TaMo, i just assumed it to be a matter of "0 + 'X' = 'X'". granted, it's not as detailed as, say, AH's wildshape; but anyway - i digress.
Do you have an example of a PrC that says "If you don't already have this ability, this class does not grant it?"
Well, regardless of how you read it... the fact remains that it is the rule. Again, using the spell casting ability as an example:
Lets say I am a Druid/Wizard. In order to progress spells in both I either need to keep advancing them one at a time or I need a PrC class like Mystic Theurge.
Lets say instead of Mystic Theurge I instead take PrC X which grants me +1 existing level of spellcaster. I have two existing levels of spell caster, does that mean I get both of them?
Of course not. It means I have to pick one of them otherwise why does the Mystic Theurge even exist? By your reading, the nonsensical answer would be correct.
Lets then say, just for a more precise arguement that you take a PrC that gives you +1 existing Spellcaster level but somehow you do not take any levels in any spell casting class prior to joining.
Would you say that the PrC gives you spells? If the answer is no, welcome to the world of English comprehension. If your answer is yes, I invite you to review the definition of "existing."
Now, apply the same logic to the Tattooed Monk. They stack with his Monk levels for determining X. If you don't have monk levels, you have nothing to stack with it. And of course, keeping in mind the rules on specifically stating things... since the entry does not specifically state you get these abilities (either in the table or in the text) then you assume you do not unless you are a monk.
A good example of that is the Drunken Master, which get AC bonuses independent of having them as a Monk first.
Neither. He gets nothing, since it doesn't grant Monk abilities. It only stacks with existing.
And why would that be the case? Unless you can back that up with an actual rules quote, he should follow RAW, i.e., have the class levels stack ("0 + 'X' = 'X'").
So if my player has 3 levels of TATTOOED Monk and no levels of monk does that mean he should get all the abilities of a 3rd level monk.
Or just a 3rd levels monk AC and unarmed damage and unarmored speed.
Only what it says in the rules text: AC, unarmored damage and speed.
Do you have an example of a PrC that says "If you don't already have this ability, this class does not grant it?"
Arcane Hierophant (with respect to Wild Shape).
say something to the affect of "if you don't already have this ability, this class does not grant it"
That isn't true, in fact the opposite is true. There are examples of features that explicitly say they do grant abilities if they don't exist. Sacred Excorsist grants Turning if you don't have it, but Master of Radiance doesn't have the "you gain this thingie if you don't have it line" and doesn't grant Turn Undead if you don't already have it.
And why would that be the case? Unless you can back that up with an actual rules quote, he should follow RAW, i.e., have the class levels stack ("0 + 'X' = 'X'")
If he follows RAW, he gets "0" + "X" = "0". The rule in CWar doesn't say anything about granting the abilities. It says "stacks with" and doesn't say anything about granting the ability if not already present.
The rules as written say they stack, but it doesn't say anything about giving him the ability to use things he never had before. Since they don't say he gets those abilities, he doesn't. Sure they stack, but since he doesn't have the abilities, he can't use the bonuses. He'll actually have to take a level in monk in order to get the bonus. But, heck, that first level in monk he'll shoot up to 4th level for those abilities.
If you want to go with RAI, it seems pretty clear that this prestige class is intended to function with the monk class, and the monk-specific benefits were intended to be usable only by monks.
such a geek, sorry guys
If he follows RAW, he gets "0" + "X" = "0". The rule in CWar doesn't say anything about granting the abilities. It says "stacks with" and doesn't say anything about granting the ability if not already present.
If he follows RAW, he has the (respective) abilities as a 3rd level monk, even if he doesn't have any actual monk levels. It doesn't have to say anything specifically about granting said abilities (or we are quickly in "dead people can take actions" territory).
If he follows RAW, he has the (respective) abilities as a 3rd level monk, even if he doesn't have any actual monk levels. It doesn't have to say anything specifically about granting said abilities (or we are quickly in "dead people can take actions" territory).
What Jake Heard:
AI AI AI Ph'nglui mglw'nafh C'thulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
It doesn't have to say anything specifically about granting said abilities (or we are quickly in "dead people can take actions" terr-h'aro arw'noa fapfapll!
I'm all dressed up with nowhere to go
Walkin' with a dead man over my shoulder
Waiting for an invitation to arrive
Goin' to a party where no one's still alive
CHORUS
I was struck by lighting
Walkin' down the street
I was hit by something last night in my sleep
It's a dead man's party
Who could ask for more
Everybody's comin', leave your body at the door
Leave your body and soul at the door . . .
(Don't run away it's only me)
All dressed up with nowhere to go
Walkin' with a dead man
Waitin' for an invitation to arrive
With a dead man . . . Dead Man . . .
Got my best suit and my tie
Shiny silver dollar on either eye
I hear the chauffeur comin' to the door
Says there's room for maybe just one more . . .
CHORUS
Don't run away it's only me
Don't be afraid of what you can't see
Don't run away it's only me . . .
:: audible sound of a man snapping::
That's it. That's absolutely farking it.
I hate that argument so much!
[INDENT][INDENT][INDENT][INDENT][INDENT]
[/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT][/INDENT]
What Jake Heard:
Yo, Doc, you misunderstand. It was merely a friendly jab at a fellow board member.
You haven't been on these boards long enough to know Risner. During most of his (in-)famous rules discussions he used the "but the RAW doesn't say dead people can't act either" argument (it's actually not really an argument, much less a good one) at one point or another, whether it fit or not.
I despise this "argument" myself, but couldn't resist bringing it up here... ;)
The next time he does it, I'm gonna actually let his character die, and introduce ghostwalk. However, as a result it does induce in me a terrible madness to even just hear the argument. Knowing it is a joke doesn't seem to help
:embarrassDo you have an example of a PrC that says "If you don't already have this ability, this class does not grant it?"
Well, regardless of how you read it... the fact remains that it is the rule. Again, using the spell casting ability as an example:
Lets say I am a Druid/Wizard. In order to progress spells in both I either need to keep advancing them one at a time or I need a PrC class like Mystic Theurge.
Lets say instead of Mystic Theurge I instead take PrC X which grants me +1 existing level of spellcaster. I have two existing levels of spell caster, does that mean I get both of them?
Of course not. It means I have to pick one of them otherwise why does the Mystic Theurge even exist? By your reading, the nonsensical answer would be correct.
Lets then say, just for a more precise arguement that you take a PrC that gives you +1 existing Spellcaster level but somehow you do not take any levels in any spell casting class prior to joining.
Would you say that the PrC gives you spells? If the answer is no, welcome to the world of English comprehension. If your answer is yes, I invite you to review the definition of "existing."
Now, apply the same logic to the Tattooed Monk. They stack with his Monk levels for determining X. If you don't have monk levels, you have nothing to stack with it. And of course, keeping in mind the rules on specifically stating things... since the entry does not specifically state you get these abilities (either in the table or in the text) then you assume you do not unless you are a monk.
A good example of that is the Drunken Master, which get AC bonuses independent of having them as a Monk first.
:rolleye2: i got your point, already. like i said, i've just never read it like that before.
but, okay, i'll play your silly little game: I invite you to review the definition of "if" -- i.e., the subordinating conjunction of a dependent clause.
it is used a whole lot -- especially in the examples that you have used (as in "if you had more than one spellcasting class prior to taking this PrC, then you must decide to which class to add each level" 
). however, the word "if" is not used anywhere in the TaMo description (nor any other qualifying statements) -- hence the ambiguity (and by the looks of this thread, I'm not the only one).Hi i have a player who wants to play a Tattooed Monk but has no levels in monk now what i need to know is this.
The Tattooed Monks says (Monk abilities: a tattooed monk’s levels stack with his monk levels for determining his AC and unarmed damage and unarmored speed bonus)
So if my player has 3 levels of TATTOOED Monk and no levels of monk does that mean he should get all the abilities of a 3rd level monk.
Or just a 3rd levels monk AC and unarmed damage and unarmored speed.
If I were you, I would make him play a monk if he wants Tatooed monk, have him play a straight monk, nothing more, nothing less but a straight monk.
Or lately a unarmed swordsage Variant
, your essentially a monk anyways except you get flamie fists instead .Go with Unarmed swordsage Variant 6, (Make sure hes a dwarf, tag on Saint), Deep warden 2, Fist of the Forest 2, Reaping Mauler 5, Barbarian 1 (Lion totem), XXX ?.
Now you get Wis to AC (Insight from Saint), Wis to AC (AC bonus from unarmed swordsage AC bonus), Con to AC (DW), Con to AC (Fist of the Forest), Now your good to go
. AC wise your good, now your able to grapple with anything in the game decently. Unarmed damage of a 20th lvl monk, grab superior imp. unarmed strike, and other goodies.Think about getting Frenzied berzerker if you can, I know probly not optimal but Frenzy? with extra rages sense I think it effects frenzies too. Ummmm.......YEAH!
, get a +8 to str while frenzied and such, sense it doesnt require a weapon to get into it, you could essentially use your fists. Make sure he grabs shadowblade to take advantage of the high Wis and Dex hopefully, he has those maxxed.
Think of VOP specially if you got a Bastard DM like me.
Weeeeeeeeee!
was all I got out of this.
Think about getting Frenzied berzerker if you can, I know probly not optimal but Frenzy? with extra rages sense I think it effects frenzies too. Ummmm.......YEAH!
FB is one of the most powerful pure melee classes ever devised.
If he follows RAW, he has the (respective) abilities as a 3rd level monk, even if he doesn't have any actual monk levels.
There is no rule saying he gets Monk abilities of a Monk of 3rd level like is present in Monk's Belt, SUS, Sacred Excorsist, Wild Shape Amulet and many many other examples.
You are basically using the argument that all things that stack grant the abilities. So Master of Radiance and so many other "stacks with Turn Undead" would actually grant turn undead by your interpretation.
There is no precedence for your view and significant precedence to counter your view.
There is no rule saying he gets Monk abilities of a Monk of 3rd level like is present in Monk's Belt, SUS, Sacred Excorsist, Wild Shape Amulet and many many other examples.
You are basically using the argument that all things that stack grant the abilities. So Master of Radiance and so many other "stacks with Turn Undead" would actually grant turn undead by your interpretation.
There is no precedence for your view and significant precedence to counter your view.
one more time: i got the point, already. i was simply stating that I had not previously interpreted it in that way (of course, before today, I had never concidered taking TaMo without at least a couple of levels of monk -- seemed like a no-brainer).
and actually, as I read MoR, I would think that it would grant turn undead. It appears to me that the entry is just saying: "here is the ability you get, and this is how it interacts with other classes with the same ability" -- is that really such a difficult perception to understand? are you saying that there is absolutely no possible way for such a thing to be implied or infered? really?
now, for counter-point:
1) first, the precedence -- from OA (which is where CW got the darn thing):
"Monk Abilities: A tattooed monk has the unarmed damage,
AC bonus, and speed of a monk with as many levels as his tattooed
monk levels plus his monk levels (if any)."
so, to me, it would seem that CW was simply trying to avoid wordiness in order to save space. And before someone says "that's a 3.0 book" -- it has a 3.5 update, and the only thing that changed for the TaMo is how 3 of the tattooes work; everything else is the same.
2) according to your logic, the Whisperknife, Darkwood Stalker, or Ronin sneak attack would actually over-lap with any other sneak attack, since it doesn't specifically say that it stacks.
3) if it didn't grant the ability to non-monks, then why does it not say "does not grant this ability"? examples: AH, (there's more, just not off the top of my head right now).
4) The "Extra domains" section of CD seems to be an applicable precedence (as an example of similar implications)
sometimes, there is a lack of spoon-feeding -- these instances require critical thinking skills; sometimes, people disagree on conclusions.
one more time: i got the point, already. i was simply stating that I had not previously interpreted it in that way (of course, before today, I had never concidered taking TaMo without at least a couple of levels of monk -- seemed like a no-brainer).
and actually, as I read MoR, I would think that it would grant turn undead. It appears to me that the entry is just saying: "here is the ability you get, and this is how it interacts with other classes with the same ability" -- is that really such a difficult perception to understand? are you saying that there is absolutely no possible way for such a thing to be implied or infered? really?
now, for counter-point:
1) first, the precedence -- from OA (which is where CW got the darn thing): so, to me, it would seem that CW was simply trying to avoid wordiness in order to save space. And before someone says "that's a 3.0 book" -- it has a 3.5 update, and the only thing that changed for the TaMo is how 3 of the tattooes work; everything else is the same.
2) according to your logic, the Whisperknife, Darkwood Stalker, or Ronin sneak attack would actually over-lap with any other sneak attack, since it doesn't specifically say that it stacks.
3) if it didn't grant the ability to non-monks, then why does it not say "does not grant this ability"? examples: AH, (there's more, just not off the top of my head right now).
4) The "Extra domains" section of CD seems to be an applicable precedence (as an example of similar implications)
sometimes, there is a lack of spoon-feeding -- these instances require critical thinking skills; sometimes, people disagree on conclusions.
1. In the OA update on TaMo the way you read it is correct because of the "if any" added to the end, however in the Complete Warrior it lacks that critical piece of the sentence meaning it would not.
2. Doesn't need to, in the case of those classes it is specificially stating you get sneak attack damage at X level. In the case of the Monk abilities, it does not give you them at levels, instead it says you need to have them first. Again, this is handled by specific statement rules.
3. AH is an exception to the rule, generally in d20 unless specifically stated you do not assume. In this case, in CW it specifically states it stacks with Monk levels but doesn't state that it does not. In OA, because of the "if any," it doesn't require you have the abilities first.
4. Very specifically, the Extra Domains ability of some PrCs give you domains even if you do not already have them.
1. In the OA update on TaMo the way you read it is correct because of the "if any" added to the end, however in the Complete Warrior it lacks that critical piece of the sentence meaning it would not.
2. Doesn't need to, in the case of those classes it is specificially stating you get sneak attack damage at X level. In the case of the Monk abilities, it does not give you them at levels, instead it says you need to have them first. Again, this is handled by specific statement rules.
3. AH is an exception to the rule, generally in d20 unless specifically stated you do not assume. In this case, in CW it specifically states it stacks with Monk levels but doesn't state that it does not. In OA, because of the "if any," it doesn't require you have the abilities first.
4. Very specifically, the Extra Domains ability of some PrCs give you domains even if you do not already have them.
1) there is no "the way I read it" to the matter -- it's a direct quote. so, are you saying that the idea of "it would seem that CW was simply trying to avoid wordiness in order to save space" has no validity?
2) no, no.
there's no reference to stacking (with other SA), so it doesn't stack. there are loads of other PrC with SA, and ALL of those others specifically say that it stacks -- these 3 don't have that disinction, so they over-lap. 3) I pointed to AH as an example of a PrC ability that is actually worded clearly and precisely. something that most PrC's miss the mark on.
still didn't answer my central question: "here is the ability you get, and this is how it interacts with other classes with the same ability" -- is that really such a difficult perception to understand? are you saying that there is absolutely no possible way for such a thing to be implied or infered?
also, to use your method: where does it say (or where is the precedence) that you DON'T get the ability? can you answer any of that?
There is no rule saying he gets Monk abilities of a Monk of 3rd level like is present in Monk's Belt, SUS, Sacred Excorsist, Wild Shape Amulet and many many other examples.
You are basically using the argument that all things that stack grant the abilities. So Master of Radiance and so many other "stacks with Turn Undead" would actually grant turn undead by your interpretation.
There is no precedence for your view and significant precedence to counter your view.
Laughable. See the OA text, for example.
BTW, your examples are lacking. SUS has nothing to do with the example at hand, and sacred Exorcist explicitly rules the stacking out. Wild Shape Amulet is a particularly bad example, as it only works for Druids with the Wild Shape ability. Monk's Belt chose to spell out the benefits, but that is unnecessary.
FB is one of the most powerful pure melee classes ever devised.
Dude... that is awesome.
are you saying that there is absolutely no possible way for such a thing to be implied or infered? really?
1) first, the precedence -- from OA
2) according to your logic, the Whisperknife, Darkwood Stalker, or Ronin sneak attack would actually over-lap with any other sneak attack
3) if it didn't grant the ability to non-monks, then why does it not say "does not grant this ability"?
4) The "Extra domains" section of CD seems to be an applicable precedence
sometimes, there is a lack of spoon-feeding -- these instances require critical thinking skills; sometimes, people disagree on conclusions.
I'm not claiming "no possible way", I'm pointing out that the stance of "it grants 3rd level Monk Abilities, period" as the only RAW isn't supported by the rules text.
1) The 3.0 one helps show intent (RAI), but doesn't prove RAW.
2) These three are lacking needed text, especially considering the majority have the "it stacks" line.
3) Because they are inconsistent (sometimes too verbose other times not wordy enough.) See point #2 for an example of inconsistency.
4) Not exactly, since you don't gain the cleric domain slots (with a few explicit PrC exceptions.) In other words, extra domains on different classes mean different things based on if you currently have domain slots, if you are prepared, or if you are spontaneous.
Laughable.
BTW, your examples are lacking. SUS has nothing to do with the example at hand, and sacred Exorcist explicitly rules the stacking out. Wild Shape Amulet is a particularly bad example, as it only works for Druids with the Wild Shape ability. Monk's Belt chose to spell out the benefits, but that is unnecessary.
Laughable? Hmm, I think you totally missed my point.
SUS: "Special: If you are a Monk"
Sacred Exorcist: "if a Sacred Exorcist has this ability from another class"
Monk's Belt: "If the character is not a Monk"
Wild Shape Amulet: "It allows a Druid ... If she has not yet acquired that ability"
Without rules text to explicitly detail how to handle corner cases, any position of "this is RAW" or "that is RAW" is guess work. Both are RAW, and one should be chosen from intent.
In the case of Tattooed Monk, the intent is shown by the OA version.
Without rules text to explicitly detail how to handle corner cases, any position of "this is RAW" or "that is RAW" is guess work. Both are RAW, and one should be chosen from intent.
In the case of Tattooed Monk, the intent is shown by the OA version.
Assuming both readings are, as you say, RAW and that one (0+X=X) is RAI, why do you argue for the other?
Assuming both readings are, as you say, RAW and that one (0+X=X) is RAI, why do you argue for the other?
yeah, no sh**
Monk Abilities:
A tattooed monk's class levels stack with his monk levels for determing his unarmed damage, AC bonus, and unarmored speed bonus."
Complete Arcane was released a year later in November 2004. In the Enlightened Fist class entry, there is another description of the "Monk Abilities" class feature.
Monk Abilities:
An enlightened fist adds her class level to her monk levels to determine her class-based AC bonus, her unarmed damage, her unarmored speed bonus, and the number of daily attempts of her Stunning Fist feat. If she has no monk levels, she gains the AC bonus, unarmed damage, and unarmored speed bonus of a monk whose level equals her enlightened fist level, but she can't add her Wisdom bonus to her AC.
An enlightened fist does not count her class levels for the purpose of determining when she gains any other monk class features, such as reduced penalty for flurry of blows attack rolls, bonus feats, evasion, or other special abilities.
Perhaps you could claim that this Monk Abilities is specific for just the Enlightened Fist, and has nothing to do with the earlier instances of the "Monk Abilities" class feature.
I, however, claim that this is a rewrite of all past instances of "Monk Abilities" for the sake of clarity.
As opposed to previous, abstruse examples of precedent that deal with Turning Undead, spells, stacking caster levels, and the like, this precedent as I show here deals explicitly with the "Monk Abilities" entry. Unless another, later update to it exists, which I do not find in any of my books, then this Complete Arcane interpretation MUST be the precedent for all other instances of "Monk Abilities". One might contest that these are two different kinds of Monk Abilities, albeit with the same name. This is a ridiculous statement; D&D errata mandates that the newest edition is the standard, replacing older ones of the same name.
So there you have it. A Tattooed Monk with no levels in Monk gains the unarmed damage, AC bonus, and speed bonus of a monk whose level equals his own. No Wisdom. No other features. But still those.
-ktkenshinx-
Assuming both readings are, as you say, RAW and that one (0+X=X) is RAI, why do you argue for the other?
Because I don't like the "there is only one way to read RAW" stances I see. Especially when there are more than one way to read the text.
Because I don't like the "there is only one way to read RAW" stances I see. Especially when there are more than one way to read the text.
Maybe I've been misreading, but especially your earlier comments we not "there are multiple ways to read the RAW", but rather absolute (and thus very much "there is only one way to read RAW", which you say you don't like).
In case you don't remember:
Neither. He gets nothing, since it doesn't grant Monk abilities. It only stacks with existing.
Here you even argue that the "other way to read the RAW" is wrong:
That isn't true, in fact the opposite is true.
[...]
If he follows RAW, he gets "0" + "X" = "0". The rule in CWar doesn't say anything about granting the abilities. It says "stacks with" and doesn't say anything about granting the ability if not already present.
Same as you do here:
There is no precedence for your view and significant precedence to counter your view.
But let's agree then that there are different ways to read the RAW in this case.
However, one apparently conforms to RAI and the other (0+X=0) doesn't, so the latter one is largely irrelevant - except for people/DMs who want to argue for arguments' sake.
Until wizards releases errata for it *if ever*, DM's will just have to house rule depending on how they interpret it.
But either way, you'll have people backing you up and trying to get you to back down :D
You could always remove the Prc from your game... or, you know, rocks fall... everyone dies.
Maybe I've been misreading, but especially your earlier comments we not "there are multiple ways to read the RAW", but rather absolute (and thus very much "there is only one way to read RAW", which you say you don't like).
When I see positions of "there can be only one way", I tend to state the cast for the "opposite way" with conviction.
The point of this, is that without explicit rules one way or another it is all a DM call (like maybe using intent which is in this case is 0+X=X)
So, in conclusion, this is a disagreement which can go either way depending on how you choose to interpret the rules. You've seen the discussion, and the arguments about how it should be read like this or that.
Until wizards releases errata for it *if ever*, DM's will just have to house rule depending on how they interpret it.
This is not a question of House Rules or DM discretion. The rules, as of now and the 2004 printing of Complete Arcane, explicitly define "Monk Abilities" as such:
Monk Abilities:
An enlightened fist adds her class level to her monk levels to determine her class-based AC bonus, her unarmed damage, her unarmored speed bonus, and the number of daily attempts of her Stunning Fist feat. If she has no monk levels, she gains the AC bonus, unarmed damage, and unarmored speed bonus of a monk whose level equals her enlightened fist level, but she can't add her Wisdom bonus to her AC.
An enlightened fist does not count her class levels for the purpose of determining when she gains any other monk class features, such as reduced penalty for flurry of blows attack rolls, bonus feats, evasion, or other special abilities.
While there are still arguments to be had about RAW vs. RAI in other areas, this particular question is solved. In an instance where a class ability has two separate rulings under the same name ("Monk Abilities" in this case), the most recent definition takes precedence. There have been no updates since December 2004 to "Monk Abilities", and therefore the Complete Arcana one takes precedence.
-ktkenshinx-
Tattooed monk
Enlightened Fist
Different prestige classes.
While Enlightened Fist may have text concerning its particular effects regarding monk abilities and how they work in regards to the class, it is in regards to the Enlightened Fist. Since it is not explicit in stating that it overrides any previous prestige class in terms of stating how the abilities stack and are regarded, you are interpreting the entry to be regressive. That is certainly not the only interpretation that is valid. In other words...
See previous post.
Unless, of course, I'm wrong and there's an entry somewhere stating that the newest prestige class overwrites all other potentially related, previously released prestige classes in terms of how abilities function and interact.
In which case, I would very much like to see that, so I can refrain from making errors in future posts.
Unless, of course, I'm wrong and there's an entry somewhere stating that the newest prestige class overwrites all other potentially related, previously released prestige classes in terms of how abilities function and interact.
From the D&D 3.5 FAQ, Page 41-42
Unless stated otherwise, any time that a rule appears in two different sourcebooks, the most current sourcebooks are considered correct and all previous sources are superseded
The example given refers to two different rules (feats in this case), both with the same name, but with different written texts. "Monk Abilities" is similarly a rule (albeit a class feature instead of a feat). As such, its two different versions of rules texts falls under the jurisdiction of this ruling. The most recent will take precedence.
One could assert that the "Enlightened Fist", by specifying only the Enlightened Fist class in its "Monk Abilities" entry, qualifies for the "Unless stated otherwise" clause. This is not the case.
This is no different than any ability that references a particular class in question. Consider when Sneak Attack entries reference a class (for example, a Rogue's sneak attack mentioning "Rogue" vs. a Darkwood Stalker's sneak attack mentioning "Darkwood Stalker"). The ability is still the same, even though they mention different classes for the sake of clarity. Moreover, when Sneak Attack receives a later update, it subsequently changes all previous, now incorrect versions of Sneak Attack. The "Rogue's" "Sneak Attack" functions the same as the "Darkwood Stalker's" "Sneak Attack".
Would one argue that an older version of an ability takes precedence over a newly written version with the exact same name? No D&D player could reasonably argue that.
So, what DOES qualify as an exception as per the "unless otherwise stated" clause? Ranger, for example. It gains Animal Companion (Ex) just like a Druid, but with the explicit sentence "This ability functions like the druid ability of the same name, except that the ranger’s effective druid level is one-half his ranger level." This is an exception. "Monk Abilities" under Enlightened Fist has no such excepting clause.
Alternately, one could argue that there are MULTIPLE versions of "Monk Abilities," one for Enlightened Fist, one for Tattooed Monk, etc. If so, are there multiple versions of all the other rules of the same name that reference a different class in their text? Are there over two dozen Sneak Attack variants, all the same in name, for each different class that gets Sneak Attack? Or, is there one Sneak Attack, and all classes that get the ability get that one, updated version of the ability?
This is not RAW vs. RAI. This is just how the game works, and what a "rule" means. One rule may appear in many different books from its first publication in 3.0 until its most recent update. When that rule is finally changed, all previous references to it also change. There are not multiple instances of the rule, all with the same name, but all separate for each separate class. That is the precedent as per the FAQ ruling.
As such, the "Monk Abilities" of the Enlightened Fist take precedence over the "Monk Abilities" of the Tattooed Monk. Does their text reference different classes? Yes. But so too do many abilities like Sneak Attack, Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, etc. As there is no clause that EXPLICITLY creates an exception ("Unless STATED otherwise"), the "Monk Abilities" of the newer Enlightened Fist must take precedence over the outdated "Monk Abilities" of the Tattooed Monk. It is the new standard.
-ktkenshinx-
Would one argue that an older version of an ability takes precedence over a newly written version with the exact same name? No D&D player could reasonably argue that.
just to set up a little counter argument ... "Spells" is as much a class ability as "Monk Abilities" are ... so according to your set of Argumentation we would all have to cast according to the latest casting class published ...
(nevertheless I personally would rule that a tatood monk could give someone monk abilities out of the blue (the 0+x=x version) ... but still)
just to set up a little counter argument ... "Spells" is as much a class ability as "Monk Abilities" are ... so according to your set of Argumentation we would all have to cast according to the latest casting class published ...
Except "Spells" explicitly differs in each separate entry for each separate class.
Spells: A wizard casts arcane spells which are drawn from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. A wizard must choose and prepare her spells ahead of time (see below).
A sorcerer casts arcane spells which are drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. He can cast any spell he knows without preparing it ahead of time, the way a wizard or a cleric must (see below).
As such, it falls under the clause "Unless stated otherwise" in the FAQ Page 41 text.
By my argument, all classes that cast as Wizards must cast as the most recent version of wizard. So too with Druid, Ranger, Sorcerer, Cleric, Bard, etc. And this is just how it is in D&D.
-ktkenshinx-
While I agree that abilities with the same name, such as Monk Abilities should normally count as the same ability, I have a problem with that use in this particular instance stemming from a difference in the two Monk Abilities.
In the Enlightened Fist from complete arcane: "adds her class level to her monk level to determine her class-based AC bonus, her unarmed damage, her unarmored speed bonus, and the number of daily attempts of her Stunning Fist feat. If she has no monk levels, she gains the AC bonus, unarmed damage, and unarmored speed bonus of a monk whose level equals her enlightened fist level, but she can't add her Wisdom bonus to her AC.
In the Tattooed Monk from complete warrior: "stack with his monk levels for determining his unarmed damage, AC bonus, and unarmored speed bonus."
You may notice that EF adds Stunning Fist in there as well.
Do you suggest that EF gives the Tattooed Monk the Stunning Fist stacking ability as well, when that wasn't provided for even with a monk/tattooed monk build?
If not, then these must be recognized as two separate abilities, and treated as such.
If so, then at what point do you recognize two abilities with the same name to be different? Only if they affect different classes? Or is it a case to case judgement call? In which case it would again be subjective, with good arguments for both side.
Or do you never recognize them as different, even when common sense would suggest otherwise (such as in the case of a fighter feat changing to grant a metamagic feat)?
--------------------------
Do you suggest that EF gives the Tattooed Monk the Stunning Fist stacking ability as well, when that wasn't provided for even with a monk/tattooed monk build?
If not, then these must be recognized as two separate abilities, and treated as such.
If so, then at what point do you recognize two abilities with the same name to be different? Only if they affect different classes? Or is it a case to case judgement call? In which case it would again be subjective, with good arguments for both side.
This is an excellent observation that I did not make in my first lookover of the Enlightened Fist. In order to answer this, I checked out another class: The Initiate of Pistis Sophia in Book of Exalted Deeds. This too has the "Monk Abilities" class feature, but it is completely different from the Tattooed Monk's or the Enlightened Fist's.
As such, the Initiate itself benefits from "Monk Abilities" much as a Wizard benefits from "Spells"; there are explicitly stated exceptions that deviate from the norm, so to speak.
As such, the inclusion of Stunning Fist in the Enlightened Fist text immediately qualifies as an exception, that is, "Unless stated otherwise". This completely disqualifies the Tattooed Monk from adopting this, based off of the precedent reasoning alone.
That leaves us with the following: Tattooed Monk functions exactly as written.
So now we must go back to the loathsomely abstruse RAI/RAW, 0+X = X argument
Thankfully, I have emailed Wizards to ask about this explicit question, and am awaiting their reply (probably Tuesday or Wednesday owing to the Memorial Day weekend).
In the meantime, I will attempt to investigate what constitutes "Precedent" in D&D. It is a worthwhile enough topic not only to this particular question, but also in general.
-ktkenshinx-
I was hoping you had a good answer
A Tattooed Monk's "Monk Abilities" both improves and grants unarmed damage, AC bonus, and unarmed speed bonus; that is, it functions like the 0+X=X of an Enlightened Fist. It does NOT grant additional Stunning Fist use.
I apologize in advance for the length of this post. Yet, I assure any of you who are interested in this topic; it is completely worth the read.
The answer lies in a combination of the Rule of Precedent (as I identified on FAQ P. 41-42) and in another FAQ entry on page 31.
The enlightened fist prestige class (CAr, page 34) allows the character to improve certain monk class features. Does the class grant the character the monk’s increasing number of attacks with flurry of blows?
The list of class features not gained doesn’t include this item. The improved monk abilities gained by the enlightened fist are limited to the list of abilities affirmatively described in the first sentence of the class feature (class-based AC bonus, unarmed damage, unarmored speed bonus, and uses of Stunning Fist). The second paragraph specifically uses the phrases “such as” and “or other special abilities” to indicate that it isn’t providing a definitive or complete list of other not improved class features, it is merely providing examples.
We will go sentence by sentence to work through this extremely critical passage.
The enlightened fist prestige class (CAr, page 34) allows the character to improve certain monk class features. Does the class grant the character the monk’s increasing number of attacks with flurry of blows?
There's the question which deals at the very least with this general idea of "Monk Abilities". Proceeding onward...
The list of class features not gained doesn’t include this item. The improved monk abilities gained by the enlightened fist are limited to the list of abilities AFFIRMATIVELY described in the first sentence of the class feature (class-based AC bonus, unarmed damage, unarmored speed bonus, and uses of Stunning Fist).
Let us expand this idea to the Tattooed Monk. The abilities that an Enlightened Fist/Tattooed Monk gain are limited ONLY to those AFFIRMATIVELY described in the class feature. Thus, as I said before, a Tattooed Monk does not gain Stunning Fist usage.
But that's not all. That's not even the important bit...
The second paragraph specifically uses the phrases “such as” and “or other special abilities” to indicate that it isn’t providing a definitive or complete list of other not improved class features, it is merely providing examples.
This is the killer. This portion of the question accomplishes three critical goals to bring me to my initial conclusion.
1) It breaks apart the Enlightened Fist "Monk Abilities" into different parts. By explicitly ruling on different parts of the same rule, it shows that the class feature "Monk Abilities" cannot be analyzed as a whole, but must be analyzed in parts. Here is the Enlightened Fist sentence one (ES1):
An enlightened fist adds her class level to her monk levels to determine her class-based AC bonus, her unarmed damage, her unarmored speed bonus, and the number of daily attempts of her Stunning Fist feat.
Now, let us do the same thing to the Tattooed Monk sentence one (TM1)
A tattooed monk's class levels stack with his monk levels for determining his unarmed damage, AC bonus, and unarmored speed bonus.
Based off of my previous post concerning the Rule of Precedent, we can most reasonably assume that ES1 updates the wording of TM1, although it admittedly ADDS a clause for Stunning Fist increase. Using the Rule of Precedent (FAQ P. 41), we can rewrite TM1 to match the updated language of EF1. Let us call the updated version TM1*
A tattooed monk adds her class level to her monk levels to determine her class-based AC bonus, her unarmed damage, and her unarmored speed bonus.
TM1* as written above reasonably replaces the existent TM1.
Now, let us skip the second, critical sentence of the Enlightened Fist entry (that concerning the gaining of Monk Abilities for non-monks in the class) and move to the third sentence, EF3.
An enlightened fist does not count her class levels for the purpose of determining when she gains any other monk class features, such as reduced penalty for flurry of blows attack rolls, bonus feats, evasion, or other special abilities.
Is this sentence in the Tattooed Monk "Monk Abilities" entry? Nope. Is it absolutely, 100% implied? Absolutely, without a question. This is not even a question of RAW and RAI; As we saw in the FAQ question above, only abilities AFFIRMATIVELY mentioned are gained. Obviously, anything not mentioned is not gained. Yet, this clearly is not so obvious; if it were, EF3 would not have to exist at all!
Let us apply this logic to the amended Tattooed Monk "Monk Abilities" entry, aka, TM1*.
A tattooed monk adds her class level to her monk levels to determine her class-based AC bonus, her unarmed damage, and her unarmored speed bonus.
While it is clear that only abilities affirmatively mentioned in the entry are gained, Wizards still deemed it important to add in the additional qualification of EF3 in the Enlightened Fist entry. As such, let us do the same for the Tattooed Monk entry. We will call this TF3*
A tattooed monk adds her class level to her monk levels to determine her class-based AC bonus, her unarmed damage, and her unarmored speed bonus.
A tattooed monk does not count her class levels for the purpose of determining when she gains any other monk class features, such as reduced penalty for flurry of blows attack rolls, bonus feats, evasion, or other special abilities.
Is this obvious when reading the Tattooed Monk? Yes. Is it equally obvious when reading the first sentence of Enlightened Fist? Also yes. As such, the additional qualification can be added to the Tattooed Monk entry for the sake of clarity.
I think you can all see where this is heading. Before proceeding further, let us take a look at the Enlightened Fist "Monk Abilities" entry side-by-side with the updated Tattooed Monk "Monk Abilities" entry.
A tattooed monk adds her class level to her monk levels to determine her class-based AC bonus, her unarmed damage, and her unarmored speed bonus.
A tattooed monk does not count her class levels for the purpose of determining when she gains any other monk class features, such as reduced penalty for flurry of blows attack rolls, bonus feats, evasion, or other special abilities.
An enlightened fist adds her class level to her monk levels to determine her class-based AC bonus, her unarmed damage, her unarmored speed bonus, and the number of daily attempts of her Stunning Fist feat.
If she has no monk levels, she gains the AC bonus, unarmed damage, and unarmored speed bonus of a monk whose level equals her enlightened fist level, but she can't add her Wisdom bonus to her AC.
An enlightened fist does not count her class levels for the purpose of determining when she gains any other monk class features, such as reduced penalty for flurry of blows attack rolls, bonus feats, evasion, or other special abilities.
Our abilities are identical except in two respects.
1) Enlightened Fist affirmatively mentions Stunning Fist in the opening sentence. Tattooed Monk does not. As such, EF gains it but TM does not.
2) The Enlightened Fist entry has an additional sentence, currently bolded...
Before I deliver the coup de grace, let us re-read the Rule of Precedent.
Unless stated otherwise, any time that a rule appears in two different sourcebooks, the most current sourcebooks are considered correct and all previous sources are superseded
The bolded sentence under the Enlightened Fist entry is an update and clarification to the general "Monk Abilities" rule. It activates the clause "the most current sourcebooks are considered correct and all previous sources are superseded."
What is the exception? What is the "Unless stated otherwise" trigger?
That is ONLY the inclusion of Stunning Fist in EF1. This inclusion does NOT change the rest of the rule.
For these reasons, we can rewrite the Tattooed Monk "Monk Abilities" entry as follows.
Monk Abilities:
(TM1*)A tattooed monk adds her class level to her monk levels to determine her class-based AC bonus, her unarmed damage, and her unarmored speed bonus.
(TM2*)If she has no monk levels, she gains the AC bonus, unarmed damage, and unarmored speed bonus of a monk whose level equals her enlightened fist level, but she can't add her Wisdom bonus to her AC.
(TM3*)A tattooed monk does not count her class levels for the purpose of determining when she gains any other monk class features, such as reduced penalty for flurry of blows attack rolls, bonus feats, evasion, or other special abilities.
And there you have it. To reiterate, here is the process that brings us to this point.
1) EF1 and TM1 are identical, although one includes Stunning Fist. As such, we rewrite TM1 to TM1*, reflecting EF1 minus the Stunning Fist.
2) EF3 is a redundant sentence that should be implied. Yet, it is included anyway under the Enlightened Fist entry. The Tattooed Monk naturally implies a similar sentence, but does not explicitly state it.
3) As Enlightened Fist is more recent, its ruling takes precedence. Thus, we add a new TM3* to TM1* (where TM3* reflects EF3).
4) The only sentence left is EF2. EF2 has NO bearing on the exception in the rule (the Stunning Fist inclusion), but EVERY bearing on the rule as a whole.
5) As such, the Rule of Precedent kicks in, rewriting the outdated Tattooed Monk "Monk Abilities" entry to match the updated Enlightened Fist "Monk Abilities" entry.
So there you have it. Stunning Fist is unique to the first sentence. Not the other two. As such, it only effects that first sentence. The other two serve to set rules precedent for all previous entries of "Monk Abilities".
-ktkenshinx-
Monk abilities are listed:
Monk Abilities (Initiate of Pistis Sophia) Book of Exalted Deeds p. 64, october, 2003
Monk Abilities (Monk of the Long Death) Players Guide to Faerûn p. 66, March 2004
Monk Abilities (Shintao Monk) Oriental Adventures p. 47, october 2001
Monk Abilities (Tattooed Monk) Oriental Adventures p. 50, october 2001
Monk Abilities (Enlightened Fist) Complete Arcane p. 35, november 2004
Monk Abilities (Shadow Sun Ninja) Tome of Battle pg 126, august 2006
The Initiate includes: ac bonus, unarmed damage, flurry bonus, speed, and ki strike.
The Monk of the Long Death includes: ac bonus, unarmed damage, and speed bonus.
The Shintao Monk includes: ac bonus,unarmed damage, and speed.
The Tattooed monk includes: ac bonus,unarmed damage, and speed.
The Enlightened Fist includes: Ac bonus, unarmed damage, speed, and stunning fist. If she has no monk levels, she gains the AC bonus, unarmed damage, and speed bonus of a monk whose level equals her enlightened fist level, but she can't add her Wisdom bonus to her AC.
The Shadow Sun Ninja includes: Ac bonus, unarmed damage, speed bonus, flurry bonus, and Stunning Fist. If you have no monk levels, you gain the ac bonus of a monk whose level equals your shadow sun ninja level. In addition, you gain additional uses of the stunning fist feat as a monk. (Your non-monk, non-Shadow Sun ninja class levels provide one use per four levels and your monk, and Shadow Sun ninja class levels provide one use per level.)
Since the Shadow Sun Ninja is the latest version of Monk Abilities, you interpret that to mean that all previous versions include the ac bonus, unarmed damage, speed bonus, flurry bonus, and stunning fist.
When I view this list, I see two patterns. Within each book, the Monk Abilities listed are the same. And no two books list the monk abilities the same.
But as I read though this list, something occurred to me as to Monk Abilities fulfilling the requirements of a rule. If you are to pick Monk Abilities from under the class features section, then you have to treat every entry made in a similar manner in the same way, or you risk arbitrariness. Which would include Weapon and Armor Proficiency, just as an example.
Now, it's obvious that Weapon and Armor Proficiency is designed to be specific to the class. In order to keep the latest version from giving casters heavy armor proficiency, or removing it from some melee prestige classes, you have to assume that the class name is, in actuality, a very important part of the entry. Therefore an entry in Weapon and Armor Proficiency would only affect the class it specified within that entry.
Following this logic, each iteration of Monk Abilities only affects the specific class it names. If Tattooed Monk were re-released with a new version of Monk Abilities, then it would affect all previous versions of that ability. If, however, The Monk of the Long Death were re-released, it wouldn't overwrite the Tattooed Monk's abilities.
This entry problem is also evident under Bardic Music, where some entry mechanics can get you into a prestige class like Fochlucan Lyricist without Bardic Music. Fochlucan Lyricist has no entry about granting you Bardic Music if you didn't already have it. The opposite is granted in the BOED with the Troubadour of stars granting bardic music if the character didn't already have it. In this case, the Troubadour came out first, and the Fochlucan Lyricist came out later. If your previous postulation were correct, then the Fochlucan Lyricist would overwrite the ability granting bardic music if the character didn't already have it, and we would have the same argument with a different ability.
With this in mind, I think we're defaulting back to the original question again. At least, perhaps, until you get that response back.
Monk Abilities (Shadow Sun Ninja) Tome of Battle pg 126, august 2006
The Shadow Sun Ninja includes: Ac bonus, unarmed damage, speed bonus, flurry bonus, and Stunning Fist. If you have no monk levels, you gain the ac bonus of a monk whose level equals your shadow sun ninja level. In addition, you gain additional uses of the stunning fist feat as a monk. (Your non-monk, non-Shadow Sun ninja class levels provide one use per four levels and your monk, and Shadow Sun ninja class levels provide one use per level.)
Since the Shadow Sun Ninja is the latest version of Monk Abilities, you interpret that to mean that all previous versions include the ac bonus, unarmed damage, speed bonus, flurry bonus, and stunning fist.
Thank you so much for finding this more recent Monk Abilities entry. It is invaluable.
It's phrasing results in two conclusions. First, it proves my reasoning that this general format for Monk Abilities (three sentences, one affirmatively giving abilities, one granting abilities to non-monks, and one negatively barring abilities) is the standard.
Second, it does not undercut my analysis of the Tattooed Monk. It only adds another possible exception to the second sentence. The formatting remains the same. All that changes is that in sentence 2 of a "Monk Abilities" entry, there may be other things gained for non-monks IN ADDITION to Unarmed Strike, Movement, AC Bonus, etc.
As such, the Tattooed Monk entry still functions the same as I phrased it below. The difference is, another "unless stated otherwise" clause can be added to Sentence 2 to grant additional abilities past the baseline. The formatting is still the same.
A non-monk Tattooed Monk will gain, at the very least, the unarmed damage, ac bonus, and movement speed bonus of a monk of the same level. Is it possible that he also gains Stunning Fist usage? Possible, yes, but it is irrelevant for the overall question. The exception is the stunning fist, NOT the formatting.
-ktkenshinx-
Based on the following precedent, it is clear that it is the intent to have Tattoed Monk levels to act as levels of actual Monk for the purpose of AC, unarmed damage, and unarmored speed:
-- the original printing of the PrC states that the class does grant those abilities
-- the 3.5 update did absolutely nothing to counter that
-- the CW re-print was obviously just trying to save space
-- THE PrC HAS THE WORD "MONK" IN THE F#@%^*& TITLE!!!
I really don't see where the dispute is. What is the point of arguing over insignificant minutiae, when everybody seems to agree on the actual intent of the darn class.
P.S. -- my full apologies to the OP
The problem is that different interpretations read differently. You can assume that Cwarrior left a line out for brevity, or by mistake, or by intention, depending on how you want the final thing to look.
Which means you've got no obvious answer.
By going through the rules, and figuring out how to apply them equally to all abilities, we will not only be able to state that *this is how it is*, but also *this is why this is how it is*, without having to rely on opinion in the matter. That way, the next time someone asks about this ability, or something similar, we'll be able to provide a definitive answer instead of a pages-long debate on the matter.
Heck, I could argue that it was obvious from Complete warrior that they were taking that feature away so that people who played the prestige class would be more likely to take monk levels, as suggested by the title with the word MONK in it.
Obviously, if it has MONK in the title, you're meant to take monk levels before entering it.
*facepalm*
*facepalm*
Well, that was a little unnecessary, don't you think?
Obviously, if it has MONK in the title, you're meant to take monk levels before entering it.
Obviously, it was intended for a monk; however, it is not required (though personally, I might be a little suspicious of the motives of a non-monk entry -- but that's completely beside the point).
The problem is that different interpretations read differently. You can assume that Cwarrior left a line out for brevity, or by mistake, or by intention, depending on how you want the final thing to look.
Again, I refer to my previous post.
By going through the rules, and figuring out how to apply them equally to all abilities, we will not only be able to state that *this is how it is*, but also *this is why this is how it is*, without having to rely on opinion in the matter. That way, the next time someone asks about this ability, or something similar, we'll be able to provide a definitive answer instead of a pages-long debate on the matter.
Sorry, but now it just seems like you are trying to argue for the sake of arguing. Continuing this any further will simply be masturbatory.
Thankfully, at least regarding this post, that is alright; by all accounts, this issue has been solved. It is not a house rule, it is not a strange interpretation. The "Monk Abilities" standard, in its newest form, has received an update of the following form. All previous editions of "Monk Abilities" are to be formatted roughly in this way.
Sentence 1: This class stacks with monk for determining certain abilities.
Sentence 2: If this class has no monk levels, it gains certain monk abilities as if it were a monk of that level.
Sentence 3: This class does not gain all the other monk abilities not affirmatively mentioned in the first two sentences
The exceptions are references to certain, specific abilities. The formatting is the same. Tattooed Monk should be generally formatted as above, just as all other monk prestige classes should be. This is not a house rules issue. This is the updated formatting of this ability entry.
But how do you reconcile this with regards to similar entries that would otherwise seem to fall under this template ruling, such as the Armor and Weapon Proficiency issue?
The exceptions are the specific references within the entry, not the formatting of the entry itself. An improperly formatted entry should be reformatted to fit its most recent form. Once that formatting is done, specific mentions to weapons, armor, proficiencies, etc. all fall under the "exception" category. The formatting itself is a constant.
At this point, the facts are clear: if a Tattooed Monk has no Monk levels when he starts the class, he gains the unarmed damage, AC bonus, and unarmored speed bonus as if he were a monk of the same level. If he does have Monk levels, the two stack for determining these things.
By going through the rules, and figuring out how to apply them equally to all abilities, we will not only be able to state that *this is how it is*, but also *this is why this is how it is*, without having to rely on opinion in the matter. That way, the next time someone asks about this ability, or something similar, we'll be able to provide a definitive answer instead of a pages-long debate on the matter.
This is not a matter of opinion. This is a matter of formatting. "Monk Abilities" is formatted a certain way. Do all the previous "Monk Abilities" entries cite the same specific abilities AS that of the newest one? No, they do not. But these are the exceptions. The formatting is the consistent part. Think of the above mentioned formatting as an "Insert abilities here" clause.
To universalize the principle, here is the following. This is the template from the Shadow Sun Ninja (From the 2006 Tome of Battle) as it should be applied to all previous Monk Abilities entries.
Monk Abilities
Sentence 1: You add your class level to your monk level to determine your [INSERT ABILITIES HERE].
Sentence 2: If you have no monk levels, you gain the [INSERT ABILITIES HERE] of a monk whose level equals your [INSERT CLASS NAME] level. [INSERT ADDITIONAL GAINS HERE]
Sentence 3: You do not count your class level for the purpose of determining whether you gain any other monk class features, such as [INSERT ALL ABILITIES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY MENTIONED], or other special abilities.
This is the standard. If you go through all references to "Monk Abilities" in the past, you will find that they can be input into this template, preserving their unique exceptions, and retaining this general form.
-ktkenshinx-
This is not a matter of opinion. This is a matter of formatting. -ktkenshinx-
Which is exactly what I was trying to imply. Instead of relying on raw or roi arguments, we now have a definitive conclusion here that we can also extrapolate to use with any other questionable abilities, by referencing the latest version of that ability.
Oh, and in regards to your previous post, jgumbyrx..
*facepalm*
Oh, and in regards to your previous post, jgumbyrx..
*facepalm*
Oh, man. You really got me there. I don't know what I'm gonna do now. I sure learned my lesson -- I better not mess with you. Wow, I don't know how I'm gonna get over that one.