Well I can see where your both coming from, which is a problem. I don't like 'flavour' style feats being available outside of those tied to the flavour (like being female in this case). However as written it says Monks don't need to meet the pre-requisites so they don't need to meet the pre-requisites. Whether that is the designers intention, I don't know (I reckon they just wanted to let monks ignore the Intimidate requirement, but that is conjecture).
I would rename the feat IMC for Monks to 'Barbed Devil Fist Style' or whatever to disconnect it from the Golden Erinyes. Thus all monks could take BDFS (crap name I know, but just off the top of my head) feat as a 2nd level bonus feat everyone else (including monks taking the feat at other times) would have to meet the requirements.
Hamatulatsu doesn't demand a regional affinity at all. If you look elsewhere in the book, any Feat that does need such an affinity lists it as a prerequisite; the description of Hamatulatsu lacks mention of such.
That said, I would require a monk to meet the gender and upbringing requirements before taking it. A character is unlikely to even encounter someone with the knowledge and willingness to teach the Feat unless both are met. That said, I see no reason why these requirements could not have been met before the beginning of a character's adventuring career. Korvosa if heavily trafficked, and one can likely come up with a number of reasons as to why such a youth would be living in the city.
DM is right...it's his game...
|
That's not my view...As DM I'm the final arbitrator in what I allow in my game...yes, I need players, but, players are actually pretty easy to get, and I haven't had a problem keeping players with my multitudinous arbitrary rulings...but maybe that's just me. I don't put up with rules lawyers, especially during games, and anything in a splat book is just that, it's splat. If it sticks to my wall and I don't like it, I don't let it stay...
Edit: The same thing goes when I'm playing in someone else's sandbox...they're the arbitrator...their rules stand and I ask how they feel about the rules...I don't argue with their rulings.
Hamatulatsu doesn't demand a regional affinity at all. If you look elsewhere in the book, any Feat that does need such an affinity lists it as a prerequisite; the description of Hamatulatsu lacks mention of such.
This is an important piece, I am not sure what part the DM is denying you for but it has no regional pre-req.
Cleaned out a few posts here. Let's keep the snarky sniping at one another to a minimum, shall we?
Hamatulatsu doesn't demand a regional affinity at all. If you look elsewhere in the book, any Feat that does need such an affinity lists it as a prerequisite; the description of Hamatulatsu lacks mention of such.This is an important piece, I am not sure what part the DM is denying you for but it has no regional pre-req.
It has the prerequisites "female, raised by the Sisters of the Golden Erinyes". Strictly speaking, you can ignore those prerequisites if you're a monk (because it says so). But I think the intent is that this is a special style taught by the Sisters of the Golden Erinyes, and so you'd have to learn it from one of them somehow.
I kind of think this is a role-play versus roll-play versus rule-play thing. Seems pretty clear what the feat is all about and seems pretty clear someone is ignoring that and trying to get the benefits of the feat without dealing with the role play aspects of it.
If you want to be a rules lawyer then sure, it seems fine. Otherwise? Seems kind of weak.
If I were DMing I would probably work with my player to help him attain this but wouldn't let him get away with handwaving it away.
That's not my view...As DM I'm the final arbitrator in what I allow in my game...yes, I need players, but, players are actually pretty easy to get, and I haven't had a problem keeping players with my multitudinous arbitrary rulings...but maybe that's just me. I don't put up with rules lawyers, especially during games, and anything in a splat book is just that, it's splat. If it sticks to my wall and I don't like it, I don't let it stay...
Edit: The same thing goes when I'm playing in someone else's sandbox...they're the arbitrator...their rules stand and I ask how they feel about the rules...I don't argue with their rulings.
Hmmmm, exactly the kind of DM I won't game with. Also the kind of player I won't game with, too.
I don't need a DM who believes his way is the only way and we players are just easily-replaced cattle to bow to his will or to be banished from his game.
Nor do I need a player who expects to be treated that way by me. I want my players to contribute. I want them to come up with new stuff, either their own or something they read/found and liked, then I want them to get excited about that stuff and want to be involved with it. I won't dismiss their points out of my own arrogant DM-is-king mentality; I will work with them, find a way to make their ideas/desires/goals work within our campaign, and encourage more participation from them in the future.
As to the original question, the rulebook seems quite clear here. This feat seems like it should be available to your monk.
Just because some secret society somewhere figures out how to do something doesn't mean others cannot figure it out too. Or maybe your monk saw someone perform the feat once and now you've worked out how to do it yourself. Or maybe you simply learned it from your own instructor who saw it once and worked it out on his own. Or whatever.
I feel sorry for you if your DM is too stubborn or too much of a control freak to work with you to help you build your character in the way you want to.
Maybe some of the reasonable advice in this thread might spark a cooperative compromise between you and your DM to find a way to make this happen for you.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
It doesn't seem that taking it would be unbalancing in any way. The two pre-reqs that seem to be the center of the contention, at least in this thread, are both flavor elements. There's no mechanical difference between a male and female character (except height and weight), and who your pc was raised by is even less of an issue. Would you still be unable to take it without the intimidate rank rereqs if your PC were female and had the right backstory?
|
The female requirement is flavor, not balance, so if the DM wants to nuke it, either completely, or in this specific instance (using Monk bonus feat to ignore mechanically meaningless fluff restrictions), that's their business.
A common mark of a heroic character in a fantasy novel or even a mundane TV show is how they break some particular rule or prove to be the exception to 'how things work.' If your character is such an exception, so much the cooler, and it might prove to be a plot point, as members of the Sisterhood challenge the 'thief' who 'stole their techniques.' (My Hamatsula-Fu is stronger than your Hamatsula-Fu!)
It's not like you're doing something crazy like making a crossbow-using ranger or a two-weapon fighter or a barbarian who uses an oversized weapon. :)
If the DM doesn't want to nuke it, or wants to refuse the feat for other reasons, that's also their business. We don't always get what we want.
|
|
Strange, the post that was removed was my apology, it had been sincere...
So let me just apologize, I had missed a portion of the OP, as I had only skimmed the post at first.
DM Blake, we'll just have to agree to disagree...(though note: I don't go by word of DM Law...I do discuss house-rules with my players, but I as the DM am the final arbiter...but if one of my rulings is disliked by a majority of players I have on occasion changed my ruling.)
Handwave what away? The rules as written in the book that says the feat can be taken as a Monk bonus feat at second level without meeting the prerequisites?I kind of think this is a role-play versus roll-play versus rule-play thing. Seems pretty clear what the feat is all about and seems pretty clear someone is ignoring that and trying to get the benefits of the feat without dealing with the role play aspects of it.
If you want to be a rules lawyer then sure, it seems fine. Otherwise? Seems kind of weak.
If I were DMing I would probably work with my player to help him attain this but wouldn't let him get away with handwaving it away.
Eh... don't know why I stuck my head in here. All depends on who the player is and where he's trying to go with it.