Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="SteveC" data-source="post: 3054257" data-attributes="member: 9053">I think that's rather the problem. There isn't a definition of "effect" in D&D. It's not a term that is defined in either the PHB or DMG. In checking some online SRD resources, I have not seen it defined there either. So that's where the problem comes from...it's not something that the designers thought was an important enough term to precisely define.In cases like that, I just use the simplest method and assume it's being used in its english language equivilant. To me, when combined with the FAQ and the fact that WotC has included INA in sample characters, I just take it as an intended part of the game. Obviously, opinions differ.What you wrote makes a lot of sense, because if you take effect in the sentence to mean Effect -- an important term that has an in-game definition, you can have a long and fairly complicated conversation about what it exactly mean, and what, in general, meeting the prerequisites for a feat means. We've had that discussion multiple times. For me, that stops being interesting about page two, since it implies a complexity to the D&D rules that I just don't think is there. Obviously, opinions differ.So yes, while this is an interesting debate that will rage on for some time (I'm sure) I just don't see the point: the intent of the designers is clear at this point (FAQ, sage's comments, actually appearing in a book) but that in no way means an individual GM needs to actually use that ruling: there's rule 0 for situations like this. Of course, I'm also amused that the monk is getting this much attention. Game breaking charcters? Monks?--Steve</blockquote>

Verification