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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Artoomis" data-source="post: 3056953" data-attributes="member: 111">Exactly.  Too true.So why, I ask, should one assume that "spells and effects" in the monk class description intends to refer to some narrowly defined game term "effects," when, in fact, such a narrow definition simply does not exist.  Further, if feats have effects (which seems clear to everyone), why are we to assume that the designers meant for "effects" to not apply to feats for monks.In other words, what evidence to we have that the designers meant for "effects" to be considered some sort of precise game term?  "Effects" is not in the glossary, where it most certainly belongs if it were to be a precise game term.I submit that the true answer her lies not in trying to parse the rules like they were some sort of precisely-written instrument, but instead in trying to figure out what the designers likely intended by the word "effects" in the monk description.Regrettably, there is precious little to go by in the rules themselves for this.You could, of course, assume that later material makes this claar (INA included for monks in PHBII and the FAQ), but that really only tells you what WotC means by "effects" in the monk description NOW, after-the-fact.The person who really want to follow "the rules" should allow INA for monks based upon the FAQ and PHBII sicne that describes TODAY's inent of "effects" in teh monk class description.However, rhere is absolutely no way to know what the correct way to read "effects" is in the monk class description based upon the core rules books themselves.  From the core rules themselves there are at least two equally valid viewpoints.1.  Read broadly, "effects" from the monk class description includes feats such as INA since effects is a undefined game term, in the general sense, and therefore inludes things that produce effects, such as feats, not just the effect itself and thus excluding feat prerequisites.2.  Read narrowly, "effects" is a very limited term.  Feats have effects, but are not in and of themselves effects or, even if they are, the prerequisites for them are not.I have a lot of trouble with number two, as it seems like an overly-technical reading that  assumes an unreasonably high level of precision in the original writing of these rules.</blockquote>

Verification