Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack? - Official answer

[Lonely Tylenol]

That does seem to be how antimagic field reads, yes. It suppresses magical effects but the actual things are still there 'somewhere'. Even summoned creatures wink out but their durations continue to run out.

Which means, therefore, that the feat and its effect are two different things. The latter is suppressed in an antimagic field, but the former is not. You don't lose the feat, but the effect is not there. You regain the effect if you leave the field, but your having the feat is constant throughout, in the same way that you get to keep Power Attack but not use it if your Strength is suddenly reduced to 6.

 

[Scion]

Which means, therefore, that the feat and its effect are two different things.

No, actually the quote I posted proves the opposite given its wording. Just read the quote I posted again.


You are not able to use the feat while in the field, so its effect is gone, you cannot use it. The effect is suppresed, that is true, but the ability remains, it is just unuseable. Just like the guy with power attack and a BAB of +0. He has it, he simply cannot use it.

 

[Scion]

I still havent seen anyone give any examples of what 'effect' might be if feats are not allowed for whatever reason.

Does anyone know of anything where this would apply if, for a reason I do not understand, feats were not the 'effects' that it speaks of?

 

[turbo]

First, the resort to supernatural feats is misleading, because it tries to derive the general character of feats from a clear exception (nothing says that the character of a psionic feat--and certainly not a hypothetical supernatural feat invented out of thin air--tells us anything about feats in general)--it has no representative or determining value; second, no definition of effect has been provided, nor any refutation of the characterization of feats as effects of leveling up, nor any basis whatsoever for the conflation of a 'feat-effect' (or whatever) with that part of the feat defined as its benefit ("I press the button on my power attack feat so that it will now allow me to power attack"? "I gain a level; I feat Martial Weapon Proficiency on myself"? Why not: "My Strength score attack bonuses my attack on the orc"?).

 

[Infiniti2000]

I still havent seen anyone give any examples of what 'effect' might be if feats are not allowed for whatever reason.

Does anyone know of anything where this would apply if, for a reason I do not understand, feats were not the 'effects' that it speaks of?

I did, multiple times. Any Su or Sp ability.

 

[Scion]

I did, multiple times. Any Su or Sp ability.

Such as? Examples that wouldnt fall under 'spell' would be nice.

 

[Infiniti2000]

You want an actual example? I don't have one off-hand and it might take a little bit to find one. A manufactured example would simply be magic fang as a Spell-like ability. I'm sure there are Su abilities that could qualify, somewhere, too.

 

[turbo]

I did, multiple times. Any Su or Sp ability.

Problem: you're making that up; there's no definition to this effect (ha-ha).

 

[Artoomis]

I don't know if this really helps, but let's start with those two items of general agreement.

1. Feats grant effects (look at numerous feat descriptions that talk about "effects" of the feat stacking or not).

2. There also seems to be general agreement that a monk's special attacks could benefit from the effects of INA, because a ... "monk's unarmed strike may benefit from ... effects that normally affect ... natural weapons."

Okay, so, given that, how can we possibly consider that they do not qualify for the feat? Is it not an extraordinarily strained rule interpretation and extraordinarily hyper-technical to say that they do not have a natural weapon but the feat's effects could apply to them just as if they did?

Further, the word "effect" has no technical meaning in D&D (unless used as a "spell effect," which is not the case here) and therefore they should qualify.

So what is an "effect?" As a noun in this context, it is "something that inevitably follows an antecedent (as a cause or agent)" (Webster). The "effect" is the result of some sort of cause.

In order for a monk's special attack to be affected by this feat (which should be the case by the monk's class rules), the monk must have to be considered to have a natural wepon - for this purpose only, of course.

Now, I'll grant that a prerequisite is not an "effect," but it seems realy, really odd to me to state that they qualify for the feat's effects upon natural weapons but are not considered to have a natural weapon for this purpose. Bizarre

Here's a few example of the word "effect" from the d20 SRD:

A psionic power is a one-time psionic effect...
A spell is a one-time magical effect...
Acid Effects Corrosive acids deals 1d6 points of damage per round of ...
Effects of Being Lost...
The character can fool alignment-sensing effects by...
Cursed Item Common Curses d% Curse 01-15 Delusion 16-35 Opposite effect...
Some weapon qualities and some specific weapons have an extra effect on a critical hit...
...use Table: Improved Monster CR Increase to determine the effect on the creature’s CR...
...a bard can use his song or poetics to produce magical effects ...
Starting a bardic music effect is a standard action...
If he avoids you, he doesn’t suffer any ill effect and you may keep moving ...
All mephits fight by biting and clawing or by using a breath weapon, the nature and effects of which vary from creature to creature...
A power s effect often depends on the manifester level...
If certain effects can t combine, apply the most severe effect...

Just to show that "effect" in D&D is not a defined technical term.

What I am trying to point out its that the rules fully support the Sage's view, while they could also be made to show it in error, if desired, which makes an "offical" interpretation needed, as was provided.

Why is this an issue????

 

[Scion]

You want an actual example?

Since that is what I asked for, multiple times, then yes. Actually, I want a list of examples.

If you cannot find one then what is the point of saying that they must 'all' fit under this list?

As for the magic fang, that would fall under my comment of, 'one that will not simply work by the "spell" part of the exemption'.