Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack? - Official answer

[Scion]

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????

Nice

 

[Infiniti2000]

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

Then go search for them. You should have enough information on what you are looking for to figure out if any are present. I assume you are explicitly looking for examples of 'effects' that are not feats that would apply to the monk's unarmed strike?

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'.

No. I said magic fang as a spell-like ability, not magic fang as a spell. There is a world of difference between the two. Spell-like abilities and spells both have effects (as do Su, and even Ex abilities sometimes), but spell-like abilities are not spells. So, whenever 'spells' is given, if you want non-spells to also work, you must say something like 'effects' or list out all of them. Quite honestly, you could drop the 'spells' part because that's just extra wording that doesn't help.

 

[Scion]

You say that they exist so I want you to show me them I asked patryn earlier but he apparently doesnt have a list either.

Magic fang as a spell like ability is close enough to the 'spell' part to me to not need the 'effects' part of the description. But perhaps it is necissary for the rest of the rules base.

In any event however, I just wanted a list to look at, I guess one isnt forthcoming..lol


I will still need a massive portion of proof to convince me that ina cannot be taken by a monk given that the wording, to me, explicitly states that it works.

 

[Prince Sharam]

If you REALLY wanted to find out, you would have gone out and searched. But apparently the want isn't high enough.

 

[turbo]

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

As does the act of taking a feat: 'taking this feat grants...'--but the trick is not to get tricked by the grammar into a game-mechanical separation of a feat from its effect, which doesn't exist under the Rules As Written.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

You say that they exist so I want you to show me them I asked patryn earlier but he apparently doesnt have a list either.

Sorry, I probably skipped your post.

You want a "non-Magic Fang spell" effect that affects natural weapons?

Chaotic Subtype: A subtype usually applied only to outsiders native to the chaotic-aligned Outer Planes. Most creatures that have this subtype also have chaotic alignments; however, if their alignments change they still retain the subtype. Any effect that depends on alignment affects a creature with this subtype as if the creature has a chaotic alignment, no matter what its alignment actually is. The creature also suffers effects according to its actual alignment. A creature with the chaotic subtype overcomes damage reduction as if its natural weapons and any weapons it wields were chaotic-aligned (see Damage Reduction, below).

 

[Scion]

If you REALLY wanted to find out, you would have gone out and searched. But apparently the want isn't high enough.

If people 'really' wanted their 'any and all' comment to work they would be able to defend their position.

I think that asking for proof on their comment is well within the realm of reason

In this case magic fang is a spell and it has certain specified effects. To me that falls under the spell category, as that is where it comes from. But I am really interested in seeing some of these (Su) abilities that some creatures might have or that others might be able to gain that would somehow be classified directly as 'effect' instead of being potentially under the 'spell' portion.

I dont think that is too much to ask. I am sorry if anyone else thinks that it is.

 

[Prince Sharam]

They stated it, the burden of proof is upon you who wants to know, to find it.

 

[Scion]

Sorry, I probably skipped your post.

You want a "non-Magic Fang spell" effect that affects natural weapons?

Cool, thanks

Of course that seems to lend even more credit in my mind to ina working on monks weapons.. given the wording of each.

 

[Infiniti2000]

You say that they exist so I want you to show me them I asked patryn earlier but he apparently doesnt have a list either.

No doubt it would be a lot of work to produce an exhaustive list. I'm not sure if even one example could be found. Nevertheless, the lack of an actual example in a book does not mean that such a thing couldn't be found or even generated by an imaginative DM (e.g. the magic fang as a spell-like ability).

Actually, this gives me a thought. Consider a monk/druid/heirophant who chooses the Spell-like ability special ability for greater magic fang. Perfectly core, perfectly within the rules, and a clear example of an 'effect' that is not a 'spell'.

Can I say QED now?