Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 5086517" data-attributes="member: 19675">A monk's unarmed strike IS a natural attack for the purposes of spells/effects that target natural attacks, by virtue of the RAW of that passage in the Monk's class features.The only questions remaining are
<ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">What is the definition of &quot;effect?&quot;&nbsp; That question is never truly defined by WotC, but by looking at other texts- as seen in the Toughness feat- we see that in some places, at least, &quot;effects&quot; are granted by Feats.&nbsp; In law, one thing we do when we don't have a true definition of a word in the law we're examining, we look to other uses of the word in other areas of law.&nbsp; Once a word is defined within a section, that is assumed to be the definition for that section, barring a contrary definition within that section.&nbsp; Again, WotC uses &quot;effect&quot; to describe the benefits of certain feats.&nbsp; In NO feat is language used that indicates that the benefit of a feat is NOT an effect, but something else mechanically.&nbsp; Even in your counterexample, &quot;effect&quot; is simply not used- it is not redefined as something else.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Does any other class so qualify?&nbsp; My personal take on THAT is &quot;no.&quot;&nbsp; No other class has that language or anything resembling it.&nbsp; Even the 3.5 revision of Oriental Adventures- written by James Wyatt, the product's creator- gives the Shaman only the level-based increase in unarmed strike damage like the Monk.&nbsp; It does not mention treatment of the Shaman's strikes as manufactured or natural weapons.</li>
</ol>WotC's products do contain numerous errors- that's indisputable- but again, those errors are indicative of one of my personal bugaboos, a lack of proofreading.IME, when you contact them about PC design errors, they admit them...and suggest you correct them as you see fit.&nbsp; In the course of my correspondence with them, never have they ever suggested or admitted that a Monk with INA is an error.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dannyalcatraz, post: 5086517, member: 19675"] A monk's unarmed strike IS a natural attack for the purposes of spells/effects that target natural attacks, by virtue of the RAW of that passage in the Monk's class features. The only questions remaining are [LIST=1] [*]What is the definition of "effect?" That question is never truly defined by WotC, but by looking at other texts- as seen in the Toughness feat- we see that in some places, at least, "effects" are granted by Feats. In law, one thing we do when we don't have a true definition of a word in the law we're examining, we look to other uses of the word in other areas of law. Once a word is defined within a section, that is assumed to be the definition for that section, barring a contrary definition within that section. Again, WotC uses "effect" to describe the benefits of certain feats. In NO feat is language used that indicates that the benefit of a feat is NOT an effect, but something else mechanically. Even in your counterexample, "effect" is simply not used- it is not redefined as something else. [*]Does any other class so qualify? My personal take on THAT is "no." No other class has that language or anything resembling it. Even the 3.5 revision of Oriental Adventures- written by James Wyatt, the product's creator- gives the Shaman only the level-based increase in unarmed strike damage like the Monk. It does not mention treatment of the Shaman's strikes as manufactured or natural weapons. [/LIST] WotC's products do contain numerous errors- that's indisputable- but again, those errors are indicative of one of my personal bugaboos, a lack of proofreading. IME, when you contact them about PC design errors, they admit them...and suggest you correct them as you see fit. In the course of my correspondence with them, never have they ever suggested or admitted that a Monk with INA is an error. [/QUOTE]

Verification