Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Artoomis]

...So, is a feat an effect - there cannot possibly be an answer to that question, given that wild use of the word 'effect' in the core rules. If you say a feat is an effect, then you have to consider the word effect against all the criteria that defines what an effect is. The same goes if you say a feat is not an effect. The only thing you can admit is that the benefit of the feat is an effect, but that's an admittance based simply on a seeming similarity between a feat's benefit and what is typically an effect.

Pinotage

Well, I have to agree. The word "effect" is extremeley general and, in at least one instance, feast are referred to as "permament effects," but in another instacne as granting effects.

I think a feat should be considered an effect at least for the purpose of determining if a monk has a natural weapon.

 

[glass]

If that is the case, you have to make the exact same jump for it to work for the feat as you have to for it to work for spells since the spells also have prerequisites.

Spells do not have prerequisites, and in any case, spells are 'spells' so do not need to be covered by the 'effects' part of 'spells and effects'.

Exactly Artoomis. If you use prerequisite as an English word and not a D&D term, you will either say that the monk ability is completely useless and NEVER works for anything... or you can reason that it MUST work for something or they wouldn't have written it in the rules.

It does work for something, see the Magic Fang example that keeps coming up. Just because it doesn't work the way you think it does, doesn't mean it doesn't work at all.


glass.

 

[Lamoni]

No, because none of them have 'natural weapon' as a prerequisite. If the Target were 'natural weapon' I'd agree that that spell wouldn't work on a human monk. But, e.g. magic fang does not have that as a Target and thus has no limiting prerequisite.

I swear this was already covered, but this is only the 3rd or 4th revolution of similar arguments.

I'm sorry if it is just being rehashed.

Magic Fang can be cast on any creature. Magic Fang also states... "Magic fang gives one natural weapon of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls." Let's see, I'd say that the prerequisite for the Magic fang to give a natural weapon an enhancement bonus is that the creature have a natural weapon. Hey, I just gave it a prerequisite. The monk's abilities don't work for qualifying for prerequisites so it doesn't really help.

Now, I expect the counter argument to completely destroy this argument (as it should). Now, take that counterargument and apply it to the feat also... you may need to replace the word spell with the word effect.

You can continue to view it as you see fit. If a prerequisite is your hangup though, I can add prerequisites to any spell or effect. I wouldn't change the meaning, but once the word prerequisite is in there, it must not work just like taking the feat doesn't work.

I agree this has been going on too long. Sorry I didn't join the thread sooner so my ideas would seem fresh rather than rehashing what has already been stated. I'll move on to other topics now.

 

[glass]

Well, I have to agree. The word "effect" is extremeley general and, in at least one instance, feast are referred to as "permament effects," but in another instacne as granting effects.

They are included in a list that implies that they are 'permanent effects', in a piece of text talking about something else entirely. Hardly conclusive proof.

I think a feat should be considered an effect at least for the purpose of determining if a monk has a natural weapon.

What you think should be the case has no bearing on what is the case.


glass.

 

[glass]

I'm sorry if it is just being rehashed.

Magic Fang can be cast on any creature. Magic Fang also states... "Magic fang gives one natural weapon of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls." Let's see, I'd say that the prerequisite for the Magic fang to give a natural weapon an enhancement bonus is that the creature have a natural weapon. Hey, I just gave it a prerequisite. The monk's abilities don't work for qualifying for prerequisites so it doesn't really help.

Except nowhere in the Magic Fang spell does it mention having a prerequisite.

You can continue to view it as you see fit. If a prerequisite is your hangup though, I can add prerequisites to any spell or effect. I wouldn't change the meaning, but once the word prerequisite is in there, it must not work just like taking the feat doesn't work.

Sure, you can houserule spells to have prerequisites, just like you can houserule INA not to, but at that point you are no longer talking about the RAW.


glass.

 

[Pinotage]

Except nowhere in the Magic Fang spell does it mention having a prerequisite.

Sure, you can houserule spells to have prerequisites, just like you can houserule INA not to, but at that point you are no longer talking about the RAW.

glass.

Can I just quickly ask something to make sure I understand the basis of your argument:

You're saying that a feat is not an effect, but that the benefit is, and as such, given that the monk can qualify for the benefit, but not the prerequisite, that implies the monk can't take INA? Is that correct?

If it is, how do you justify that a feat is not an effect?

Pinotage

 

[Dimwhit]

They are included in a list that implies that they are 'permanent effects', in a piece of text talking about seomthing else entirely. Hardly conclusive proof.glass.

IMPROVED CRITICAL [GENERAL]
Choose one type of weapon.
Prerequisite: Proficient with weapon, base attack bonus +8.
Benefit: When using the weapon you selected, your threat range is doubled.
Special: You can gain Improved Critical multiple times. The effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.
This effect doesn’t stack with any other effect that expands the threat range of a weapon.
A fighter may select Improved Critical as one of his fighter bonus feats.

EXTRA TURNING [GENERAL]
Prerequisite: Ability to turn or rebuke creatures.
Benefit: Each time you take this feat, you can use your ability to turn or rebuke creatures four more times per day than normal.
If you have the ability to turn or rebuke more than one kind of creature each of your turning or rebuking abilities gains four additional uses per day.
Normal: Without this feat, a character can typically turn or rebuke undead (or other creatures) a number of times per day equal to 3 + his or her Charisma modifier.
Special: You can gain Extra Turning multiple times. Its effects stack. Each time you take the feat, you can use each of your turning or rebuking abilities four additional times per day.

GREATER SPELL FOCUS [GENERAL]
Choose a school of magic to which you already have applied the Spell Focus feat.
Benefit: Add +1 to the Difficulty Class for all saving throws against spells from the school of magic you select. This bonus stacks with the bonus from Spell Focus.
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new school of magic to which you already have applied the Spell Focus feat.

The list goes on. They all mention 'effects.' Feats are effects and should be included in that long list.

 

[glass]

The list goes on. They all mention 'effects.' Feats are effects and should be included in that long list.

Congratulations, you have demonstrated that feats have effects. Does not prove that feats are effects though.


glass.

 

[Pinotage]

Congratulations, you have demonstrated that feats have effects. Does not prove that feats are effects though.


glass.

It doesn't prove they aren't either. I'll await you answer to my earlier post, but I've yet to see an argument that prooves that feats aren't effects. And yes, I've seen the 'we don't have to prove it' but I really want to see a proof here that they are not to be considered effects.

Pinotage

 

[Artoomis]

Bottom line:

I, and others, think that under the RAW a monk qualifies for INA.
Others think the opposite.

How many think the rules are ambigous based upon lengthy arguments presented on both sides? I'm very interestesd in those who think the rules are clear and unambigous - not just that they think their position is correct, but that the opposing side's argument has no basis in the rules whatsoever.