Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[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?

Well, I'd prefer to term it that a monk can benefit from the feats effect due to his ability, but does not meet the prerequisites because of it (although he may do so in other ways). EDIT: But essentially yes, that is my position.

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

1. Something brought about by a cause or agent; a result.
2. The power to produce an outcome or achieve a result; influence:

These are the relevant clauses from dictionary.com. A feat fits either of those definitions, so it is not an effect.


glass.

 

[Artoomis]

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

Given the very general nature of the way "effects" is used in D&D in the rule books I think it is indeed incumbent upon the "No" camp to show how feats are NOT effects rather than the other way around.

We already know that feats have effects, but that does not in any way deny that a feat itself is an effect, which, given the vague nature of the word "effect," needs to be done to deny allowing a monk to qualify for INA.

This is really different from my primray argument, but nonetheless true.

 

[Pinotage]

Well, I'd prefer to term it that a monk can benefit from the feats effect due to his ability, but does not meet the prerequisites because of it (although he may do so in other ways).

These are the relevant clauses from dictionary.com. A feat fits either of those definitions, so it is not an effect.


glass.

Thanks, at least now I'm clear on that. So, in other words, your argument has no basis in the RAW given the need to invoke a dictionary reference? Whereas the other side has at least some evidence that it is an effect given a rules quote that states feats are permanent effects. Is that correct?

Pinotage

 

[Artoomis]

...
These are the relevant clauses from dictionary.com. A feat fits either of those definitions, so it is not an effect.


glass.

Huh? Did you state that backwards from your position? Did you not quote the defintion of "effect" and then state that a feat fits that defintion, or did I read that wrong?

P.S.: A feat is the result of a player decision made when the PC levels up. Since it is "something brought about by a cause or agent; a result." it is an effect. The "cause or agent" is either leveling up or the player's decision (or PC's decision, if you want to think about it that way).

 

[Scion]

So why does one feat consider 'Orc' and 'Half-Orc' to be separate prerequisites? If Orc Blood allows half-orcs to satisfy a prerequisite of 'Orc', then why the inconsistency?

My guess? the person who wrote the one who only said 'orc' realized the orc blood would take care of the halforc while the one who wrote the other did not realize that.

Or, they forgot about orc blood completely.

Either of those are possible, neither contradicts the raw. Providing 'too much' info is not evidence against.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I'm sorry if it is just being rehashed.

No problem.

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.

You have me confused. You are exactly arguing in my favor, i.e. that a human monk cannot take Improved Natural Attack. Right?

 

[Scion]

That's the fundamental problem. Suppose I have arcade tokens. They count as money for the purposes of paying for games. They do not count as money for the purposes of paying, say, my taxes. So they are not really money, they just sometimes can be used as money, when in the arcade. Does this make sense?

tokens are money in the arcade but not outside of the arcade, of course.

But then, if they are always considered money inside then you could use them to buy other things than just video games. Or, you could even use them for more than one video game.

As long as you are inside of the arcade it is treated exactly the same as money.

Just like as long as you are trying to qualify for something that needs a natural weapon then it is ok, as long as it enhances of course.

You couldnt qualify as a natural weapon just because, only in specific cases. Just like the tokens, they dont always qualify as money, just in special cases.

 

[glass]

Given the very general nature of the way "effects" is used in D&D in the rule books I think it is indeed incumbent upon the "No" camp to show how feats are NOT effects rather than the other way around.

Can you show any example of where the word effect is used in D&D for something which is not an effect by the dictionary.com definition I have provided? If so, then you might have a point there.

We already know that feats have effects, but that does not in any way deny that a feat itself is an effect, which, given the vague nature of the word "effect," needs to be done to deny allowing a monk to qualify for INA.

Not necesarily, even if a feat is an effect, it's prerequisite is not necessarily an effect (or at least, and effect that enhances natural weapons).


glass.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I say we line up everyone in the No camp on one side and the Yes camp on the other and play Red Rover.

 

[Artoomis]

Can you show any example of where the word effect is used in D&D for something which is not an effect by the dictionary.com definition I have provided? If so, then you might have a point there.


Not necesarily, even if a feat is an effect, it's prerequisite is not necessarily an effect (or at least, and effect that enhances natural weapons).

glass.

Actually, I just showed (above) how a "feat" fits that defintion.

If a feat is an effect, then a monk qualifies for INA because they get a natural weapon for effects. I thought everyone was agreeing on that.