Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Okay, then, what IS gaining INA a result of, if it is not leveling up and associated decisions?

When do you gain a feat not as part of gaining experience?

Pick your favorite MM creature. Find a feat with the superscript "B" notation.

Examine the Magebred feat in the ECS.

There are many ways to gain feats that are not direct results of leveling up.

 

[Dimwhit]

The point isn't that they're effects of leveling up, but that they're effects of something. Leveling up is just the most common for characters is all. Some feats are an effect of birth or race. I'm sure there are other examples. But they're the direct effect of something.

 

[Artoomis]

Pick your favorite MM creature. Find a feat with the superscript "B" notation.

Examine the Magebred feat in the ECS.

There are many ways to gain feats that are not direct results of leveling up.

Okay, but gaining feats is still a result of something, right? In which case they are "effects."

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Okay, but gaining feats is still a result of something, right? In which case they are "effects."

If by "something" you mean "birth" or possibly "creature design," sure.

But then, so is your Intelligence score, so I'm not sure that's a productive line of argument.

 

[Dimwhit]

If by "something" you mean "birth" or possibly "creature design," sure.

But then, so is your Intelligence score, so I'm not sure that's a productive line of argument.

Actually it is. The point we're try to make is that everything is an effect of something. That's why it's pointless arguing over whether a feat is an effect. Everything is, from feets to skill to your intelligence.

Now had Wizards given an in-game definition for effect, we wouldn't be having this argument, but they didn't. As such, we go with the standard meaning for effect, which is an incredibly generic term.

 

[Pinotage]

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

Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. I realise my post was horribly not what I wanted to say. So I'm just correcting here.

The text as written is unclear, one of the reasons being that the word 'effect' is not defined. There are different ways of interpreting this word as we've all illustrated over three threads. So from a rules as written perspective, i.e. interpreting what's written, I don't think that there is a direct answer as to what exactly the text says.

So, one the one hand, we have those that interpret the text to imply that it cannot be taken by human monks, but on the other hand there are those that do think it applies to human monks. Both are using purely literal readings and english understanding, dictionary, if you will, to state their cases.

Except, that the side that support monks being able to take INA has supporting evidence from the RAW that says feats are permanent effects. I'm trying to understand how that is somehow not valid and can be handwaved, but I'm failing miserably.

If you just look at the text, forget the arguments and discussion that has been presented, draw a conclusion merely based on this:

A monk's unarmed strikes are considered natural weapons for the purposes of effects that improve natural weapons.

...feats, and other permanent effects.

Feats are, by RAW rules, not dictionary definition, effects, i.e. a monk can take INA. Forget trying to interpret the written text in terms of benefits and prerequisites and just focus on the two sentences above. Those are the rules as written and they clearly state that feats are effects and allow monks to use INA. Please explain to me how I'm wrong about this? If you asked a total stranger on the street what he would make of the sentences above what do you think he'd say?

Pinotage

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Actually it is. The point we're try to make is that everything is an effect of something.

Which makes the statement "for purposes of spells and effects" a perfectly ridiculous statement - since there isn't anything that isn't one of the two (and, in fact, spells are included within the set of effects). By your reasoning, it really means "for all purposes."

No, I think that there is a game definition of "effect" which is different from the dictionary definition of "effect."

For instance, "this is a Fear effect" implies this.

The fact that we haven't nailed it down yet does not mean it doesn't exist.

 

[Artoomis]

If by "something" you mean "birth" or possibly "creature design," sure.

But then, so is your Intelligence score, so I'm not sure that's a productive line of argument.

The point is that effects are defined within D&D so poorly that feats definately fall into the realm of "effects" because they meet the dictionary definition of "something brought about by a cause or agent; a result." So long as getting a feat is brought about by some other cause (leveling up, etc.) they are "effects."

Of course, I think arguing over whether a feat is an effect is silly because a feat does not have to be an effect for a monk to qualify for INA, by my way of thinking.

Still, by dictionary definition, feats are indeed "effects." If a creature has a feat at birth, then the cause of them having the feat is being a certain creature. Still meets the defintion of "effect." Without an actual game definition of effect, on ecan really only go by the dictionary.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Except, that the side that support monks being able to take INA has supporting evidence from the RAW that says feats are permanent effects. I'm trying to understand how that is somehow not valid and can be handwaved, but I'm failing miserably.

Because, with exactly as strong support, we have rules text that implies that "for effects" does not include prerequisites - the "orc or half-orc" feat pre-req.

That's been hand-waved away, it seems, so we are equally as able to hand-wave away this other particular evidence.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The point is that effects are defined within D&D so poorly that feats definately fall into the realm of "effects" because they meet the dictionary definition of "something brought about by a cause or agent; a result."

Whereas I will tell you that the benefit of a feat is its "effect," and the feat is the "agent" which brings it about.

EDIT:

In other words, either every single thing within the D&D ruleset is an "effect" - being brough about, if nothing else, than by the course of human history - or "effect" is a D&D term of art, however poorly defined, referring to things like the bonuses provided by magic items, the results of spells, etc.

In short, I suspect there are five kinds of effects in D&D: Spell, Spell-Like, Supernatural, Natural, and Extraordinary.

Feats provide Natural or Extraordinary effects, unless otherwise stated.