Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Artoomis]

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

I agree with you. But, in turn, the feat itself is also brought about by some other agent, and so the feat itself in also an "effect."

 

[Artoomis]

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.

I agree that all the rule citations you refer to about "effects" and "prerequisites" have been incredibly weak on BOTH sides.

And? What's the "effect" of knowing that? Not a thing except perhaps force us to look even more strongly to the dictionary definition of "effects."

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

And the level-up was also brought about by some other agent - the XP gained - which was brough about by some other agent - the creature - which was brought about by some other agent - the creature's parents - which, eventually, were brought about by some other agent - the DM - who was brough about be some other agent - the DM's parents - who were, eventually, brought about by some other agent - God or primordial soup or both, take your pick.

This way lays madness.

 

[Dimwhit]

Which makes the statement "for purposes of spells and effects" a perfectly ridiculous statement...

And this suprises you because... ?

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.

Well, how else would you word it? Effect just happens to be the right word for it. What that statement is trying to bring out is the word 'Fear' so that we know what can counter it, etc. The word 'effect' is there, well, because it's an effect.

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

And as soon as you can find an in-game definition for 'effect' I'm all ears. True, the fact that you haven't nailed it down yet does not mean it doesn't exist. But it's not exactly helping your argument, either.

 

[Pinotage]

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.

Well, I'd argue that the specific rules text that states feats are permanant effects takes precedence since the above to me seems like an oversight, and the point you're arguing for is infered rather than stated. I'd go with a clear statement rather than an infered statement, but unless somebody does a complete SRD search for the word effect, I'm not sure if the debate can progress any further. Of course, we can always argue about what is considered primary source and what is considered secondary source!

Pinotage

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Well, I'd argue that the specific rules text that states feats are permanant effects

... is also an oversight?

 

[Artoomis]

...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.

Unfortunately (or fortunately) "effects," in this context, do seem to include just about everything within D&D. So it becomes that a monk has a natural weapon for the purpose of anything that enhances natural weapons.

This is a result of the lack of a real D&D definition for "effect."

See below:

Given that a lot of the debate around here centers on the word 'effect' which is not a game term, I thought I'd search the SRD to see where the word effect is used. These are the things you learn about effects:

Spells have effects
Fear is an effect
Non-spell effects exist
A decrease in an ability score is considered an effect
A reduction in attacks, saves, ability checks and skill checks is an effect
Effects can be permanent
Effects can be created
Dazed, paralyzed, weakened and killed are all effects
Effects can be cumalative
Force effects exist
Effects can be affected by spell effects
Creatures can be immune to effects
Gaining deflection bonus or resistance bonuses to saves is considered an effect
Gaining concealment is an effect

And so on and so forth. An effect isn't defined. It can be anything. Just based on the above list I can't see how within the core rules you can even argue if anything is or is not an effect, because quite obviously, the word effect is used to describe so many things it has absolutely no firm definition within the core rules. 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

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Unfortunately (or fortunately) "effects," in this context, do seem to include just about everything within D&D.

Except it still fits whithin the stuff I outlined above:

Spells have [Sp] effects
Fear is an [Sp, SL, Su, Ex] effect
Non-spell effects [SL, Su, Ex, Na] exist
A decrease in an ability score is considered an effect [Sp, SL, Su, Ex (Poison)]
A reduction in attacks, saves, ability checks and skill checks is an effect [Same]

 

[IanB]

To clarify, or possibly confuse, the poll numbers a little, I voted for both "Yes, per RAW" and "Yes, because the Sage said so" because I felt both were true. I think it is possible I am not the only one who voted this way.

 

[Artoomis]

Except it still fits whithin the stuff I outlined above:

Even if your list IS exhaustive, "effects" STILL covers everything in D&D, including feats and/or effects that feats give. It really adds nothing in determining if a feat is an effect or not.

Edit: What about " Effects of Hit Point Damage: Damage doesn't slow you down until you current hit points reach 0..." Being dead, disabled or dying are all "effects" of hit point damage.

So getting damage produces effects. And on and on... These sorts of things don't fit your categories.

Edit (again): Note that in many places the rules refer to "magic effects," "psionic effects" or other qualifiers, but that's not the case here, leaving it totally open. I think this was intentional so as not to miss anything