Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[glass]

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."

If INA was an effect of levelling up, it wouldn't exist unless you levelled up and selected it. Since it plainly does exist right there in the PHB, whether it is selcted or not, it can not be an effect of feat selection or levelling.

The feat's effects don't exist for a given character unless he takes the feat, but the feat itself still does, waiting to possibly be taken at a later date, or acquired as a bonus feat by shapechanging, or whatever.


glass.

 

[glass]

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

... is also an oversight?

...or contains an implcit 'effects' after the word feat

...or simply can be read as not requiring the feat to be and effect, regardless.


glass.

 

[glass]

well, the rule does specifically state vs the others 'it might imply this', so yeah.

Actually, they are both in the 'might imply this' category, with the 'Orc/Half-orc' reference implying it rather more strongly IMO.


glass.

 

[glass]

Which is fine. Like I said, it hinges on a fine point of writing and communication.

What it does mean, however, is that for the dwarven thrower example at least, the character does counts as a dwarf for the purposes of the determining, as well as the purposes of the effect.

From there it is a small step to say that for the purposes of feats, if something counts as a natural weapon for the purposes of the effect, it should also count as a natural weapon for the purposes of the determining - determining whether you can take the feat, in particular.

Apparently, not all of us are prepared to make that small step, though.

The ability does all that because it specifically says it does. Adding similar functions to an ability that does not specifically say it does is not a small step, it's a huge leap.

EDIT: Woohoo, five replies in a row!



glass.

 

[Pinotage]

The RAW are written in English. Where else would I go for the definition of a word which is not a D&D term of art?

No, they state nothing of the sort. There is one phrase on an unrelated subject which implies that feats are effect, but doesn't have to be read that way. As I have said before, that is far from conclusive proof!

glass.

Yeah, I'd rephrased this post of mine in the one that followed it, as I realised I'd said something that didn't make as much sense as I'd hoped.

Pinotage

 

[Pinotage]

The ability does all that because it specifically says it does. Adding similar functions to an ability that does not specifically say it does is not a small step, it's a huge leap.[/i]

glass.

So the orc/half-orc argument is a huge leap as well? Or any argument referencing other text in the RAW that does not mention the word feat along with effect? I still don't see why people don't believe the rather obvious statement that feats are considered permanent effects. It's quite difficult to justify why that sentence needs to be read in context and can't be used out of the context it's written in.

Shrug. I guess we're nowhere closer to getting an answer but some of the material from the newer sources is tantalising.

Pinotage

 

[FireLance]

The ability does all that because it specifically says it does. Adding similar functions to an ability that does not specifically say it does is not a small step, it's a huge leap.

No, the argument is not that it applies to magic items, and hence, it applies to feats.

The argument is that for the purposes of one effect, i.e. the extra benefits from a magic item, an ability that allows you to be treated as something that gains the extra benefits qualifies you to gain the extra benefits. Hence, for the purposes of other effects, e.g. Improved Natural Attack, an ability that allows you to be treated as something that gains the extra benefits should similarly qualify you to gain the extra benefits.

 

[Pinotage]

Here's another one from Races of Destiny.

A character with the Human Heritage feat:

is considered to have the human subtype for the purpose of adjudicating all effects.

The sidebar states what it means to have the human subtype, and says:

This means that such races qualify as human for the purpose of meeting the prerequisites for a feat or prestige class...

So, if you have the human subtype, when adjudicating all effects, you are considered as human and one of those effects is meeting a prerequisite.

Did I paraphrase that correctly and indicate that meeting prerequisites is considered an effect?

Pinotage

 

[glass]

So the orc/half-orc argument is a huge leap as well? Or any argument referencing other text in the RAW that does not mention the word feat along with effect?

No, the half-orc/orc argument, consistently with the stonebond (and the INA prerequisite/effect argument), is that abilities do exactly what the say they do and nothing more.

I still don't see why people don't believe the rather obvious statement that feats are considered permanent effects. It's quite difficult to justify why that sentence needs to be read in context and can't be used out of the context it's written in.

Because there is no such statement. A statement that feats are permenant effects would be something like 'feats are considered permanent effects'. There is no such statement.


glass.

 

[glass]

Yeah, I'd rephrased this post of mine in the one that followed it, as I realised I'd said something that didn't make as much sense as I'd hoped.

I replied before I read your clarification. I probably ahould have gone back and edited my post. Sorry about that.

I'll do it now.


glass.