Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Pinotage]

Where?

Nowhere in the core rules. However, the discussion on the Human Heritage feat in Races of Destiny cites feats and their prerequisites as effects. There was something similar in Races of Stone, I believe.

Pinotage

 

[Pinotage]

If they where not an effect, they would not do anything.

I think the argument here is that feats have effects, but aren't themselves effects. Since a feat consists of a benefit and its prerequisites, the benefit is considered an effect, but the prerequisites not. Hence the debate on whether a monk is elligable to take INA since many consider prerequisites not to be effects, and hence feats as a whole not to be effects.

Pinotage

 

[Plane Sailing]

Anubis and Caliban, I think you ought to drop your mutual argument now. You've probably said all that you need to say to one another in this thread.

Also Anubis, I'd also note that while moderators may or may not have personal bias about individuals, they make every effort to not allow that to spill over into moderating decisions - even to the extent of discussing those issues privately with the other moderators. If anyone ever has an issue with a moderator decision the thing to do is either:

a) email the moderator and talk it over in person (and the moderator will discuss it with all the mods), or failing that
b) report the post so that you can bring it to the attention of all moderators who again will discuss it together.

You'll notice that this list doesn't include complaining about them in the public forums, so please don't do it.

Regards

 

[Borlon]

Nowhere in the core rules. However, the discussion on the Human Heritage feat in Races of Destiny cites feats and their prerequisites as effects. There was something similar in Races of Stone, I believe.

Improved Spell Resistance in the Epic Handbook also refers to feats as effects- your more current examples are better, though. And anyway ISR is not terribly convincing, since it could very well be employing synecdoche to refer to the "effect of a feat" more concisely.

I think the sidebar concerning the Human Heritage feat gives the right answer (having human heritage makes you count as human for the purpose of prerequisites) but for the wrong reason (it is not simply because the feat allows you to benefit from effects that target humans. The feat does lots of other things). I think this text was quoted up thread, though no firm conclusion was drawn. Perhaps we need to revisit it. The issue is complicated by the existence of racial paragon classes. You can count as an elf but still not be able to take the elf paragon class. Not relevant to the discussion of INA, but it does muddy the waters as to how satisfying prerequisites is related to the "counts as" rules text.

 

[Pinotage]

I think the sidebar concerning the Human Heritage feat gives the right answer (having human heritage makes you count as human for the purpose of prerequisites) but for the wrong reason (it is not simply because the feat allows you to benefit from effects that target humans. The feat does lots of other things). I think this text was quoted up thread, though no firm conclusion was drawn. Perhaps we need to revisit it. The issue is complicated by the existence of racial paragon classes. You can count as an elf but still not be able to take the elf paragon class. Not relevant to the discussion of INA, but it does muddy the waters as to how satisfying prerequisites is related to the "counts as" rules text.

The reason I suppose it was not taken as convincing evidence was the paragon issue. Also, it's not in the core three books, hence not 'primary' source. I quoted it earlier, but it generated little response presumably for the above reasons.

Pinotage

 

[Kem]

I think the argument here is that feats have effects, but aren't themselves effects. Since a feat consists of a benefit and its prerequisites, the benefit is considered an effect, but the prerequisites not. Hence the debate on whether a monk is elligable to take INA since many consider prerequisites not to be effects, and hence feats as a whole not to be effects.

Pinotage

And magic fang is not itself an effect, it only has an effect.

However, the fact that a feat has prereqs does NOT change the fact that it is an effect, and has an effect.

A feat is not a pair of legoes one being Prereq the other being benefit. It is a single lego that is the benefit, while the prereq is that you have to have something before you can take it.

Just like you can't play a game unless you have the game. Does that mean that the game has a game and a prereq?

Or even better, some games have 12&up on them. Does that mean the game is no longer just a game but a game and a prereq to play it? Wherein if something says bring a game you can't bring it as "Box" has a prereq and a game in it and isn't a game?

 

[Dimwhit]

And magic fang is not itself an effect, it only has an effect.

However, the fact that a feat has prereqs does NOT change the fact that it is an effect, and has an effect.

A feat is not a pair of legoes one being Prereq the other being benefit. It is a single lego that is the benefit, while the prereq is that you have to have something before you can take it.

Just like you can't play a game unless you have the game. Does that mean that the game has a game and a prereq?

Or even better, some games have 12&up on them. Does that mean the game is no longer just a game but a game and a prereq to play it? Wherein if something says bring a game you can't bring it as "Box" has a prereq and a game in it and isn't a game?

I'm with you, Kem. How people come up with this whole 'a prereq is not an effect' stuff baffles me.

And one other point: There is NO definition of the term 'effect' in the D&D game. It is used generically. Therefore, by a dictionary definition, feats are absolutely effects. Unless someone can point out a specific way the RAW defines 'effect' (and I'm perfectly willing to concede the point if it does have specific meaning), then I just don't see how there can be an argument.

 

[dcollins]

And one other point: There is NO definition of the term 'effect' in the D&D game. It is used generically.

Actually, in context, I always see "effect" used in reference to a magical ability. Consider the Glossary for "fear effect", "line of effect", etc. Or in the PHB under "Special Abilities": "These effects come in two types: spell-like and supernatural".

To my knowledge, every place in the core rules that says "effect" is referring to a magical ability. I can't think of any exceptions.

 

[Dimwhit]

Actually, in context, I always see "effect" used in reference to a magical ability. Consider the Glossary for "fear effect", "line of effect", etc. Or in the PHB under "Special Abilities": "These effects come in two types: spell-like and supernatural".

To my knowledge, every place in the core rules that says "effect" is referring to a magical ability. I can't think of any exceptions.

There are a number of feats that refer to effect. One example (there are several):

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.

 

[dcollins]

Interestingly, use of "effect" in the singular in the preceding does not exist in 3.0, only 3.5. As usual, lots of stuff that was clear in the original gets muddied in the revision.