Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Dimwhit]

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.

I just think it's because they don't attribute any in-game meaning to the term 'effect.'

But yes, it has led to some confusion.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

Ice, Smoke, Lava, Acid, etc. in the DMG.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Not griping, but just curious, KarinsDad- where in the DMG did you find that? (It IS a biggish book, you know!)

 

[Hypersmurf]

Not griping, but just curious, KarinsDad- where in the DMG did you find that? (It IS a biggish book, you know!)

Under "The Environment".

Check the SRD here for the relevant text: "Acid Effects", "Ice Effects", etc.

-Hyp.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Thanks!

 

[dcollins]

Thanks for the citations.

 

[Anubis]

Actually, the point we're making is that it doesn't matter why WotC Customer Service would make that claim -- if even the two representatives quoted previously would agree. The fact is that for WotC to change the errata, they must -- guess what -- change the errata. Having what basically amounts to an unauthoritative voice attempt to change it without changing it is meaningless. WotC has given authority to the rulebooks and the errata, with all other sources being secondary. Unless the rulebooks change or the errata change, nothing overrules them -- nothing at all. WotC has the power to change them or even delete them, but until they do then whatever Customer Service says, or whatever the designers say, or whatever the President of Hasbro says is Advice Worth Listening To at best.

According to what law?

You've got nothing. Give it up.

 

[Dimwhit]

According to what law?

You've got nothing. Give it up.

He also refuses to accept that, in the case of INA, it's allowable by the RAW. Oh well. I guess that's why this thread has gone for more than 800 posts.

Honestly, I'm just entertained by it now.

 

[Pinotage]

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.

Yeah, I agree too. I was just pointing out to Kem where the argument lies.

Pinotage

 

[Caliban]

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

That's ok, it baffles me how someone can think that a requirement or prerequisite that you must meet before you can take the feat is an effect of the feat.

The difference seems very obvious to me.

*shrug* One of those mysteries of life.