Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Deset Gled" data-source="post: 1991109" data-attributes="member: 7808">I contend that arguing intent is pointless.  First, no one here can read the mind of the writers, so we can't know true intent. And second, it doesn't really matter what the intent was if they didn't write it that way.  I could claim the writers intended for monks to fly, but a typo caused that clause to be left out.  But that's no basis for giving monks the ability to fly.  Intent is fun to discuss when you want to sit down and talk about what the rules should be, but it doesn't have much of a place when discussing what the rules actually are.Furthermore, I would have to say that I believe the game designers did not intend for INA to be accesible to a monk.  If they did, the feat would be in the Players Handbook, not the Monster Manual.  Furthermore, they would have clearly stated that a monk's attack is a natural attack "for the purpose of magical spells and effects and feats".  But they didn't.Now, if you would like to discuss whether or not the feat should be allowable for monks, feel free.  But I think the thread will be a lot less snarky overall if no one claims that something is true because they think it should be./intent discussionMy Conclusion:The discussion of this feat (and any other feat dealing with natural attacks and monks) all boils down to one line.  "A monk's unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects".  Is a feat an effect?  If you say yes, then play it that way.  If you say no, play it that way (and, for the record, I say no).  But since the word "effect" is not a properly defined term in D+D, we will never come to a concensus on it unless they print some errata regarding it./conclusion</blockquote>

Verification