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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 4020387" data-attributes="member: 51942">Musing about effects:  Although effects are the consequences of some cause, when you use the word effect, you're generally referring to the result, consequence, or effect and not the cause.  The word effect is particularly attractive when speaking of some specific consequence in cases when the cause may vary or is unknown.  In D&D, where the same effect might be brought about by any number of means, it's a frequently used term - probably precisely because it focuses attention on the consequences, and not the cause.  The way I read it, effect is a neutral way of saying "crunch" in the terms of rules.  Whether it comes from an aura, spell, race or feat, it's the effect/crunch that matters.@Desert Gled:  Magic Fang is a very weak example, admittedly.  Magic fang can be cast on any creature, even those without natural weapons.  The key issue is the first sentence: "Magic fang gives one natural weapon of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls."  The effect (+1 enhancement bonus) is beneficial and can thus be applied to the monk's unarmed strike.  However, you need to choose one natural weapon!  That choice, taken separately, is not beneficial, and the monk's text does not trigger for it.  The obvious counter argument is that the spell as a whole is beneficial, and the monk's text thus applies (specifically to spells).  But if you're willing to view a spell holistically, then why not a feat?@Cheiromancer: thanks for the pointers to specific posts, that way the thread is less overwhelming.It's unfortunate that there are so few core "effects" which apply to natural weapons, to give us better examples. Nevertheless, I'm convinced that essentially every other non-spell effect follows the same principles:  if it's limited somehow to natural weapons, then you can always argue that the limitation is itself an effect which isn't satisfied by the monk.  That argument basically means that you can only apply spells, and no other effects, despite the rules text.  Since it conflicts in that way, I don't think it's intended - the over-arching word "effect" means that it's a general ability applying to more than just spells, so any reasoning to the contrary must be faulty.  Also, don't forget that the text's calling for a judgment call - is an effect an improvement or not?  Who better to make that judgment call than the monk himself.  And no monk would ever consider Improved Natural Attack anything but an improvement.Further, there's no reason that multiple effects can't be combined into a larger effect.  I doubt a prerequisite is an effect without the rest of the feat (it's not a consequence or result in and of itself, after all), but even if it is, then you could still take the two separate effects and combine them into a larger effect.So... the real problem is that there aren't any better examples in core, and specifically no real counter-examples.And I sure hope nobodies punishing themselves by rereading that thread.  It's insanely long.  I've skimmed it, but, probably largely because there aren't any good examples, most arguments are rehashed frequently, and even the most obscure indirect evidence is analyzed to hopefully provide some clue.  Sometimes that's insightful, but often it's just frustrating.But there aren't really any; an effect remains a catch-all undefined term in D&D, and as such, if you want to make it more precise (at least for the monk) and prevent INA from applying to the unarmed strike of monks without other natural weapons, you can, but there's no real reason to, and you can just as well allow it - as WotC consistently seems to do.</blockquote>

Verification