Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[Artoomis]

But we can agree that "effect" is different than "prerequisite", right? No ambiguity there.

My opinion:

Feats have effects, and are not effects in and of themselves.

The monk class description should be read that if the effect would improve a natural weapon, then the monk's unarmed attack is considered a natural weapon for the purpose of qualifying for that effect.

There you have it. Interpretations that have "prerequisites" being different from "effects" is the same logic that would have "spells" be seperate from the "spell target" - so that if a spell required a natural weapon for the target a monk would NOT qualify because the spell would work but he must have the valid target BEFORE the spell is cast - much like a feat prerequisite.

Silly stuff!

 

[Mistwell]

I really don't understand how this debate continues.

Player's Handbook. Page 141. Bottom right hand corner. "The description of a feat defines it's effect".

SRD: "A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."

What's vague about that?

 

[Mistwell]

My opinion:

Feats have effects, and are not effects in and of themselves.

The monk class description should be read that if the effect would improve a natural weapon, then the monk's unarmed attack is considered a natural weapon for the purpose of qualifying for that effect.

Then name something that is, in itself, an effect and not something else that has an effect. As far as I can tell, your definition eliminates everything, since having an effect is something that other things do. A spell has an effect. An ability has an effect. A magic item has an effect. Nothing is itself an effect unless it is preceded by (in your interpretation) a non-effect creating that effect.

When faced with two different intepretations of a word in a sentence, if one interpretation renders the word meaningless, and the other intepretation renders it meaningful, you go with the one that renders it meaningful. In this case, the word "effect" should be interpreted to include something that has an effect. Otherwise, it has no meaning in the sentence as used.

 

[KarinsDad]

The fact that WotC makes the errors you keep pointing out only further supports the point that reasoned interpretation is not just better but is the correct approach to take.

Which side is not using reasoned interpretation?

 

[Artoomis]

... In this case, the word "effect" should be interpreted to include something that has an effect. Otherwise, it has no meaning in the sentence as used.

Either that or that you qualify for whatever grants the effect.

Same difference.

 

[KarinsDad]

I really don't understand how this debate continues.

Player's Handbook. Page 141. Bottom right hand corner. "The description of a feat defines it's effect".

SRD: "A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."

What's vague about that?

Oh, maybe the fact that the description of a feat includes elements which are not effects. For example, the prerequisites and normal limitations / restrictions are not effects. The description of a feat is well defined in the feat section and it doesn't say anything about effects.


A single entry in a table in a totally different section of the book is hardly a hard and fast rule when it does not explicitly agree with the text of the entire feat section. The wording "The description of a feat defines it's benefit" would have been more accurate. Either that, or WotC should have called the Benefit section of feats the Effect section.

 

[Legildur]

The PHBII suggests the feat for monk characters with a BAB of +0.

I can guarantee that a monk character with a BAB of +0 doesn't qualify for the feat, without fear of much dispute. I'm of the opinion that a monk character with a BAB of +4 doesn't either, but that's obviously under debate.

Citing the PHBII doesn't add much strength to a position on what meets prerequisites, though, when the PHBII's use of the feat is patently ignoring the feat's prerequisites anyway.

Don't forget that that example starting package (package 2: the destroyer, PHBII p51) also lists Weapon Focus (unarmed strike), which also requires a BAB +1 or greater.

So we have half-orc monk starting package with two feats (in addition to the monk bonus feat) where a half-orc would only be eligible for one, and the monk lacks the prerequisites to qualify for either feat!

Hardly supporting evidence for monks qualifying for INA.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'd disagree- it IS evidence of a position that WotC considers the Monk's unarmed strike as a valid target since it follows a FAQ statement of the same position.

However, it is ALSO evidence of a lack of quality of proofreading (beyond software spellcheckers) in RPG publications- something I've been complaining about since 2Ed.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I really don't understand how this debate continues.

Player's Handbook. Page 141. Bottom right hand corner. "The description of a feat defines it's effect".

SRD: "A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."

What's vague about that?

I agree with you, Mistwell. That proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that monks cannot take INA. 100%.

 

[Thurbane]

So the fact that INA appears in a sample build of a monk in the official WotC product PHBII doesn't sway anyone? OK, they buggered up the BAB requirement, but it still signifies an official thumbs up from WOTC to me...