Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[Hypersmurf]

Sorry, I thought the major sticking point in the debate was what consitutes an effect.

It is.

For a monk's unarmed strike to be considered a natural weapon for purposes of satisfying the prerequisites of the INA feat, one of two things needs to be true.

1. The INA feat is an effect.
2. The prerequisites of the INA feat are an effect.

I don't think anyone's arguing 2 to be true.

And p141 is not evidence proving 1. p141 shows that a feat has an effect. It doesn't show that a feat is an effect.

So, to me, p141 doesn't resolve the major sticking point you reference, which is why I don't consider p141 to 'settle the debate pretty much once and for all'.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

They are not effects.

The increase in speed is a class feature. When discussing rules, you really should be specific and use game specific terms...

That would be great if only "effects" were a game-defined term. Unfortunately, it is not.

One could eaailly say "effects" in the monk class is meant to apply to prerequisites for things that produce effects as say it means some sort of limited term ,"effects" that does not include feats.

NEITHER agrument is 100% persuasive, though the former seems much more natural and less strained to me.

 

[Infiniti2000]

I'm amazed no one has responded to this post - it seems to settle the debate pretty much once and for all.

I did. And I agree, it does settle it. Given that, I don't understand why Mistwell mis-voted.

 

[Artoomis]

(Messed up an edit. Oh, well..., the main question survives: Related question: For what other effects, besides spells, would a monk have "natural weapons?" Can anyone come up with one?[/b][/i]

 

[KarinsDad]

Related question: For what other effects, besides spells, would a monk have "natural weapons?" Can anyone come up with one?

Easy. Psionic powers.

Since this was so easy, does this mean you are changing your POV?

 

[Artoomis]

Easy. Psionic powers.

Only if you run Psionics as being the same as spells, right?

 

[Rystil Arden]

Easy. Psionic powers.

Since this was so easy, does this mean you are changing your POV?

Even easier than that (since psionics isn't in the core)--Extraordinary and Supernatural attacks of monsters

 

[Hypersmurf]

Any more responses to this? It seems to me that if one ONLY allows "effects" and not qualifiying for whatever grants those effects, than monks can take NOTHING that requires natural weapons.

Related question: For what other effects, besides spells, would a monk have "natural weapons?" Can anyone come up with one?

Certainly. Take a psionic power like Painful Strike. The effect of the power is to improve natural weapons, so for purposes of that effect, that monk's unarmed strike is considered a natural weapon. And since the spell targets 'you', not 'your natural weapons', the qualification problem is avoided.

Only if you run Psionics as being the same as spells, right?

Not at all. If psionics were the same as spells, it would work even if the power did target 'your natural weapons'.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

Certainly. Take a psionic power like Painful Strike. The effect of the power is to improve natural weapons, so for purposes of that effect, that monk's unarmed strike is considered a natural weapon. And since the spell targets 'you', not 'your natural weapons', the qualification problem is avoided....-Hyp.

So the fact that the target is "you" and the effect is to improves natural weapons you see an entirely different than the feat requiring you have natrual weapons?

Form a very strict reading, true, but then you'd have to assume WotC actually wrote the rules to be read very strictly. How many times have you yourself proved it is not possible to do that?

If it were true, then the lone core rule example of a feat being called an "effect" would have to called defintive and therefore feats ARE effects and the argument is done.

If calling a feat an "effect" in that example is to be considered some sort of sloppy writing or a misstatement, that "effects" from the monks can equally be considerd to be like that and one can, with equal validity, assume they really meant "effects and qualifying for them, too".

After the fact, it is clear that's the way WotC veiws it now, for whatever weight that holds.

 

[Artoomis]

...Related question: For what other effects, besides spells, would a monk have "natural weapons?" Can anyone come up with one?

Amendment: Anything from the Core Rules? (PHB, MM, DMG?)