Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack? - Official answer

[Infiniti2000]

Umm, I never said the prereq was an effect. I said feats are effects. They are. Saying the benefit line of a feat is an effect is saying the exact same thing I am.

No, it's not. You're saying that because the monk qualifies for the benefit (the effect), then he qualifies for the feat. But, we're saying the monk qualifies for the benefit (i.e. can benefit from the feat), but he does not qualify for the feat due to the prerequisite.

I explained this all way back in post #23. And, to use your own quote, "Can people really not see that? It's pretty basic English."

 

[Scion]

So you are saying that even though monks weapons count as natural weapons they do not count as natural weapons?

I think I see a flaw in your logic

Feats are all inclusive packages, you are assuming that there are multiple completely autonomous parts floating around. I see no support for that position anywhere.

 

[turbo]

we're saying the monk qualifies for the benefit (i.e. can benefit from the feat), but he does not qualify for the feat due to the prerequisite.

What is a feat but the benefit it provides?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Plus, it comes down to the part of the monks description either meaning something or being completely wasted space. I prefer to believe that it is there for a reason. To those that believe that it is wasted space (as in, it doesnt mean anything) why do you feel that way?

That's completely not what I'm arguing.

A monk's unarmed strike can benefit from spells and effects that improve natural or manufactured weapons. Accordingly, you can hit a monk with either Magic Fang or Magic Weapon.

It is not wasted text. Similarly, it does not apply to this situation.

 

[Artoomis]

As written - yup.



The benefit is an effect that improves natural weapons. The prerequisite is not.

-Hyp.

If I understand this correctly, Hyp, you're saying that the monk does not meet the prerequisite but could apply the feat to their attacks if they did - like for example had an unrelated natural attack form.

This, it seems to me, is really tortured logic. If the feat grants an effect, then, for the purposes of the effect the feat grants, the monk's attack is a natural weapon, which therefore means he qualifies as having a natural weapon for the purpose of taking this feat.

It seems rather tortured logic to say that a monk does not meet the prerequisite of having a natural weapon but that the feat grants an affect which would qualify as making the monk's unarmed atack to be treated as a natural weapon. It either is treated as a natural weapon for this feat or it is not.

I think Andy Collins confirmed that this feat can be used by monk's because it was obvious to him that it did so - which may also be why he did not issue some long, tortured reasoning.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

What is a feat but the benefit it provides?

A feat is a set of requirements (Prerequisites), an effect (Benefit), what happens when you don't have the feat (Normal), and any additional rules (Special).

A feat is not an effect, though many feats have effects.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

If the feat grants an effect, then, for the purposes of the effect the feat grants, the monk's attack is a natural weapon, which therefore means he qualifies as having a natural weapon for the purpose of taking this feat.

Yes, no.

 

[reveal]

A feat is a set of requirements (Prerequisites), an effect (Benefit), what happens when you don't have the feat (Normal), and any additional rules (Special).

A feat is not an effect, though many feats have effects.

Does the INA feat grant a benefit to the monk's unarmed strike?

If it does, then doesn't the monk meet the requirement for said feat because, in order for the feat to even benefit the monk, the unarmed strike, in this instance, must be considered a natural weapon?

 

[turbo]

A feat is a set of requirements (Prerequisites), an effect (Benefit), what happens when you don't have the feat (Normal), and any additional rules (Special).

You just made that up!

Nietzsche takes as an example the sentence "lightning flashes." Grammar would lead us to conclude that there is a subject--"lightning"--and a predicate--"flashes." But what is the lightning if not the flash?

 

[Stalker0]

Wow, reveal, I thought better of you than this.

It's not that we are "more than ready to find something else wrong," it's that we can read the rules in front of us.

If the primary source says "A," and the Sage says "B," then the Sage is wrong. If WotC really wants the rules to say "B," they have the power to do that: they can issue errata, like they did, for instance, in the case of the Scout.

However, when the Sage says "B, because the rules say X and Y," and it's plainly obvious that the rules don't say X and Y, then what are we to do?

Thing is this isn't one of those situations where the sage says something, Hyp immediately shows why he's wrong, and we all nod our heads and say the sage is blatantely wrong.

There's a ton of people who are saying that the sage ruling fits with their interpretation of the rules.