Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack? - Official answer

[Infiniti2000]

This right here is the crux of the disagreement. I still can't see how INA could not be considered one of those effects that can be gained. That seems the very purpose for the language used. Oh well. Probably not even worth arguing about anymore. I'll just still with the rules and allow it...

It's okay to allow it. I don't think this discussion anymore is about convincing anyone whether to allow it or not.

That said, I believe that the very purpose for the language used was for magical effects, not feats. If they meant feats then it would not likely have been put in the MM. But, magical effects from items or Su/Sp abilities would definitely apply and to me at least seems like the most likely intent. In fact, and I don't really mean this in a bad way, when I first saw someone think to use INA for an unarmed strike (only for a monk, realize), I thought "I can't believe people would search so hard for a loophole that doesn't exist." I mean, if you allow INA to work for monks, you should let it work for any unarmed strikes at all. Just reword the INA feat and I doubt it would even be a big deal balance-wise.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

I think you, and the people who agree with you, will never be satisfied. No matter who answers, or how they answers, you will always find something to nitpick about. "If it's erattad, we'll believe it" is bull. You won't. You'll find some other way "it's wrong."

Again, I suspect you've never dealt with Customer Service. Lots of stories floating around here, some mine, about contacting CustServ multiple times and getting multiple, mutually-contradicting answers.

If A and B are exclusive, and both are official, it means that officially, nobody knows what they're talking about.

And yeah, I do rely on errata. Errata means that some people sat down and figured out what the rules ought to have said in the first place, rather than giving an off-the-cuff interpretation like the Sage or CustServ does. A little thought goes a long way in making "official" mean "reliable".

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

This is a fascinating discussion. Took me a while to figure out exactly what the issues were, but I think I understand now. I'm still a big supporter of intent in game design, and not rules-lawyering or RAW addiction. My only question is - if you interpret the core rules as Hyp and Patryn do, do you really think the game designers intended this kind of literal nitpicking? While I see both sides of the argument, I don't believe it was ever the intent. If it was, why would it be that badly worded? Surely if it was the intention, the Sage would've ruled otherwise? Yes? No? Then again, I can argue intent all I like, so I'll just scurry away and go and have my dinner...

Pinotage

I think that the intent is nonexistent here. I think that they overlooked monk unarmed attacks when they wrote the feat, and so didn't have an opinion either way on the subject. We could hypothesize about "if they had remembered monk unarmed strikes, they would have said...", but that's getting pretty far away from the RAW. Intent might fly for certain rules interpretations, but hypothetical intent?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

... and the fact that, if it were a natural weapon, the monk wouldn't need Improved Unarmed Strike, and the interaction of a monk attacking with monk or non-monk weapons in conjunction with unarmed strikes, and the interaction of monk attacks with the TWF rules more generally, among others.

For 1, it's actually spelled out what appendages a monk uses. It's in the Combat section:



Etc. That's the reason a monk can wield a longspear and still attack with his unarmed strike as an light off-hand weapon.

"Light off-hand weapon" is a meaningless distinction when applied to natural weapons, which are either primary or secondary.



Which is called out where, exactly?

There are no exceptions. Unarmed strikes, even monk unarmed strikes, are not natural weapons.



They aren't, because the monk class description clearly points out the exception involved: even though it isn't a natural weapon, a monk's unarmed strike may benefit from spells and effects that normally affect manufactured or natural weapons. Magic Fang is one of those spells.

Interestingly, if magic fang's Target line read "living creature with a natural weapon touched" instead of "living creature touched," a human monk would no longer be a valid target for the spell, because he does not have a natural weapon despite being able to benefit from effects that affect natural weapons.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Interestingly, if magic fang's Target line read "living creature with a natural weapon touched" instead of "living creature touched," a human monk would no longer be a valid target for the spell, because he does not have a natural weapon despite being able to benefit from effects that affect natural weapons.

Agreed.

 

[RigaMortus2]

which is of course the old arguement, but I disagree with your conclusion entirely.

The prereq only checks to see if you qualify for gaining the feat. The feat itself 'does' improve a natural weapon so, for purposes of that feat, the monk has a natural weapon. Which means that he qualifies.

I know some people are really attatched to the other arguement, but to me that position simply doesnt make any sense at all.

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?

But isn't this the same as when qualifying for a Prestige Class? If I need 10 Ranks in Hide to gain the first level of Shadowdancer, the soonest my Rogue would qualify is level 7. Which means at level 8 I can take my first level in ShadowDancer. I can't say, "Well, if I take 1 level in Shadowdancer at level 7, I can put my Hide rank up to 10 via Shadowdancer". You have to qualify before you can take something with prereqs.

 

[Scion]

But isn't this the same as when qualifying for a Prestige Class? If I need 10 Ranks in Hide to gain the first level of Shadowdancer, the soonest my Rogue would qualify is level 7. Which means at level 8 I can take my first level in ShadowDancer. I can't say, "Well, if I take 1 level in Shadowdancer at level 7, I can put my Hide rank up to 10 via Shadowdancer". You have to qualify before you can take something with prereqs.

If you were level 5 and had 8 ranks in hide but you had a class feature that said, 'treat your ranks in hide as though they were 2 higher for all purposes' then would you allow the person to enter when they hit level 6?

At that point it would be exactly the same. He has a class ability which modifies something that would normally not be allowed.

In the monks case he has a natural weapon, as far as certain things are concerned. Such as spells and feats.

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.

Then what exactly qualifies as 'effects' in the d&d game? Give me a list of a few if feats do not count.

Improved natural weapon is an effect that improves a natural weapon. In order to take it you have to have something that qualifies as being a natural weapon. Since the feat will improve a natural weapon then the monks ability counts as being one. Simple as that.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

If you were level 5 and had 8 ranks in hide but you had a class feature that said, 'treat your ranks in hide as though they were 2 higher for all purposes' then would you allow the person to enter when they hit level 6?

It doesn't say "for all purposes." If it did, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Improved natural weapon is an effect that improves a natural weapon.

Or...it's a feat that has the effect of improving a natural weapon.

The feat is where you get the effect from. The effect comes from the feat. The effect of a feat could be suppressed without you losing the feat. The feat and its effect are two different things.

 

[Scion]

It doesn't say "for all purposes." If it did, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

My made up class feature certainly says, 'for all purposes'. Hence my example.

My example was about a similar ability which would allow for things to happen that normally would not happen. Not that it had exactly the same wording.

Come on dr. awkward

 

[Scion]

The feat and its effect are two different things.

I disagree. The effect 'is' the feat. It is what it does and that is what it is.

If you have weapon focus in a weapon then you get a +1, weapon focus 'is' the +1, that is what it does, that is what it is.

I have seen no rules to support the 'seperate' condition.