Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack? - Official answer

[Lonely Tylenol]

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

So, you're using the example of a made-up class feature that is wholly unlike the issue we're discussing in this thread in order to illustrate...something?

In your example, the character would theoretically satisfy the prerequisites of the PrC, and be able to enter it early. However, that's kind of irrelevent. Of course there are rules that supercede other rules. These are called out specifically. The monk's unarmed strike counting as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for certain purposes is one of them.

RigaMortus2 was talking about the priority of qualifying for something. You can't satisfy a prerequisite with something you get only once you satisfy the prerequisite. So you can't use the Shadowdancer level to buy that extra couple of levels of hide. You turn around and give an example of a situation in which the would-be Shadowdancer already qualifies by virtue of an ability. So you can see how I might read you as attempting to suggest with your post how the monk already qualifies for the Improved Natural Attack feat due to his class abilities, considering that it's what the thread is about. And no doubt it is now clear why I also read you as suggesting by analogy that the monks' unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon "for all purposes". Because that's what the thread is about, see?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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.

If you have a feat that grants you a supernatural ability, and you step into an antimagic field, do you still have the feat?

 

[Scion]

So, you're using the example of a made-up class feature that is wholly unlike the issue we're discussing in this thread in order to illustrate...something?

No, it is similar in end effect. But the 'effect' wording wouldnt work for that particular example.

The example I gave is of a character who has an ability that lets him qualify for getting what the other poster was talking about. It coincides directly with the monks ability allowing him to take the feat. Or in the example the class. Which normally would not be allowed.

RigaMortus2 was talking about the priority of qualifying for something.

Which is of course against the rules. Hence the comment I made. It put the example in the proper context.

If you have a feat that grants you a supernatural ability, and you step into an antimagic field, do you still have the feat?

If you have spells and step into an antimagic field do they go away?

If you have a feat that grants a supernatural ability then you still have the feat, its effect is merely being supressed by the field. As in, another rule is stepping in and taking charge.

But of course there is no other rule stepping in to prevent the monk, his 'own' rule is already stepping in to change something else.

 

[jeffhartsell]

It's clear to me that a monk can take the feat. YMMV. IMO a feat is an effect. I understand the arguement that feats HAVE effects but are not effects unto themselves.

Relevant text for reference...

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.

IMPROVED NATURAL ATTACK [GENERAL]
Prerequisite: Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4.
Benefit: Choose one of the creature’s natural attack forms. The damage for this natural weapon increases by one step, as if the creature’s size had increased by one category: 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6.
A weapon or attack that deals 1d10 points of damage increases as follows: 1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8.

 

[Hypersmurf]

If you have a feat that grants a supernatural ability then you still have the feat, its effect is merely being supressed by the field. As in, another rule is stepping in and taking charge.

So if there were a Supernatural Attack feat that granted a Su ability that improved the damage for a natural attack form by one die type, and a creature with this feat stepped into an AMF, then he would still have the feat, but the effect of that feat would be suppressed by the field?

-Hyp.

 

[Pinotage]

Probably. I believe the location of the feat tells you all you need to know about the designers' intent - it's found in the Monster Manual, not the PHB.

The attempts to apply it to monks are likely, if we are arguing intent, unexpected side effects.

So all the feats in the Player's Handbook are for players only?

I don't think location has anything to do with it. It's more likely that it's merely a feat that in the majority of cases is going to apply to monsters since they're going to have far more natural attacks than PCs or NPCs with Improved Unarmed Strike.

Pinotage

 

[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?

So the fact that you're speculating that they overlooked monk attacks while writing the feat does not constitute an intepretation of intent on your part? Like I said in another post, RAW interpretation is an interpretation of intent, just a literal one - doesn't make it any more or less valid than any other interpretation.

Pinotage

 

[turbo]

So if there were a Supernatural Attack feat that granted a Su ability that improved the damage for a natural attack form by one die type, and a creature with this feat stepped into an AMF, then he would still have the feat, but the effect of that feat would be suppressed by the field?

You beg the question here: 'a feat that grants'--the feat is the ability, and the ability has been suppressed, but the ability remains an effect granted by leveling up.

 

[turbo]

There is, of course, ambiguity from the way the text refers to feats, in that sometimes it reads 'this feat gives...' while sometimes it reads 'taking this feat grants', but it doesn't matter: the interpretive paradigm that separates a feat from its effect could just as easily be used to deny the monk the benefits of, not spells, but the casting of them ("oh sure; if the spell gave a bonus to a weapon, then fine, fine, your monk's attack would count for it...unfortunately my friend, it's the casting of the spell that grants the bonus...tough luck!").

 

[Scion]

So if there were a Supernatural Attack feat that granted a Su ability that improved the damage for a natural attack form by one die type, and a creature with this feat stepped into an AMF, then he would still have the feat, but the effect of that feat would be suppressed by the field?

That does seem to be how antimagic field reads, yes. It suppresses magical effects but the actual things are still there 'somewhere'. Even summoned creatures wink out but their durations continue to run out.

Psionic feats are supernatural. Lets see what they have to say:

Because psionic feats are supernatural abilities—a departure from the general rule that feats do not grant supernatural abilities—they cannot be disrupted in combat (as powers can be) and generally do not provoke attacks of opportunity (except as noted in their descriptions). Supernatural abilities are not subject to power resistance and cannot be dispelled; however, they do not function in areas where psionics is suppressed, such as a null psionics field. Leaving such an area immediately allows psionic feats to be used.

While in that area they are suppressed and unable to be used. That does not mean that they are gone. Just like if you have power attack but no bab it doesnt mean it is gone, you simply cannot use it currently.


The feat is the effect and is an effect, but there are times when you cannot use it for some reason.