Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack? - Official answer

[FEADIN]

Mmmmmm....
A monster attacking with a natural weapon is considered armed and threaten the spaces near him.
A human attacking with a natural weapon is not considered armed, doen't threaten spaces.
A human with the feat improved unarmed stike is considered armed an threaten the spaces.
IMPROVED UNARMED STRIKE [GENERAL]
Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed —that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed. However, you still get an attack of opportunity against any opponent who makes an unarmed attack on you.In addition, your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option.

There is no doubt that the natural weapon of a human is his fist/hand when there is nothing more dangerous to strike the enemies.
I understand that there will always be problems with forthcoming books because they cannot point every littlle rule or interpretation made years before and also because they bring new options to the game.

Natural Weapons: Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature. A creature making a melee attack with a natural weapon is considered armed and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Likewise, it threatens any space it can reach.
Unless otherwise noted, a natural weapon threatens a critical hit on a natural attack roll of 20......
Natural weapons have types just as other weapons do. The most common are summarized below.....
Slap or Slam: The creature batters opponents with an appendage, dealing bludgeoning damage.

 

[spatha]

Except that the rules state that monks weapons are treated as natural weapons for effects that enhance them and that feats are effects.

So, putting the two together means that they can take it.

Ok let me clarify.
I have seen people say a lizardman monk can use INA for his unarmed attacks but a human can't because he the human doesn't have a natural attack. I am saying INA can't be used on unarmed attacks regardless of race as the bonus should only aply to said characters natural attacks not his unarmed attacks. It should be all or none for monks using it, not some monks can because their race has an inherint natural attack. Either monks unarmed attacks are treated as natural weapons for spells and effects that enhance them or they aren't. There should be no gray area where certain races can use it and certain races can't. IMO INA should only apply to a races natural attack regardless of class. Thus it is a pointless feat for a human. A lizardman can take it but it should only apply to it's natural attacks not its monk attacks.

 

[Infiniti2000]

This really makes my point. When both sides of an argument see strong support for their position from the RAW, it seems clear that an offical interpretation is called for. That's now happened.

Why is this difficult to accept?

Here's the thing. You see strong support for your side. I see strong support for my side. I don't care whether you see strong support for my side (though you say you do). I, however, don't see strong support for your side. In fact, I see a very simple, absolutely iron clad rule for my side. Is your rule balanced and okay as a houserule? Sure, I'll agree to that. But, I can't honestly agree that your interpretation has strong support in the face of (what I feel) is the undeniable rule for the prerequisite. It's as simple as that. If I were to say I thought that your interpretation had some basis, I'd be intellectually dishonest. I see no basis in the face of the prerequisite. None whatsover. The FAQ, therefore, IMO, is wrong and also IMO blatantly obviously so.

So, I admire the fact that you take your stance and even that you feel it's 100% supported by RAW. I don't even consider you naive, stubborn, or anything like that. Have your opinion and I'll have mine and we'll have to agree to disagree or you can just keep insulting me (like Anubis did -- and, please, Anubis, I was out of grammar school before you were born).

I don't think any new arguments can be made, but if you want a summary for the sake of this long thread, I'd be happy to oblige.

 

[Pielorinho]

Have your opinion and I'll have mine and we'll have to agree to disagree or you can just keep insulting me (like Anubis did -- and, please, Anubis, I was out of grammar school before you were born).

Just a quick reminder that Anubis is on a three-day mandatory vacation, so it'd probably be best to let that argument go.

I'm in a class now on teaching literacy to kids, and one of the theories that we're looking at is called transactional reading, which suggests that meaning occurs as a transaction between the text, the reader, and the context of the reading. As such, while some meanings are obviously more valid than others (if I read "The Neverending Story" to be a literal history of the collapse of East Germany's economy, I've got problems), there's room for more than one valid interpretation of a text.

As far as I can tell, both interpretations in this thread are valid. Nobody is suggesting that Improved Natural Attack will give a monk the ability to attack with any non-artificial weapon (e.g., a thrown rock), or something equally silly; both sides have got legitimate points. Referring to either side as a "house rule" seems to me to marginalize the opposition. The important thing, as always, is to decide which interpretation a particular group will use, and then that interpretation will be the only valid one within that group.

Daniel

 

[Shadowdweller]

Referring to either side as a "house rule" seems to me to marginalize the opposition. The important thing, as always, is to decide which interpretation a particular group will use, and then that interpretation will be the only valid one within that group.

Well put.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Except that the rules state that monks weapons are treated as natural weapons for effects that enhance them and that feats generate effects.

So, putting the two together means that they can take it.

Fixed, so that the "monks can't take INA" side will agree with the point.

...the point being, regardless of whether you qualify by virtue of your unarmed strike (which you can't) or your natural weapon (to which there is no challenge from either side), you can apply INA to an unarmed strike because the effect of INA is to improve a natural weapon. An effect that improves a natural weapon may be applied to a monk's unarmed strike, so this improvement is legit, once you qualify for the feat somehow.

It might not make sense to be able to use an unrelated natural attack to qualify for the feat and then apply it to your unarmed strike. However, the rules don't always make sense. Take hit points, for example. They don't make sense. But they're real convenient. So we use them.

Now then, how about the question of whether a druid with Wild Shape can take INA? Any takers?

 

[Scion]

Feats generate effects and they 'are' effects, all at the same time.

As my ealier rules quote proves explicitly.

Also, please take my name off of the quote as you changed what I had said. It is pretty insulting as written to have words changed and attributed incorrectly.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Feats generate effects and they 'are' effects, all at the same time.

As my ealier rules quote proves explicitly.

Also, please take my name off of the quote as you changed what I had said. It is pretty insulting as written to have words changed and attributed incorrectly.

No they're not, and sure thing.

 

[Scion]

No they're not, and sure thing.

So I have a rule that says explicitly that they are effects.

But that isnt good enough?

When did we leave the rules forum?

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

You have a citation, IIRC, that includes feats in a list that terminates in "or other effects". That doesn't seem to me to be a clear statement that a feat is an effect, only that other effects are included in the category of "things that a particular situation applies to," which also, in this case, happens to include feats. But I can see how you might want to read it in an other way. Considering that it's the only place that feats and effects ever brush elbows in this way, I'd like some more evidence.