Does unarmed strike qualify for the Improved Natural Attack feat?

[ruleslawyer]

Just what the title asks. Does the monk's unarmed strike ability let it qualify for the Improved Natural Attack feat (MM, pg. 304)? I'd say no, since the unarmed strike is not actually a natural weapon but simply counts as one for the purposes of spells and effects that enhance or improve natural weapons.

Opinions?

Yes. I do think that by the RAW, a monk's unarmed strike quite clearly qualifies for the INA feat. As you pointed out, the monk's unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon for the purpose of "spells and effects" that "enhance or improve" natural weapons. The benefit conferred by the INA feat is certainly an "effect" in plain English. Since "effect" is NOT a term of art defined in the Glossary, we're supposed to use the plain English definition, which pretty clearly encompasses the die-increase benefit of INA. So yes, a monk does get the benefit of the INA feat. Should it, according to some general definition of intent? Hard to say. Unlike other feats, INA is not tagged with the [Monstrous] designator. However, none of the core MM feats have this, so that's inconclusive. The feat makes reference to "attack forms" and "weapon or attack," indicating that it's supposed to be generic enough that it's not necessarily an effect of larger claws/teeth/etc.

Thus, I think a monk does qualify for the INA feat. Whether you DMs want to allow it is a different issue.

 

[Egres]

Yes. I do think that by the RAW, a monk's unarmed strike quite clearly qualifies for the INA feat. As you pointed out, the monk's unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon for the purpose of "spells and effects" that "enhance or improve" natural weapons. The benefit conferred by the INA feat is certainly an "effect" in plain English. Since "effect" is NOT a term of art defined in the Glossary, we're supposed to use the plain English definition, which pretty clearly encompasses the die-increase benefit of INA. So yes, a monk does get the benefit of the INA feat. Should it, according to some general definition of intent? Hard to say. Unlike other feats, INA is not tagged with the [Monstrous] designator. However, none of the core MM feats have this, so that's inconclusive. The feat makes reference to "attack forms" and "weapon or attack," indicating that it's supposed to be generic enough that it's not necessarily an effect of larger claws/teeth/etc.

Thus, I think a monk does qualify for the INA feat. Whether you DMs want to allow it is a different issue.

Right.

But, in order to have the feats' effect working, you must before get it.

And, in order to get it, you must meet its prerequisites.

No prerequisites, No effect, No INA.

CustServ said that, yes, the monk does qualify for it. Some on this board would cynically say that nothing coming from CustServ is worth anything at all, but consider that even coupled with a monk's belt, it doesn't unbalance a monk character, it only brings it a bit closer to a valuable melee combatant.

Actually, CustServ also ruled the opposite too.

 

[hong]

Right.

But, in order to have the feats' effect working, you must before get it.

And, in order to get it, you must meet its prerequisites.

No prerequisites, No effect, No INA.

The plain English meaning of "for the purpose of spells and effects that affect natural weapons" is "anything to do with natural weapons". Treating "effect" as a term of art as you do here (to distinguish it from a prerequisite) is ludicrous.

 

[Starglim]

The plain English meaning of "for the purpose of spells and effects that affect natural weapons" is "anything to do with natural weapons". Treating "effect" as a term of art as you do here (to distinguish it from a prerequisite) is ludicrous.

No, in plain English, "effect" means "the direct result of a cause", not "anything at all".

ruleslawyer has confused an effect on the character's attacks (an increase in damage) with an effect on the character's level advancement (qualifying for the Improved Natural Attack feat).

If the character already had the Improved Natural Attack feat then its benefit would certainly be an effect that enhanced his natural weapons, and would work. However this does nothing to help him gain the feat to begin with.

I could go into the proper D&D usage of "effect", which everyone here knows well, but the previous poster's argument fails on simple logic.

 

[hong]

No, in plain English, "effect" means "the direct result of a cause", not "anything at all".

No, in plain English, _and in the context used in the feat description_, "effect" means "something that has an influence on something else".

ruleslawyer has confused an effect on the character's attacks (an increase in damage) with an effect on the character's level advancement (qualifying for the Improved Natural Attack feat).

WTF?

If the character already had the Improved Natural Attack feat then its benefit would certainly be an effect that enhanced his natural weapons, and would work. However this does nothing to help him gain the feat to begin with.

Of course it does. Improved NA influences your natural attacks, Improved US allows you to benefit from things that influence your natural attacks, therefore Improved US lets you use Improved NA.

I could go into the proper D&D usage of "effect", which everyone here knows well, but the previous poster's argument fails on simple logic.

Heh.

 

[Egres]

The plain English meaning of "for the purpose of spells and effects that affect natural weapons" is "anything to do with natural weapons". Treating "effect" as a term of art as you do here (to distinguish it from a prerequisite) is ludicrous.

How can you have an effect without the cause of the effect?

 

[hong]

How can you have an effect without the cause of the effect?

Do you make it a habit to ask irrelevant questions?

 

[Egres]

Do you make it a habit to ask irrelevant questions?

A very well argumented reply.

 

[hong]

A very well argumented reply.

I treat all arguments with the respect they deserve.

 

[sullivan]

Deja vu all over again. This was hashed out, less than a month ago in a nasty multipage thread that boiled down to:

Monks can treat their fists as natural weapons for the effects of feats. The interpretation is whether or not this qualifies them for the feat in question.

EDIT: As far as i could tell there wasn't question whether or not they could use the feat if they got it, it was just an issue of prerequisites.

My suggestion is that if your opinion differs with your DM that you two arm wrestle to settle the matter.