Does unarmed strike qualify for the Improved Natural Attack feat?

[Egres]

I treat all arguments with the respect they deserve.

Blah blah...but no reply to my question.

 

[shilsen]

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.

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

I like your suggestion for a solution Luckily I'm the DM here, so I won't have to resort to it. I just wanted to check what the opinions about the situation were. Thanks, everyone, for the thoughts, and don't let me stop you from turning this into another nasty thread

 

[Darkness]

Take it easy, guys.

 

[Alzrius]

It's not even close to equivalent. I might allow it to the same vampire with Improved Natural Attack though.

Why not? The IUS feat just makes your unarmed attacks count as being armed, and deal lethal damage. How is that different from what most monsters already have with their natural attacks?

Said vampire in the above example is already doing lethal damage with his slam attack, which counts as armed since it doesn't provoke AoO's. Assuming he meets the othe prereqs, why couldn't he take Stunning Fist?

 

[apesamongus]

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.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

"for the purpose of effects" != "when selecting the target for effects"

 

[apesamongus]

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

But that is where "for the purpose of" come in. You are ignoring that part.

 

[apesamongus]

Why not? The IUS feat just makes your unarmed attacks count as being armed, and deal lethal damage. How is that different from what most monsters already have with their natural attacks?

A-> B is not the same as B-> A.

 

[sullivan]

Did you hear 'em talkin' 'bout it on the radio
Did you try to read the writing on the wall
Did that voice inside you say I've heard it all before
It's like Deja Vu all over again

Day by day I hear the voices rising
Started with a whisper like it did before
Day by day we count the dead and dying
Ship the bodies home while the networks all keep score

Did you hear 'em talkin' 'bout it on the radio
Could your eyes believe the writing on the wall
Did that voice inside you say I've heard it all before
It's like Deja Vu all over again

One by one I see the old ghosts rising
Stumblin' 'cross Big Muddy
Where the light gets dim
Day after day another Momma's crying
She's lost her precious child
To a war that has no end

Did you hear 'em talkin' 'bout it on the radio
Did you stop to read the writing at The Wall
Did that voice inside you say
I've seen this all before
It's like Deja Vu all over again
It's like Deja Vu all over again

 

[Alzrius]

A-> B is not the same as B-> A.

I was hoping for something a little more specific, especially since this is a case of "If A to C, then why not B to C, if B equates A?".

 

[Brain]

My take on this issue is that a Human monk doesn't qualify for INA. Besides the stuff that has already been mentioned there is also something else interesting. The feat is not listed in the PHB, but it is listed in the Ebberron CS book. I think that is because none of the PHB races qualify for it, but there are races in Ebberron that qualify (Shifter). This seems to support the idea that it is based on what you've got inherently, since monks are found in both books.