How does "Improved Natural Attack" work with a Monk

[Caliban]

Whether or not you should allow it is a different deal than whether or not it is "legal" by the rules.

It seems pretty clear to me, Caliban's argument not withstanding, that it's legal.

I'm not sure how you can justify that, but go ahead.

But could you please explain to me how being treated as a natural weapon for the purposes of spells and effects is the same thing as being treated as a natural weapon for the purposes of qualifying for a feat? Last I checked, the prerequisite for a feat was not a spell or effect, but maybe that's just me.

 

[Scion]

The rules state that he has is treated as having a natural attack in certain circumstances.

The feat is one such circumstance.

Therefore he can take the feat as his unarmed attacks are treated as a natural weapon for this feat.

Just like if you have a str of 12 and have gauntlets of ogre power and you qualify for power attack. Just like a druid who only qualifies for certain feats part of the time while wildshaped. They are all effectively the same. This particular one is even easier.

Edit: ie the character wishes to get the feat, the feat says, 'do you have a natrual attack?' the character says, 'I do if you grant an effect for natural attack', the feat says, 'I do! do you have a BAB 6+?', character, 'yes I do', feat 'well then you can have me!'

 

[Caliban]

The rules state that he has is treated as having a natural attack in certain circumstances.

The feat is one such circumstance.

Qualifying for the feat is not one such circumstance.

Therefore he can take the feat as his unarmed attacks are treated as a natural weapon for this feat.

That's not what it says. Qualifying for a feat is not a "spell or effect".

Just like if you have a str of 12 and have gauntlets of ogre power and you qualify for power attack. Just like a druid who only qualifies for certain feats part of the time while wildshaped. They are all effectively the same. This particular one is even easier.

No, they are not the same at all. The belt of giant strength actually changes your strength. The monk class ability does not actually give you a natural weapon, you unarmed strike is only treated as a natural weapon for spells and effects.

And where does it state that a druid can use their wildshaped form to qualify for feats? (I know certain feats specifically allow this, but I do not believe it is a general rule).

So I'm still waiting for a valid arguement.

 

[Scion]

So I'm still waiting for a valid arguement.

And I suppose that I am still waiting for a valid counterarguement.

The feat changes the natural attack (this would be an effect in case you were wondering)

The feat asks if the monk has a natural attack, the monk says I do if you have an effect on it, since the feat has an effect on it then it is an effect and the monk has a natural attack that qualifies.

Easy, simple, and goes along with all of the wordings. It is treated as a natural weapon for the prereq in this case. Another side example would be the psuedo feats that were only useable in certain circumstances.

Not only is this not horribly powerful, it definately has the proper wording. No leaps in logic.

So if you can come up with a valid counterargument.....?

 

[Caliban]

And I suppose that I am still waiting for a valid counterarguement.

The feat changes the natural attack (this would be an effect in case you were wondering)

The feat asks if the monk has a natural attack, the monk says I do if you have an effect on it, since the feat has an effect on it then it is an effect and the monk has a natural attack that qualifies.

Easy, simple, and goes along with all of the wordings. It is treated as a natural weapon for the prereq in this case. Another side example would be the psuedo feats that were only useable in certain circumstances.

Not only is this not horribly powerful, it definately has the proper wording. No leaps in logic.

So if you can come up with a valid counterargument.....?

The same one you keep ignoring. A prerequisite is not a "spell or effect".

The feat produces an effect, and that effect can work on the monk's unarmed strike.

However, the feat itself is not an effect, and neither is qualifying for it. So please, show me how "counts as a natural weapon for spells and effects" becomes "is a natural weapon for purposes of meeting the prerequisite for a feat"?

Because that is the leap of logic you keep making.

 

[Artoomis]

...The feat produces an effect, and that effect can work on the monk's unarmed strike.

However, the feat itself is not an effect, and neither is qualifying for it. So please, show me how "counts as a natural weapon for spells and effects" becomes "is a natural weapon for purposes of meeting the prerequisite for a feat"?

Because that is the leap of logic you keep making.

It's not a leap at all.

IF: Feat produces an effect that improves the natural weapon,
THEN: Monk's unarmed attack would count as as natural weapon (because it "counts as a natural weapon for ... effects...")

IF The Monk's unarmed attack counts as a natural attack (as above)
THEN The feat's prerequisites are met.

Note that the monk's attack does NOT count as a natural attack simply to meet the feat's requirement, the feat MUST be one that grants an improvement to natural weapons, as it does in this case.

Thus this statement:

"A monk's unarmed attack is a natural weapon for purposes of meeting the prerequisite for feats"

Is not true, but this statement:

"If a feats grants an effect that enhances a natural wepoan, the monk's unarmed attack count as a natural weapon for that feat, meeting the prerequisite for having a natural weapon."

Is true.

 

[Artoomis]

Or ,more generally:

If SOMETHING produces an effect that enhances a natural weapon, then the monk's unarmed attack counts as a natural weapon for that SOMETHING.

 

[Caliban]

It's not a leap at all.

IF: Feat produces an effect that improves the natural weapon,
THEN: Monk's unarmed attack would count as as natural weapon (because it "counts as a natural weapon for ... effects...")

IF The Monk's unarmed attack counts as a natural attack (as above)
THEN The feat's prerequisites are met.

Note that the monk's attack does NOT count as a natural attack simply to meet the feat's requirement, the feat MUST be one that grants an improvement to natural weapons, as it does in this case.

Thus this statement:

"A monk's unarmed attack is a natural weapon for purposes of meeting the prerequisite for feats"

Is not true, but this statement:

"If a feats grants an effect that enhances a natural wepoan, the monk's unarmed attack count as a natural weapon for that feat, meeting the prerequisite for having a natural weapon."

Is true.

No, that doesn't make any sense at all.

Qualifying for the prerequisite for a feat is different than being a legal target for the effect the feat produces.

Yes, the monk's unarmed strike is a legal target for the "improved damage" effect that the feat produces.

But that does not mean that it also counts as a natural weapon for qualifying for the feat.

They are two different things.

You keep saying that they are the same thing, but haven't actually produced any support for that statement. You are saying that a prerequisite for a feat is the same thing as the effect produced by the feat. I'm just wondering how you reach that conclusion. Please, where does it state this, anywhere in the rules?

 

[Caliban]

Or ,more generally:

If SOMETHING produces an effect that enhances a natural weapon, then the monk's unarmed attack counts as a natural weapon for that SOMETHING.

Except that's not what it says. It counts as a natural weapon for the effect, not for the something.

(And before you bring it up again, this does not apply for spells, as they are specifically allowed in the "spells and effects" statement. A feat is neither a spell or effect, although it can produce an effect.)

 

[Scion]

SRD:
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


This is pretty clear I would hope.


We will go like this:

Does the monk have a natural weapon? Yes. See above.

However, the yes is conditional.

It is, 'Yes, if it is a spell or effect that enhances or improves a natural weapon'

So the feat requires having a natural weapon, the monk does, however it will not qualify for this prereq unless the feat enhances or improves the natural weapon.

The feat does enhance or improve the natural weapon.

Therefore the monks natural weapon can be used as a basis for the feat.

It works like this:

Is the monks unarmed attack a natural weapon?
Yes (if it is being used in such a way that a spell or effect would enhance or improve it)
Else, no.

The yes in this case is more than sufficient to cover the rules as written. They have one and it counts for this case.