How does "Improved Natural Attack" work with a Monk

[Artoomis]

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

Qualifying for the prerequisite for a feat is different that 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.

...

If they are totally seperate things, than what on earth does it mean to "count as a natural attack" for an effect. ALL effects that enhance a natural attack require that you have a prerequisite of having natural attack to enhance.

Under your logic, no effect could ever happen, because you don't have a natural attack to enhance.

A prerequisite for a feat is no different than any other prerequisite - you must have something before something else is allowed to happen.

Now if you could argue that what happens in the feat is not an "effect," then you'd have an argument with which I could agree. Unfortunately, "effect" is an extremely ill-defined term in D&D except in regards to "Spell Effect," which has nothing whatsoever to do with what we are discussing, so we must they were using plain english here and not a technical term.

Your argument is a "Catch 22".

1. You may only take this feat if you have a natural attack.
2. The monk's attack counts as a natural weapon for the effects of this feat.
3. The monk's attack does NOT count, though, because, until the feat is actually in place and active, he does not have a natural attack.

Huh?

More generally:

1. An effect grants a bonus to a natural weapon.
2. The monk's attack would count as a natural weapon for this effect.
3. The monk's attack does NOT count, though, because, until the effect is actually in place and active, he does not have a natural attack, so that he does not qualify for the effect in the first place.

Again, huh?

 

[Caliban]

If they are totally seperate things, than what on earth does it mean to "count as a natural attack" for an effect. ALL effects that enhance a natural attack require that you have a prerequisite of having natural attack to enhance.


Under your logic, no effect could ever happen, because you don't have a natural attack to enhance.

Not true. Not all effects require you to have the thing they effect before they are applied to you.

A prerequisite for a feat is no different than any other prerequisite - you must have something before something else is allowed to happen.

Yes, if it's a prerequisite. Not all effects have prerequisites you have to meat before they can be applied to you. In fact, most don't. It's pretty much feats and prestice classes that have prerequisites.

Now if you could argue that what happens in the feat is not an "effect," then you'd have an argument with which I could agree. Unfortunately, "effect" is an extremely ill-defined term in D&D except in regards to "Spell Effect," which has nothing whatsoever to do with what we are discussing, so we must they were using plain english here and not a technical term.

Straw man arguement. I'm not arguing that at all.

Your argument is a "Catch 22".

1. You may only take this feat if you have a natural attack.
2. The monk's attack counts as a natural weapon for the effects of this feat.
3. The monk's attack does NOT count, though, because, until the feat is actually in place and active, he does not have a natural attack.

Huh?

Exactly, but only for feats. More specifically, only for this feat, since all the other feats that are intended to work for a monks unarmed strike mention it in their description.

More generally:

1. An effect grants a bonus to a natural weapon.
2. The monk's attack would count as a natural weapon for this effect.
3. The monk's attack does NOT count, though, because, until the effect is actually in place and active, he does not have a natural attack, so that he does not qualify for the effect in the first place.

Again, huh?

Show me something other than a feat that this applies to. I don't think you will find anything.

Also, according to your reasoning, a monk's unarmed strike counts as a manufactured weapon for all effects. Does this mean you can enchant them like manufactured weapons? Obviously not, because they aren't actually a manufactured weapon.

In any case, I think it's pretty clear that we aren't going to convince each other on this. You think it's obvious that the monk class ability allows you to qualify for "natural weapon" feats, while I think it's clear that it does not.

Can we just agree to disagree and drop it?

 

[Artoomis]

Caliban: Is is true, then that:

If an effect requires having a natural attack to be activated, a monk's attack is NOT a natural attack.

And

If, and only if, an effect is made active regardless of the monk's involvement (aka, he does not have to have a natural attack for the effect to manifest itself), then the monk's attack counts as a natural attack.

To me, at least, that seems to be what you are stating.

 

[Caliban]

Caliban: Is is true, then that:

If an effect requires having a natural attack to be activated, a monk's attack is NOT a natural attack.

And

If, and only if, an effect is made active regardless of the monk's involvement (aka, he does not have to have a natural attack for the effect to manifest itself), then the monk's attack counts as a natural attack.

To me, at least, that seems to be what you are stating.

Well, my point has kind of been that the thing that produces the effect is not the same thing as the effect itself.

A wizard can cast a spell, but the wizard himself is not a spell. Things that specifically affect spells do not affect the wizard, and things that require a spell being present do not trigger if the wizard is there without any spells up.

A feat can produce an effect, but the feat itself is not an effect. If the monk has the feat, it works. But the monk does not have the thing required to get the feat, only the thing that allows the effect the feat produces to work on him. The monk has to learn the feat before he can use it to produce the effect he wants.

If something else produced an effect that increased his attack damage, that would work. (Like say, gaining a supernatural ability to that increases weapon damage. Once he get's the ability, it works for him. The problem is getting the thing that produces the effect in the first place.)

 

[Artoomis]

Okay, Caliban, I'm following you. Your last statement was much better stated.

How about this:

Cast Magic Fang on the Monk. Obviously, he now has a natural weapon (+1, at that) not just for the purposes of the spell but for attacking and, presumably, anything else that requires a +1 natural weapon.

Improved Natural Attack requires a natural weapon - which he now has (+1 natural weapon).

While the spell is active he takes the feat we are talking about.

Now the spell runs out. What happens?

The feat gives him the effect of improving his natural attack, so he has a natural weapon for the purpose of that effect, at least. If he can no longer meet the prerequisite, you have a very, very odd circumstance in which he has the feat benefits him because he has a natural attack, but cannot meet the prerequisites bacuase he does not have a natural attack.

Another catch-22.

 

[Caliban]

Okay, Caliban, I'm following you. Your last statement was much better stated.

How about this:

Cast Magic Fang on the Monk. Obviously, he now has a natural weapon (+1, at that) not just for the purposes of the spell but for attacking and, presumably, anything else that requires a +1 natural weapon.

Improved Natural Attack requires a natural weapon - which he now has (+1 natural weapon).

While the spell is active he takes the feat we are talking about.

I don't believe he can take the feat. He still doesn't have a natural weapon.

The spell doesn't give him a natural weapon, it just produces an effect that increases the damage a natural does, and that also affects his unarmed strike due to his class ability.

If you cast Magic Weapon on a monk, he get's the same +1 attack bonus (because his unarmed strike also counts as a manufactured weapon for the purpose of the spell), but that doesn't mean his hands suddently become maces for the duration of the spell, or that they can be sundered while the spell is up.

Also, I don't believe that temporary modifiers allow you to qualify for a feat, only permanent (or effectively permanent) ones, such as from stat boosting items.

Now the spell runs out. What happens?

The feat gives him the effect of improving his natural attack, so he has a natural weapon for the purpose of that effect, at least. If he can no longer meet the prerequisite, you have a very, very odd circumstance in which he has the feat benefits him because he has a natural attack, but cannot meet the prerequisites bacuase he does not have a natural attack.

Another catch-22.

I don't think this situation would occur, but in that case he would lose the use of the feat because he doesn't meet the prerequisites of the feat, just like any other feat in which you no longer meet the prerequisites. (If you have a 13 Dex and take Dodge, and Enlarge Person lowers your Dex to 11, you can no longer use Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, or Whirlwind Attack, for example.)

 

[Artoomis]

We obviously disagree, Caliban, and will not convince each other.

Along with others in this thread we have, however, provided good material for folks to decide how to approach this in their own games.

That's pretty darn good, i think!

 

[Caliban]

We obviously disagree, Caliban, and will not convince each other.

Well yeah, that's what I was saying.

Along with others in this thread we have, however, provided good material for folks to decide how to approach this in their own games.

That's pretty darn good, i think!

That'll do, that'll do.

 

[Lord_Fergus]

Also, according to your reasoning, a monk's unarmed strike counts as a manufactured weapon for all effects. Does this mean you can enchant them like manufactured weapons? Obviously not, because they aren't actually a manufactured weapon.

Well now - before The Complete Warrior I would have agreed with you. But now we have the Kensai PrC. This class specifically allows monks to enchant their fists exactly like manufactured weapons. XP is used instead of GP value to determine the cost of each enchantment value. If you are familiar with the Ancestral Item feat from BoED it is almost exactly like that only it uses XP instead of GP.

My thanks to so many of you who have championed my original line of reasoning I don't think you will ever satisfy everyone on this issue short of a Sage ruling or errata on the feat. For those of you who do like the feat - remember it stacks on itself

 

[Artoomis]

... For those of you who do like the feat - remember it stacks on itself

Do you mean you could take it more than once?