Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Artoomis]

New survey. Discuss all you want, but keep it civil. New thread because the other one got un-civil and closed. Very, very unscientific, especially as you may make mutiple choices.

Keep in mind the recent Sage ruling that monks can take Improved Natural Attack and discuss what you think is the actual position on that issue in the rules.

My opinion? Yes, because:

1. Monks have an ability that allows their special attack to be treated as a natural weapon for the purposes of effects that enhance a natural weapon.
2. A feat exists that has an effect (or is an effect, but I think that argument is a distracting red herring) that enhances a natural weapon, which requires only that one have a natural attack to take the feat.
3. It seems clear on its face that the monk would qualify as having a natural attack for the purposes of effects granted by this feat, and therefore meet the prerequisite of having a natural attack for the purpose of taking this feat. A monk would not, of course, necessarily meet any other prerequisites, were there any.

Essentially, the argument is that the prerequisite must be viewed in context, not in isolation. In other words, one should not ask "Does a monk have a natural weapon?" for the prerequisite but rather, "Is there an effect here that would alow a monk to be considered to have a natural weapon?"

 

[Deset Gled]

I voted 3. Before the sage "clarified" that the prerequisites of a feat count as "effects" I would have said no, but I can see enough of the counter arguement to accept the sage's ruling as a clarification, and not see it in conflict with the rules.

Even when I would have said it was against the rules, I would have allowed it in a game.

 

[Infiniti2000]

In other words, one should not ask "Does a monk have a natural weapon?" for the prerequisite ...

Actually, that's exactly what one should ask. From the SRD, "Your character must have the indicated ability score, class feature, feat, skill, base attack bonus, or other quality designated in order to select or use that feat." My bolding to show my point. I'm sure nothing is misinterpreted by this selective emphasis.

I voted no because the prerequisite of actually having a natural weapon is not met. That's really all there is to it as far as I'm concerned (per RAW). Before you attempt to jump all over me for RAW adherence even in silly situations (e.g. a lizarman could take this feat for his unarmed strike) I houserule INA to never work for unarmed strikes -- i.e. you need to apply the feat to the natural weapon that qualified you for the feat.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I voted "No, not per the Rules as Wriiten (RAW)", but that's not quite what I mean. I don't allow INA to improve the increased damage of the monk, only the base damage. I believe that in both my campaign and the rules as written a human with INA has base damage 1d4, and a human monk's class damage replaces this.

 

[Algolei]

My answer is the same as it was for the other poll.

Edit: I mean, no. Not according to the RAW.

 

[CronoDekar]

None of the listed answers really work for me. Mine is more "No, because I do not believe that was the intent of the rules," or more concisely, "No, because I say so."

 

[Scion]

Another one of these?

As before, I believe that the RAW makes it work pretty explicitly.

IMPROVED NATURAL ATTACK [GENERAL]
Prerequisite: Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4.
Benefit: Choose one of the creature’s natural attack forms. The damage for this natural weapon increases by one step, as if the creature’s size had increased by one category: 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6.
A weapon or attack that deals 1d10 points of damage increases as follows: 1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8.

So to take this feat we need a few things.

First, we need to have a natural weapon.
Second, we need a BAB of +4.

I dont think anyone has any issues with the second.

As for the first, we need to do a little more digging. After all, are a monks attacks that much different than any other weapon? One place to find out for sure!

Also, there is nothing about 'how' this feat works, so that would be left up to individual cases. Remember to not get bogged down in a specific reading. It doesn’t say that only creatures who are just born can take it, it doesn’t say that your natural weapons grow in size, or that it is some sort of selective training. Use whatever rational makes sense for the specific character.

Much like cleave in this way. You can’t think of cleave in any single sense and have it work all of the times that it should. It is much more fluid than that.

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.

Ok, so we know that the monks unarmed strike can count as a natural weapon sometimes.

Our only real question at this point is whether or not a feat counts as an effect. It certainly isn’t a spell.

Of course, if a feat ‘is’ an effect then we look at how it qualifies for the feat. For purposes that improve a natural weapon (the feat does improve it) then the unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon and so would count as the natural weapon prereq. After all, for purposes of that feat it counts as being it.

If anyone wishes to say that even though you have something that ‘counts as’ the required item does not count as having the item then they had better have an ‘extremely’ convincing case.

Moving along however, there isn’t any definition of ‘effect’ in the rules. However, I was able to find something that said it as directly as it needs to be stated for this forum.

IMPROVED SPELL RESISTANCE [EPIC]
Prerequisite: Must have spell resistance from a feat, class feature, or other permanent effect.

So this says that a feat is an effect (technically it says that it is a permanent effect, but the duration isn’t important, only that it qualifies as being an effect).

So, we have all of the components we need. We know that for some purposes the unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon, we know that the feat calls for a natural weapon, and we know that the feat counts as one of those purposes.

So, the monk may take the feat. It doesn’t matter if the human does or does not have a natural weapon normally, all that matters is that the monks ability calls out the exception and when it applies.

By the RAW the monks unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon for feats and so he can feel free to pick it up once he has a high enough BAB.

 

[Starglim]

You missed the option "No, and I disagree with the Sage's ruling."

The effect of a feat is an effect. Qualifying for a feat is not an effect.

 

[TheEvil]

New survey. Discuss all you want, but keep it civil. New thread because the other one got un-civil and closed. Very, very unscientific, especially as you may make mutiple choices.

Tsk tsk! Artoomis, not particularly classy to say that someone else's poll is closed when it isn't. :\ On the other hand, I do support starting your own poll rather then criticizing someone else's.

I voted that a human monk can take the feat by RAW, since I have seen nothing indicating that you have to start off with the natural weapon to qualify for the feat. I would also apply this ruling to elves, gnomes, dwarves, and any other race that didn't normal have a natural weapon. I wouldn't argue with a GM who wouldn't allow them to have it based on the feat being in the Monster Manual.

P.S. - Did you intend to allow people to vote for more then one answer?

 

[Infiniti2000]

Tsk tsk! Artoomis, not particularly classy to say that someone else's poll is closed when it isn't. :\ On the other hand, I do support starting your own poll rather then criticizing someone else's.

I'm pretty sure he's referring to the 8-page thread that was closed, not your poll thread.