Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Is it because you have to specify a natural attack form?

No - that text is unchanged from the base INA. Monk's unarmed strikes count as natural weapons (which, as near as I can tell, is equivalent to "natural attack forms") for this purpose.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Of course not. A monk's unarmed strike is only considered a natural weapon for purposes of spells or effects that improve natural weapons.

Hehe, ok so that was an "easy" trick question... Not so much a trick I suppose...

 

[FireLance]

According to you, FL, the human monk would qualify for any feat that in any way improved natural weapons, so long as he was capable of meeting its other prereqs.

Yup, because I interpret the whole of a feat to be an effect. The benefit is part of that effect. The prerequisite is also part of that effect, in the same way that the range or target entry in a spell description is part of a spell.

There is dissension in the camp, I guess.

Three threads and more than ten pages of posts kind of suggests that.

 

[FoxWander]

Actually, what an "effect" is doesn't matter...

A definition of what an "effect" is is irrelevant because what a "natural weapon" is is already clearly defined.

Natural Weapons: Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature. A creature making a melee attack with a natural weapon is considered armed and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Likewise, it threatens any space it can reach.

So, technically, anybody with the "Improved unarmed strike" feat has "Natural weapons."

IMPROVED UNARMED STRIKE [GENERAL]
Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed —that is, you do not provoke attacks of opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed. However, you still get an attack of opportunity against any opponent who makes an unarmed attack on you.

In addition, your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option.

Normal: Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack.

Special: A monk automatically gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat at 1st level. She need not select it.

Monks automatically get 'Improved Unarmed Strike' and thus automatically have 'Natural Weapons.' So you can skip the arguments about what is and isn't an effect that can be applied to the monk's "natural" (or "manufactured") weapons, because that point is kind of moot.

However, the field is now open for arguments about whether monks (be they human, lizardman or tarasque!) should be allowed multiple attacks for high BAB with their (again, CLEARLY defined) natural weapons because the definition of "Natural Weapons" goes on to say this...

Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons.

And there's lots more to argue about in there also, but the main point is that IMPROVED UNARMED STRIKES (as in 'the feat' which monks automatically get) are indisputably NATURAL WEAPONS!

 

[glass]

And there's lots more to argue about in there also, but the main point is that IMPROVED UNARMED STRIKES (as in 'the feat' which monks automatically get) are indisputably NATURAL WEAPONS!

Actually, unarmed strikes (improved or otherwise) are pretty much indesputably not natural weapons.

Yes, natural weapons threaten and area and do not provoke AoO when used. Neither do Improved Unarmed Strikes. This does not make them the same thing. Manufactured weapons also threaten and do not provoke AoO when used: does anyone weilding a sword qualify for INA?

An analogy: My car is blue. My shirt is blue. Is my shirt a car?


glass.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Thanks, glass.

 

[glass]

Thanks, glass.

You're welcome, Patryn.


glass.

 

[TheEvil]

Having the most endurance to argue doesn't make your arguement the correct one.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

And bowing out early makes the other side correct?

 

[Artoomis]

No, I don't think it's as simple as that. Consider the following [changes from INA called out]:

Originally Posted by Patryn's Made-up Feat
REALLY IMPROVED NATURAL ABILITY [GENERAL]
Prerequisite: Natural weapon, [Improved Natural Attack,] base attack bonus +[6].

Benefit: Choose one of the creature’s natural attack forms [that has benefitted from the Improved Natural Attack feat]. The damage for this natural weapon increases by one [additional step], as if the creature’s size had increased by one [additional] 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.

[In addition, the creature gains a +2 increase to Natural Armor.]

For those of you who say a human monk qualifies to take INA, why doesn't a human monk qualify to take this feat?

Myabe they do, and maybe they don't. As I said, that's a very different discussion.

Here's the logic. First, I assume a feat is not an effect in and of itself but is enables an effect, not that it really matters, in my view. It only matters that the increase in damage is an "effect," which, while arguable, no one seems to be debating.

Monks do indeed have a natural weapon for the purpose of getting the improved damage, but not for the purpose of improving natural armor. One could view this two ways:

1. They get all the feat's benefits as relates to natural weapons ONLY. They do not get the improved natural armor.
2. They do not qualify as you either get all or nothing of a feat's effects, and, since they would only get partial benefits from the feat, they do not qualify.

The monk is a really special case because they only count as having natural weapons for the purpose of getting benefits that improve the natural weapon from spells and effects, but for no other purpose. This means that when looking to effects that enhance natural weapons, the monk meets the requirement of having a natural weapon for that effect to enhance. In other words, they meet the prerequisite of having a natural weapon.

Note that, oddly enough, they would fully qualify AND get the improved Natural Armor if the prerequisite was ONLY Improved Natural Attack (disregarding the BAB requirement - that only affects when they can take the feat, not whether they qualify). Weird, maybe, but hardly the weirdest thing in the rules.