Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[melkorspawn]

In this corner: Justice Thomas and the "PHB in exile" croud.
In that corner: Justice Ginsberg and the "living PHB" croud.

I've kept quiet up until now, because I'm part of Justice Potter's "I shall not attempt today to further define a natural attack... but I know one when I see it" croud.

 

[Pielorinho]

Moderator's Notes:

As the moderator who got so cantankerous in the previous closed thread, I figure it's only right for me to step in and thank everyone for keeping this one so civil, courteous, and respectful. I may have no earthly idea what y'all are arguing about, but that's okay: y'all are doing it in a way that keeps my blood pressure low . So thank you!

Daniel

 

[Artoomis]

Moderator's Notes:

... I may have no earthly idea what y'all are arguing about...

Daniel

Let me explain...

 

[comrade raoul]

It's not clear in the rules whether unarmed strikes are natural weapons. However, it seems plausible that if slam attacks are natural weapons, and can be improved with the Improved Natural Attack feat, then unarmed strikes can too. But, again, I think there is nothing in the rules that takes anything like a clear line one way or the other. Because this is the case, I think we ought to give FAQ rulings the normal authority for setting out what's in the RAW.

That said, I think it's certainly counter to the spirit of the rules to allow monks to improve their unarmed attacks with Improved Natural Attack. If the designers intended for (humanoid) monks to seriously consider the option of taking a feat to do more damage with their unarmed attacks, they'd have included the feat in the PH. Its presence in the Monster Manual instead suggests that it's mainly there for DMs to apply to monsters, even though, like all MM feats, it's possible for players to take it. The overwhelmingly plausible interpretation, here, I think, is that the technical availability, and usefulness, of Improved Natural Attack to monks exists only because of an oversight on the part of the designers. As such, it's a prime candidate for a house rule.

 

[Artoomis]

Oh, I don't know, comrade, it seems no worse than, say, Exotic Weapon Prof (Spiked Chain).

Of course, that's all really beside the point of whether it's allowed by RAW or not.

 

[glass]

It's not clear in the rules whether unarmed strikes are natural weapons.

Unarmed strikes (from a monk or anyone else) are not natural weapons. In the case of monks they count as natural weapons for certain purposes, and the debate in this thread (and others) is whether meeting a prerequisite is one such purpose.

If unarmed strikes were no creature then would ever be unarmed, and you couldn't make iterative attacks with natural weapons. Neither of these is true.

think there is nothing in the rules that takes anything like a clear line one way or the other. Because this is the case, I think we ought to give FAQ rulings the normal authority for setting out what's in the RAW.

I quite agree, give the FAQ the normal authority for setting what's in the RAW: None!


glass.

 

[Artoomis]

...I quite agree, give the FAQ the normal authority for setting what's in the RAW: None!


glass.

Actually, that's open for debate and is up for discussion in another thread. In any case, it's totally off-topic. We are discussing what the RAW actually says about monks and INA, not what the FAQ says. In fact, the FAQ does not even address this issue (yet), only a published Sage ruling, which resurrected this whole topic.

Essentially, we are discussing whether the Sage issued a ruling that is at variance with the published rules or is only a clarification/interpretation.

 

[Borlon]

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.

Could you spell out the argument in the last two sentences, please? I strongly suspect that your argument is invalid, but I might just be misunderstanding it.

As far as I can tell, something's being a valid target for an effect is not the same as meeting all prerequisites for generating the effect. You have to have a natural weapon to benefit from magic fang and the monk's unarmed strike qualifies as a legitimate target. But no-one would claim that the monk can therefore cast magic fang. Being the target of the spell is very different from being the originator of it.

When you look at the INA feat, being the target requires having INA- the monk qualifies. But to be the source of the effect requires meeting certain prerequisites. And the fact that you have a natural weapon for targetting purposes does not mean that you have a natural weapon for prerequisite purposes. Unless a rule says otherwise. But the rule that says a monk's unarmed attack qualifies as a target is silent on whether it qualifies for a prerequisite. The reason is that a prerequisite is not an effect which enhances a natural attack, and so it is not covered by the rule.

I don't think you are trying to say that prerequisites and effects are the same things, or that being the target of an effect is the same as being the originator of the effect. (Are you?) But I am not quite clear on what it is you are trying to say. Every time I try to parse your statements, it comes out to you conflating two very different ideas.

 

[glass]

Actually, that's open for debate and is up for discussion in another thread. In any case, it's totally off-topic. We are discussing what the RAW actually says about monks and INA, not what the FAQ says. In fact, the FAQ does not even address this issue (yet), only a published Sage ruling, which resurrected this whole topic.

How can I be off-topic when I am responding to another poster? He mentioned the FAQ, I just felt the need to point out the esteem with which a lot of people around here hold the FAQ (and Sage Advice, for that matter).

Essentially, we are discussing whether the Sage issued a ruling that is at variance with the published rules or is only a clarification/interpretation.

IMO we have been predominantly discussing whether a human monk can take INA per the RAW.

Of course, if those of us who believe that the answer is 'no' are correct, then the Sage is wrong, but the AFAIAC the Sage is wrong sufficiently often that that is not a major issue.


glass.

 

[Scion]

The reason is that a prerequisite is not an effect which enhances a natural attack, and so it is not covered by the rule.

Could you do what patryn apparently cannot and show some rules stating that the prereq is a completely seperate entity from the feat that it is a part of?

Without that little bit of information stating that, 'the prereq isnt an effect' is at best a pink bunny.

I have already posted rules showing that the prereq is part of the feat, you will have to counter those as well.