Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Peter Gibbons]

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

Incorrect. If that were so, a monk would not receive additional unarmed attacks from having a high base attack bonus (see MM, p.312).

EDIT: Also, your interpretation would reduce the "monk's unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon" language to mere surplusage. The fact that natural weapons and IUS share some (or even most) characteristics does not make them the same thing.

 

[Artoomis]

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)...glass.

Well, I responded, too. I meant the whole subject was off-topic, I did not mean it to sound like a reprimand to you. Sorry if it came across that way.

 

[glass]

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?

He doesn't need to. The prerequisite of a feat does not have to be 'completely separate' from the feat to not be an effect.

'Effect' is not a term of art in D&D like (for example) 'level' is, so we have to rely on plain English for what it means. From dictionary.com:[SBLOCK]ef·fect
n.
Something brought about by a cause or agent; a result.
The power to produce an outcome or achieve a result; influence: The drug had an immediate effect on the pain. The government's action had no effect on the trade imbalance.
A scientific law, hypothesis, or phenomenon: the photovoltaic effect.
Advantage; avail: used her words to great effect in influencing the jury.
The condition of being in full force or execution: a new regulation that goes into effect tomorrow.

Something that produces a specific impression or supports a general design or intention: The lighting effects emphasized the harsh atmosphere of the drama.
A particular impression: large windows that gave an effect of spaciousness.
Production of a desired impression: spent lavishly on dinner just for effect.
The basic or general meaning; import: He said he was greatly worried, or words to that effect.
effects Movable belongings; goods.[/SBLOCK]

Which of the definitions in the above block fit prerequisite? None in my opinion!
EDIT: The first sense, 'something brought about by a cause' is particularly instructive here, I believe.

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.

One sentance on an unrelated subject, which can be read to imply in passing that feats are effects but doesn't have to be? And that in know way demonstrates that feat prerequisites are effects, even if the feat as a whole is? Hardly conlcusive proof!


glass.

 

[glass]

Well, I responded, too. I meant the whole subject was off-topic, I did not mean it to sound like a reprimand to you. Sorry if it came across that way.

I probably overreacted. I got the feeling that you were responding to me but not Comrade Raoul because he agreed with you and I didn't, but that was probably all in my head!


glass.

 

[Scion]

He doesn't need to. The prerequisite of a feat does not have to be 'completely separate' from the feat to not be an effect.

Umm.. yeah, he does.

Otherwise I can simply fall back on, 'a feat is an effect'. Since the prereq is part of the feat then by default it is part of an effect.

In other words, unless the prereq is a seperate entity then the whole line of, 'a prereq isnt an effect' is either completely wrong or completely meaningless.

Which is why it is so hard to understand the position. There simply 'isnt' a position.


Does a fighter have to be proficient with 'hilts' as well as 'blades' in order to use his sword? No, he just needs to be proficient in swords. It is unimportant that all swords have blades and so he must be able to use those properly. So long as the weapon is made for someone of his form and he is proficient in swords that is all that it takes.

Unless proven otherwise the prereq is a part of the feat as a whole and all of it is treated at the same time. Qualify for the feat and you qualify for the prereqs, and vice versa, because they are exactly the same entity.

 

[Artoomis]

I still say the whole argument of whether a feat is an "effect" is moot.

The only thing that is important is whether increasing damage by one size category is an "effect." If it is, then the monk has a natural weapon for that puporse, and therefore meets the prerequisite of having a natural weapon (for this purpose only, of course).

It seems really silly to me to state that the monk would indeed have a natural weapon for the purpose of increasing his damage by one size category if only he had an actual natural weapon and was not merely considered to have one for the purposes of effects that granted benefits to natural attacks.

QUESTION:

Of what purpose is it to be considered to have a natural attack for the purpose of certain "effects" if one does not have a natural attack for the purpose of qualifying to get that self-same effect?

 

[glass]

Umm.. yeah, he does.

Otherwise I can simply fall back on, 'a feat is an effect'. Since the prereq is part of the feat then by default it is part of an effect.

But the monks ability does not say 'for parts of effects', it says 'for effects'. Even if the feat as a whole is an effect (which you have yet to satifactorily demonstrate), the prerequisite still has to be an effect in it's own right to be in the scope of the monk's ability.

Is the name of a feat an effect? Or is it completely separate? Neither?

In other words, unless the prereq is a seperate entity then the whole line of, 'a prereq isnt an effect' is either completely wrong or completely meaningless. Which is why it is so hard to understand the position. There simply 'isnt' a position.

No it isn't. See above.

Does a fighter have to be proficient with 'hilts' as well as 'blades' in order to use his sword? No, he just needs to be proficient in swords. It is unimportant that all swords have blades and so he must be able to use those properly. So long as the weapon is made for someone of his form and he is proficient in swords that is all that it takes.

What does that have to do with anything?

Unless proven otherwise the prereq is a part of the feat as a whole and all of it is treated at the same time. Qualify for the feat and you qualify for the prereqs, and vice versa, because they are exactly the same entity.

No, meet the prerequistes and you qualify for the feat. Fail to meet the prerequisites, and you don't. If the prerequisites don't exist as an entity in their own right (albeit part of the feat) then how can you meet them (or not meet them).


glass.

 

[Artoomis]

But the monks ability does not say 'for parts of effects', it says 'for effects'. Even if the feat as a whole is an effect (which you have yet to satifactorily demonstrate), the prerequisite still has to be an effect in it's own right to be in the scope of the monk's ability...glass.

See my question above. How could you be considered to have a natural weapon for an effect but not for qualifying for the effect? That does not even make sense.

Edit: Imagine this conversation:

"Congratulations. Your weapon is considered a natural weapon for the purpose of this effect that raises your natural weapon damage by one catgeory."
"Wow, cool! Thanks, I'll take it."
"Nope, sorry. You don't meet the prerequisite of having a natural attack"
"Huh, but you just said..."

 

[glass]

I still say the whole argument of whether a feat is an "effect" is moot.

So do I, although I suspect for a different reason.

The only thing that is important is whether increasing damage by one size category is an "effect." If it is, then the monk has a natural weapon for that puporse, and therefore meets the prerequisite of having a natural weapon (for this purpose only, of course).

You are conflating two different purposes. If the prerequisite of a feat is not an 'effect that enhances natural weapons' (I maintain it isn't), then you don't have a natural weapon for the purpose of meeting feat prerequisites.

It seems really silly to me to state that the monk would indeed have a natural weapon for the purpose of increasing his damage by one size category if only he had an actual natural weapon and was not merely considered to have one for the purposes of effects that granted benefits to natural attacks.

It is a bit odd, but that doesn't stop it being the RAW.

Of what purpose is it to be considered to have a natural attack for the purpose of certain "effects" if one does not have a natural attack for the purpose of qualifying to get that self-same effect?

Do you mean, 'why would the rules be like that'
? Dunno. They are probably like that because noone considered the interaction of INA, monks and creature with and without natural weapons.


glass.

 

[glass]

See my question above. How could you be considered to have a natural weapon for an effect but not for qualifying for the effect? That does not even make sense.

Edit: Imagine this conversation:

"Congratulations. Your weapon is considered a natural weapon for the pupose of this effect that raises your natural weapon damage by one catgeory."
"Wow, cool! Thanks, I'll take it."
"Nope, sorry. You don't meet the prerequisite of having a natural attack"
"Huh, but you just said..."

Or alternatively:

"Are there any feats I can take that improve my monk unarmed damage?"
"Well there's INA, but unfortunately you can't really qualify for that as a human"
"Ah OK, I'll have to pick something else then"
"I tell you what, it wouldn't be unbalanced for your monk to take it, I think I'll houserule it so you can, if you like"
"Thanks"

Just because you can construct and unreasonable fictional converstion about a ruling doesn't mean that the ruling is unreasonable, and even if it is unreasonably doesn't necesarily mean it is wrong.


glass.