Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Artoomis]

glass:

A prerequisite is not a thing by itself, it's what qualifies you to take a feat. If a monk has a natural weapon for the purpose of reaping the benefits of INA, then they must be meeting the prerequisite of having a natural weapon.

For a monk, ther is no such thing as a simple, straight answer to the question, "Do you have a natural weapon?" That question can ONLY be answered in context.

Therefore, it is not correct to state that a monk cannot take INA because they do not have a natural weapon. You have to check to see if you are asking because of an effect that will enhance a natural weapon or it if is for some other reason before you can say "yes" or "no" to the question of whether a monk has a natural weapon.

 

[Artoomis]

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.

Or:

"Well there's INA, but unfortunately you can't really qualify for that as a human"
"What are the prerequisites?"
"A natural weapon and BAB +4"
"Don't I have a natural weapon for effects that benefit me as if I had a natural weapon?
"Sure, but a prerequisite by itself is not an effect that benefits your natural weapon."
"Huh?!? What are you talking about? I have a natural weapon for the purposes of the benefits of this feat but I still don't qualify as having a natural weapon for this feat?!?"

 

[Dimwhit]

Man, this is just going around is circles.

I think the main problem (or one of the dozen or so) is that the language in being interpreted differently. I'm going to try once more. The Monk's ability says:

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.

This is essentially a qualifier. I'm going to reword this to read how I read it: A monk's unarmed attack is NOT a 'natural weapon.' HOWEVER, because Monks are special, their unarmed attack qualifies as a 'natural weapon' if you have some effect that can enhance or improve it.

Now we have INA. This is a feat that improves a natural weapon. Naturally, because it improves a natural weapon, you need a natural weapon before you can take it. That's called qualifying (i.e. a prerequisite), much like before you get into law school you need a certain score on your LSAT (among other things).

Does a Monk qualify? First, do Monks have a natural weapon? No. Their unarmed strike is not a natural weapon. However, it qualifies as one if you have an effect that will improve it. INA will improve it, so for the purposes of taking this feat, the Monk qualifies.


This is essentially how I read the feat and the Monk's unarmed attack. I think we're reading WAY too far into things and not paying attention to what the language is telling us. And I feel that the actually wording supports this thought, I'm just dumbing it down.

The only argument left is does INA count as an effect. With no definition of 'effect' in the books, we turn to the dictionary:

Effect: a change that is a result or a consequence of an action or other cause.

Taking feats of any kind are a result of leveling. A character improves himself, and at some arbitrary time a new ability is gained. We call them feats, but they're really just an ability of some sort gained after receiving a certain amount of experience. Therefore, a natural weapon becoming stronger and doing more damage in the effect of the Monk gaining experience and bettering himself. He's been working extra hard to do more damage with his fists, and now he does.

Anyway, that's my rambling on the subject.

 

[Artoomis]

I think you've captured the essence of it, Dimwhit.

The only real question in my mind is whether improving one's natural wepon damage as a result of taking this feat is an "effect" or not.

 

[Dimwhit]

I think you've captured the essence of it, Dimwhit.

The only real question in my mind is whether improving one's natural wepon damage as a result of taking this feat is an "effect" or not.

Well, given the dictionary definition, I think it is. But maybe I like to be more encompassing or something. However, in the absence of an official definition for 'effect' in D&D terms, I think this is all we have to go on.

 

[Artoomis]

Well, given the dictionary definition, I think it is. But maybe I like to be more encompassing or something. However, in the absence of an official definition for 'effect' in D&D terms, I think this is all we have to go on.

I agree with you, but I see it as the only real point worthy of debate. The rest seems somewhat obvious to me.

 

[Pielorinho]

Let me explain...

The more of this thread I read, the more this sounds like a personal threat .

Daniel

 

[Artoomis]

The more of this thread I read, the more this sounds like a personal threat .

Daniel

Oh, no... just trying to be helpful.

 

[FoxWander]

<snip> does anyone weilding a sword qualify for INA?

Since swords are NOT "physically a part of a creature" (see the first sentence of the "natural weapon" definition) then they are NOT natural weapons, and thus, obviously, do not qualify for INA. However, a monk's fists/elbows/knees/feet are clearly "physically a part of" him and so DO fit the definition thus qualifying for INA.

So the analogy should be: (coming from a monk or person with IUS feat) My fists are part of me, I am considered to be armed with them and don't provoke AoO when I attack with them. Natural weapons are part of a creature, make that creature to be considered armed and don't provoke AoO when used to attack. My fists are natural weapons.

 

[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.

If a Human Monk is hit by Reduce Person, does he retain his "medium sized" damage for unarmed strikes?