Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Borlon]

If a non-actual feat or prestige class can have effects, then what prevents a character from taking a feat or class whose prerequisites can be met only by effects of that feat or class?

Sorry, but I'm not sure how this relates .

Rules that apply in the INA debate also apply elsewhere. If a particular interpretation has false consequences elsewhere, then it is false in the INA debate too. At the very least it has to be drastically reworded.

Saying that a non-actual feat has effects sounds to me like a very dubious proposition. It is important in my argument that it does not (you haven't refuted my numbered proof on the previous page, btw). So I want to draw out a consequence of what would happen if it does. Then, if you can see that the consequence is unacceptable, then you will reject the principle that non-actual feats have effects.

My argument is that for the purpose of qualifying for the feat, the monk's unarmed strike should similarly be treated as if it was a natural weapon.

The main position I am arguing against says, "When it comes to prerequisites, there is no 'as if'; you either are or are not." My position is, "'As if' is 'as if'. It applies even to prerequisites."

I think we are almost in agreement. My position is that the Sage is interpreting the rules according to the principle of prerequisite conversion:

PPC: When X counts as Y for the purposes of effects that mention Y, then X also counts as Y for the purpose of prerequisites that mention Y.

The main difference, I think, is that I don't think that the RAW imply the PPC. If we can agree that the PPC is what the Sage is using, then we can argue about whether it is implied by the RAW.

Sound fair?

 

[Infiniti2000]

I would be alright with that ruling. I will just have him make unarmed stike (knuckles) instead

That has a huge implication as noted by Hyp. You can make additional attacks with natural weapons as secondary weapons -- they do not inhibit your manufactured weapon attacks. So, if "knuckles", "headbutt", "right knee", "left knee", "hip check", etc. are all separate natural weapons, a 1st level fighter with a longsword suddenly gets a whole lot of additional attacks, all at -5 without using the TWF penalties.

Obviously, at least I hope it's obvious, that's not the case.

 

[FireLance]

Rules that apply in the INA debate also apply elsewhere. If a particular interpretation has false consequences elsewhere, then it is false in the INA debate too. At the very least it has to be drastically reworded.

Saying that a non-actual feat has effects sounds to me like a very dubious proposition. It is important in my argument that it does not (you haven't refuted my numbered proof on the previous page, btw). So I want to draw out a consequence of what would happen if it does. Then, if you can see that the consequence is unacceptable, then you will reject the principle that non-actual feats have effects.

Actually, I work off a baseline position that feats as a whole are effects, or similarly, that prerequistes are also effects. I must confess that I still don't really see how treating non-actual feats as effects will allow a person to use the effect of a feat that he doesn't have to qualify for the feat. It's not the case in this debate, anyway. Improved Natural Attack improves a natural weapon, but it doesn't make anything that was not a natural weapon into a natural weapon. My argument is that the monk gets to take the feat because his unarmed strike is considered a natural weapon.

Going to your numbered argument, I generally agree with points 1-5. Where I disagree is the conclusions drawn from points 4 and 5:

4. Having a monk's unarmed strike counts as having a natural weapon if its counting as a natural weapon enhances a natural weapon.
5. Having a monk's unarmed strike does not count as having a natural weapon if its counting as a natural weapon does not enhance a natural weapon.

My argument follows this with:
6. If a monk's unarmed strike counts as having a natural weapon, the monk satisfies the prerequisites of Improved Natural Attack, which enhances a natural weapon.
7. A monk's unarmed strike thus satisfies the prerequisites of Improved Natural Attack.

Point 7 follows from points 4 and 6.

I think we are almost in agreement. My position is that the Sage is interpreting the rules according to the principle of prerequisite conversion:

PPC: When X counts as Y for the purposes of effects that mention Y, then X also counts as Y for the purpose of prerequisites that mention Y.

The main difference, I think, is that I don't think that the RAW imply the PPC. If we can agree that the PPC is what the Sage is using, then we can argue about whether it is implied by the RAW.

Sound fair?

Sounds fair enough , and as previously argued, I think it is implied by the rules.

P.S. I'm going to be busy over the next 48 hours and may only be able to get online and continue this discussion sporadically.

 

[Borlon]

I must confess that I still don't really see how treating non-actual feats as effects will allow a person to use the effect of a feat that he doesn't have to qualify for the feat. It's not the case in this debate, anyway. Improved Natural Attack improves a natural weapon, but it doesn't make anything that was not a natural weapon into a natural weapon.

The effect of INA together with NWE makes the monk's unarmed attack count as a natural weapon. If INA has no effect, you are missing an essential ingredient in the recipe that makes the monk's unarmed attack count as a natural weapon. Since INA has no effect before it is taken, you could replace it with Toughness. Toughness together with NWE doesn't allow the monk's unarmed attack count as a natural weapon. This is obvious, because Toughness doesn't do anything to natural weapons. But neither does INA until it is taken.

4. Having a monk's unarmed strike counts as having a natural weapon if its counting as a natural weapon enhances a natural weapon.

6. If a monk's unarmed strike counts as having a natural weapon, the monk satisfies the prerequisites of Improved Natural Attack, which enhances a natural weapon.
7. A monk's unarmed strike thus satisfies the prerequisites of Improved Natural Attack.

Point 7 follows from points 4 and 6.

I think 6 is too careless with the order of when things happen. Let me try again with a numbered proof. This time I'll pay closer attention to the order that things have to happen for INA to be taken. (I'll leave out a few details that would make it a completely accurate description, too; but in the particular circumstances we are considering, I think it is good enough. These circumstances are that a human monk is trying to take the INA feat, nothing else is enhancing his unarmed attack, and that the monk has a +4 or better BAB.)

1. Before a feat can be taken, its prerequisites must be satisfied.
2. For INA's prerequisites to be satisfied, a monk's unarmed attack must count as a natural weapon.
3. A feat does not enhance an attack before it is taken.
4. A monk's unarmed attack counts as a natural weapon when it is being enhanced by an effect that enhances natural weapons.
5. A monk's unarmed attack does not count as a natural weapon when it is not being enhanced.
6. Before INA is taken, INA does not enhance an attack.
7. Before INA is taken, a monk's unarmed attack is not being enhanced.
8. Before INA is taken, a monk's unarmed attack does not count as a natural weapon.
9. Before INA is taken, the prerequisites of INA are not satisfied.
10. INA cannot be taken.

6 follows from 3. 7 follows from 6. 8 follows from 7 and 5. 9 follows from 8 and 2. 10 follows from 9 and 1. A few of the premises might have to be argued for separately. For example, I could argue for the truth of 5 by noting that if a monk's unarmed attack is not enhanced by an effect that enhances a natural weapon (as 4 specifies), it does not count as a natural weapon, and that therefore, if it is not being enhanced at all, it does not count as a natural weapon.

If you disagree with one or more of premises 1 to 5, please say so, and explain why not. Sub-conclusions 6 to 9 form a chain; if you don't accept one of them, say which one you don't accept, and why it doesn't follow from the previous (acceptable) premises. If you accept points 1 to 9, please explain how lines 1 to 9 can all be true, and yet 10 is false.

BTW, your 6 and 7, to be correct would have to be worded something like this:

After INA is taken, INA enhances a natural weapon.
After INA is taken, a monk's unarmed attack counts as a natural weapon.
After INA is taken, a monk's unarmed attack satisfies the prerequisites of INA.

But what good is that? Extra Breath Weapon's prerequisites are satisfied after it is taken. But that doesn't let you take it if you can't satisfy the prerequisites any other way.

Sounds fair enough , and as previously argued, I think it is implied by the rules.

I think you are wrong, and I think the above argument proves it.

P.S. I'm going to be busy over the next 48 hours and may only be able to get online and continue this discussion sporadically.

Assuming the "fists are natural weapons" camp don't derail the thread, I'll still be here.

 

[Artoomis]

...

1. Before a feat can be taken, its prerequisites must be satisfied.
2. For INA's prerequisites to be satisfied, a monk's unarmed attack must count as a natural weapon.
3. A feat does not enhance an attack before it is taken.
4. A monk's unarmed attack counts as a natural weapon when it is being enhanced by an effect that enhances natural weapons.
5. A monk's unarmed attack does not count as a natural weapon when it is not being enhanced.
6. Before INA is taken, INA does not enhance an attack.
7. Before INA is taken, a monk's unarmed attack is not being enhanced.
8. Before INA is taken, a monk's unarmed attack does not count as a natural weapon.
9. Before INA is taken, the prerequisites of INA are not satisfied.
10. INA cannot be taken.

...
If you disagree with one or more of premises 1 to 5, please say so, and explain why not. ...

Number 5 is where your premise is flawed.

"A monk's unarmed attack does not count as a natural weapon when it is not being enhanced." does not necessarily follow from

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.

Whether or not a monk's attack counts as a natural weapon is cearly open to interpretation.

The sentence from the monk's class decription can be read equally well to read:

...natural weapons and for qualifying for those spells and effects.

or

...natural weapons but not for qualifying for such spells and effects.

Clearly, most of us (about 2/3) think the first reading above is the more obvious and reasonable one. While being in the clear majority does not make necessarily us right, the first reading seems like the one that makes more sense to me. Still, this interpretation problem is why a Sage's clarification was really required on this rule.

 

[Dimwhit]

I'll take a shot at your points.

Before a feat can be taken, its prerequisites must be satisfied.

You are correct.

For INA's prerequisites to be satisfied, a monk's unarmed attack must count as a natural weapon.

Correct. As it specifically states it does.

A feat does not enhance an attack before it is taken.

What the...? That's a silly thing to say. Nothing is in effect before it's taken, be it a feat, class, skill, or whatever.

A monk's unarmed attack counts as a natural weapon when it is being enhanced by an effect that enhances natural weapons.

Nope. There is your main problem. It doesn't count as a natural weapon when it is being enhanced. It qualifies as a natural weapon so that you can apply some effect to it that enhances a natural weapon. By default, that means that, if you are going to apply an effect, than for that effect, it counts as a natural weapon before it happens.

A monk's unarmed attack does not count as a natural weapon when it is not being enhanced.

No, but it does if you are going to enhance it with a spell/effect.

Before INA is taken, INA does not enhance an attack.

Again, silly. Feats don't do anything until they're taken.

Before INA is taken, a monk's unarmed attack is not being enhanced.

Not by INA, since it hasn't been taken.

Before INA is taken, a monk's unarmed attack does not count as a natural weapon.

Yes it does, for the purpose of taking something that will enhance it, like INA. But it doesn't if, for example, a creature could only be hit by natural weapons. It is as a prerequisite for something else, though.

Before INA is taken, the prerequisites of INA are not satisfied.

Yes it is. See above.

INA cannot be taken.

Yes it can.

Here it is. The phrase "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" is the same as saying "A monk’s unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon if you have any spell or effect that requires a natural weapon before taking/casting it."

 

[Hypersmurf]

Here it is. The phrase "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" is the same as saying "A monk’s unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon if you have any spell or effect that requires a natural weapon before taking/casting it."

Where does that 'before' come from?

Look at the Magic Fang example again. The target is 'living creature touched'. Notice, no natural weapons are required to be the target of the spell. The spell is cast, and comes into effect - its effect is to enhance a natural weapon. The effect exists - is there a natural weapon to which it can apply? For a monk, for the purposes of that effect, the answer is yes.

For the feat example, the monk wants to take the feat. Until he does so, there is no effect that improves natural weapons to be considered. A feat not taken is like a spell not cast - nothing.

Unlike Magic Fang, which can be cast regardless of the existence of natural weapons, INA cannot be taken by someone who does not have a natural weapon. Because there is no effect that improves natural weapons to be considered - a feat not taken is no effect at all - NWE doesn't come into play.

For the lizardman monk, the answer is different. He has a natural weapon, so he can take the feat. He has the feat. The feat is in play, and now has an effect - to improve a natural weapon. Since for the purpose of effects that improve natural weapons, a monk's unarmed strikes count as such, that effect can apply to the lizardman's unarmed strike.

-Hyp.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Note that the rules for Two-Weapon Fighting state "If your off-hand weapon is light, the penalties are reduced by 2 each. (An unarmed strike is always considered light.)"

If an unarmed strike is a natural weapon, why is it referred to in the rules for Two-Weapon Fighting, which are not used by natural weapons?

Because in that section, you are assuming that the primary weapon is NOT a natural weapon, but a mechanical one. If you are mixing mechanical weapons with natural, and the mechanical is in the primary hand, you treat the natural weapon as light: it is an unenhanced body part- the issues of skill, balance and reach with that weapon are negated by a literal lifetime of use.

Note also that the Monk's attack penalty for Flurry of Blows (-2 for each attack in the flurry) is functionally identical to the penalty for fighting 2 weapon style with a light off-hand weapon (-2 for primary and off-hand) except that the Monk gets more attacks.

If we have a fighter (not a monk) without a longsword, can he make iterative attacks with his unarmed strike?

Here we spot the animal known as the Raging Damifino!

Personally, I'd say that iterative unarmed strikes are limited to classes like the Monk (which explicitly can) or the Kensai (who may potentially treat his fists like all other weapons), or to any PC with a Feat that explicitly allows iterative unarmed attacks, but I don't know of anything RAW that supports it.

Look at the Magic Fang example again. The target is 'living creature touched'. Notice, no natural weapons are required to be the target of the spell.

True- but the spell still defines a fist as a natural weapon.
+++

Additionally, I'm going to have to state that, upon reflection, I am changing my position slightly...but not the way anyone here would think.

SINCE:
1) Magic Fang explicitly calls the fist a natural weapon (a rule from the same book as the Monk description) and...

2) Given that the Kensai explicitly calls the fist of a human a natural weapon (from a book subsequent to the 3.5PHB, and thus, the more recent expression of the rules)

THEREFORE:

3) The clause that describes the Monk's unarmed attacks "both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon" is NOT adding the property of "natural weapon" to the Monk's unarmed attacks- the Monk's fists already ARE natural weapons as evidenced by 1 & 2 above. The clause is instead adding the property of "manufactured weapon" to the Monk's unarmed attacks.

That the Monk can treat his unarmed attacks as manufactured weapons then becomes part of the underlying rationale for why he can make iterative attacks with his unarmed strikes, just like with his special Monk weapons.

So all that stuff I said about only Monks and Kensai being able to take INA is wrong. The fist is a natural weapon, so anyone with fists could take INA.

The area where the Monk and Kensai twist the rules is in their ability to target their unarmed attacks with spells and effects that usually only affect normal weapons.

Here is where it matters what "spells and effects" mean: I'd argue that adding the property of "manufactured weapon" lets the Monk's unarmed strikes be the target of spells like Magic Weapon, Bless Weapon, Holy Sword and other spells or effects that only affect melee (manufactured) weapons, and Feats like Cleave or Psionic Weapon.

The REAL question, then, isn't whether a Monk can take INA, but whether the Monk could have his unarmed attacks made into permanent magic weapons.

Monte Cook's Arcana Unearth addresses this directly with the feat Hands as Weapons. In D&D3.5? Yet another Raging Damifino.

 

[Borlon]

Number 5 is where your premise is flawed.

"A monk's unarmed attack does not count as a natural weapon when it is not being enhanced." does not necessarily follow from

"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. "

The default situation is that a monk's unarmed attack does not count as a natural weapon. So only when the NWE rule applies does the monk's unarmed attack count as a natural weapon. So only when there is an enhancing effect does the unarmed attack count as a natural weapon. If there is no enhancing effect, the unarmed attack does not count as a natural weapon.

Maybe symbols will help.

X counts as Y under circumstances Z.
Otherwise X doesn't count as Y.
Therefore, if circumstances Z is not actually the case, then X doesn't count as Y.​

X is "a monk's unarmed attack" Y is "a natural weapon" and Z is "when a spell or effect enhances or improves a natural weapon."

Whether or not a monk's attack counts as a natural weapon is cearly open to interpretation.

The sentence from the monk's class decription can be read equally well to read:

...natural weapons and for qualifying for those spells and effects.

or

...natural weapons but not for qualifying for such spells and effects.

If the words "qualifying for" were really there, we wouldn't be having the conversation. If there was actually an effect that enhanced a natural weapon, as opposed to an effect that would be there if the feat's prerequisites were satisfied and the feat taken, then qualifying for the feat would be a purpose for which the unarmed attack would count as a natural attack. Or if it was ok to qualify for a feat after you take it. But otherwise I cannot see that the first reading is legitimate. Maybe you mean "equally" in the sense of statistical likelihood?

Clearly, most of us (about 2/3) think the first reading above is the more obvious and reasonable one. While being in the clear majority does not make necessarily us right, the first reading seems like the one that makes more sense to me. Still, this interpretation problem is why a Sage's clarification was really required on this rule.

The day has not yet arrived, thank goodness, when the correctness of a rules question is decided by majority vote. That being said, I think it is a good rule. I have discerned an underlying interpretative principle at work, the principle of prerequisite conversion (PPC). My position is that the PPC is not found in the core rules, and cannot be legitimately be inferred from them. The PPC is an addition to the rules. A plausible, intuitive, sensible addition, perhaps, but an addition nonetheless.

Before INA is taken, INA does not enhance an attack.

Again, silly. Feats don't do anything until they're taken.

So you agree with me!?

Tell me, if an effect cannot exist before its associated feat, how can you claim that the monk's unarmed attack counts as a natural weapon when it lacks an essential element to being considered a natural weapon- an effect that enhances a natural weapon?

Feat prerequisites, on the other hand, do exist and do have to be met before their associated feats. That's what "pre-requisite" means- the criteria which have to be satisfied before the associated entity can become actual.

Your admission that feats don't have effects before they are taken demolishes your position. If there is no effect that enhances a natural weapon, then a monk's unarmed attack is not considered a natural weapon.

A monk's unarmed attack counts as a natural weapon when it is being enhanced by an effect that enhances natural weapons.

Nope. There is your main problem. It doesn't count as a natural weapon when it is being enhanced. It qualifies as a natural weapon so that you can apply some effect to it that enhances a natural weapon. By default, that means that, if you are going to apply an effect, than for that effect, it counts as a natural weapon before it happens.

By your own words, there is no effect prior to taking the feat. This is so obvious that you said it was silly for me to actually come out and say it. But if there no effect prior to taking the feat, then there is nothing for which the unarmed attack counts as a natural weapon. How can you say "It qualifies as a natural weapon so that you can apply some effect to it..." when you have just admitted there is no effect?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Because in that section, you are assuming that the primary weapon is NOT a natural weapon, but a mechanical one. If you are mixing mechanical weapons with natural, and the mechanical is in the primary hand, you treat the natural weapon as light: it is an unenhanced body part- the issues of skill, balance and reach with that weapon are negated by a literal lifetime of use.

No, you don't.

Let's say I have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, and a claw attack.

If I fight longsword and dagger, my penalties are -2 to the longsword and -2 to the dagger. (Two-Weapon Fighting, with the TWF feat, off-hand weapon is light.)

If I fight longsword and claw, my penalties are -0 to the longsword (I'm not Two-Weapon Fighting) and -5 to the claw (it's a secondary natural attack).

Manufactured weapons use the Two-Weapon Fighting rules. Natural weapons use the rules for mixing manufactured and natural weapons:
Some creatures combine attacks with natural and manufactured weapons when they make a full attack. When they do so, the manufactured weapon attack is considered the primary attack unless the creature’s description indicates otherwise and any natural weapons the creature also uses are considered secondary natural attacks. These secondary attacks do not interfere with the primary attack as attacking with an off-hand weapon does, but they take the usual –5 penalty (or –2 with the Multiattack feat) for such attacks, even if the natural weapon used is normally the creature’s primary natural weapon.

An unarmed strike uses the Two-Weapon Fighting rules, not the rules for mixing manufactured and natural weapons.

-Hyp.