Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Dimwhit]

Yeah, sorry. Not paying attention.

Stinkin' grammar cop!

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

If that were true, then monks could hardly qualify for anything that enhances weapons for natural weapons, which surely is not the intent here.

I disagree, of course. They benefit from the Magic Fang spell (and other similar spells), they benefit from the effects of an alignment subtype, they can benefit from the INA feat (if they can take it), among other things (such as PrCs with abilities that improve natural weapons).

In fact, normal reading would say that if applicability for prerequisites was NOT intended, than that should be specifically spelled out, not the other way around.

Really? 'Cause from where I'm sitting, "normal reading" would say that if applicability for prerequisites WAS intended, it would have been specifically called out. It wasn't, so it isn't.

Normally, if one says you are considered to have "XXX" for the purpose of "YYY," you also mean that you qualify for "YYY."

I think Hyp's bar examples completely demolish this position.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

A feat 'effects' the natural weapon in the same way a spell 'effects' the natural weapon.

In that neither "effect" anything?

 

[Dimwhit]

In that neither "effect" anything?

Yeah, yeah, Artoomis already got me on that.

We've just been using the word 'effect' so much I forgot about 'affect.'

 

[Elephant]

Interesting...

Magic weapon gives a weapon a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. (An enhancement bonus does not stack with a masterwork weapon’s +1 bonus on attack rolls.)

You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang). A monk’s unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell.

And in Magic Fang,

Magic fang gives one natural weapon of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon. (The spell does not change an unarmed strike’s damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage.)

But then,

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. Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons. The number of attacks a creature can make with its natural weapons depends on the type of the attack—generally, a creature can make one bite attack, one attack per claw or tentacle, one gore attack, one sting attack, or one slam attack (although Large creatures with arms or arm-like limbs can make a slam attack with each arm). Refer to the individual monster descriptions.

Unless otherwise noted, a natural weapon threatens a critical hit on a natural attack roll of 20.

When a creature has more than one natural weapon, one of them (or sometimes a pair or set of them) is the primary weapon. All the creature’s remaining natural weapons are secondary.

The primary weapon is given in the creature’s Attack entry, and the primary weapon or weapons is given first in the creature’s Full Attack entry. A creature’s primary natural weapon is its most effective natural attack, usually by virtue of the creature’s physiology, training, or innate talent with the weapon. An attack with a primary natural weapon uses the creature’s full attack bonus. Attacks with secondary natural weapons are less effective and are made with a -5 penalty on the attack roll, no matter how many there are. (Creatures with the Multiattack feat take only a -2 penalty on secondary attacks.) This penalty applies even when the creature makes a single attack with the secondary weapon as part of the attack action or as an attack of opportunity.

Natural weapons have types just as other weapons do. The most common are summarized below.

...

Slap or Slam

The creature batters opponents with an appendage, dealing bludgeoning damage.

And under Ability score loss,

The ability that some creatures have to drain ability scores is a supernatural one, requiring some sort of attack. Such creatures do not drain abilities from enemies when the enemies strike them, even with unarmed attacks or natural weapons.

So...is an unarmed strike a natural weapon or not? The RAW does not give a clear answer to this question and even contradicts itself in several places.

 

[Storm Raven]

Yes, monks can take Improved Natural Attack.

Oh look, the debate is over in my game.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The problem seems to be that some designer, somewhere, decided that "human fist" is synonymous with "unarmed strike."

 

[Borlon]

I'll go and edit in the apostrophe when I've finished with this reply.

It was more the "and" in place of the "on" that was puzzling. I find when I post hastily that what is clear to me is rarely clear to the reader. And I find that if I take the time to compose a thoughtful reply, the number of typos goes down as well. At the very least, people will respond to my substantive points rather than the way I express them.

Unarmed strikes always count as manufactured weapons for most purposes, you just can't actually touch them. A monk's ability overcomes that for MW, but for GMW you don't need to touch them.

You could argue (in fact I did for a while) that because unarmed strikes are a concept rather than a physical item you can't target them with spells at all, but if that is the case MWE doesn't work either.

I thought that a variety of body parts were the means by which unarmed strikes were delivered, and you could just touch the creature. The monk's ability doesn't eliminate the range restriction of a spell, I don't think. But since it doesn't seem to be an issue anymore, so probably no need to go into the details.

In fact, normal reading would say that if applicability for prerequisites was NOT intended, than that should be specifically spelled out, not the other way around.

I would think that if something is normally disallowed, then if a rule doesn't specifically say it is allowed, then it isn't. If something is normally disallowed, then there is no need for another rule to repeat the fact that it is not allowed.

Normally, if one says you are considered to have "XXX" for the purpose of "YYY," you also mean that you qualify for "YYY."

The other examples I'm aware of involve half-orcs and half-elves, and seem to involve unexpected complexities when it comes to satisfying prerequisites. I think the discussion on those topics (a few pages back) was inconclusive.

Yes, monks can take Improved Natural Attack.

Oh look, the debate is over in my game.

I'm glad to hear it. Was your decision based on reasoning found in this thread? Not that it needs to be- it is perfectly ok, in your game, to make decisions based on a gut feeling. It is even more ok to run your game in accord with the Sage advice column. But there is a difference of opinion about whether the Sage's recent ruling was justified based on the RAW, or if it was an addition to the RAW.

If you have a reasoned position on this question, please feel free to share it.

 

[Dinkeldog]

Please remember to keep things nice, or this thread will go the way of the last one.

 

[Storm Raven]

I'm glad to hear it. Was your decision based on reasoning found in this thread?

Not really, because all of the wailing and gnashing of teeth going on in this thread over whether a feat is an "effect" or something that merely grants an "effect" and all of the other hair splitting is entirely beside the point.

Not that it needs to be- it is perfectly ok, in your game, to make decisions based on a gut feeling. It is even more ok to run your game in accord with the Sage advice column. But there is a difference of opinion about whether the Sage's recent ruling was justified based on the RAW, or if it was an addition to the RAW.

My position is this - you have a poorly defined term: the monk's unarmed attack is treated as a natural weapon or a manufactured weapon for the purpose related to spells and effects, but it doesn't really spell out explicitly what an "effect" is. Some people read it ridiculously narrowly. On the other hand, it doesn't actually damage the way the game plays to read "effect" broadly for this purpose, and conclude that a feat is an effect, and that it is intended that monks be allowed to benefit from it, especially since we have a reasonably competent arbiter stating that this is exactly the intent.

Everything else is just being silly, splitting nonexistent hairs, and running about waving your arms for no really useful purpose.