-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?
- Thread starter Artoomis
- Start date
- Status
Patryn of Elvenshae
First Post
Trainz said:
Yes, but that's because he's got the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.
If he had a natural weapon, he wouldn't need that feat - and neither would Joe Commoner, either.
glass
(he, him)
Humans aren't in the monsters section of the SRD, but elves are. Elves have unarmed strikes too, right, so they'll do.Dimwhit said:
So elves have unarmed strikes, but no natural weapons (unless you consider that the longsword and the longbow are somehow built inSRD said:
).Halfling and dwarves have similar listings. So, if halflings, dwarves and elves do not have natural weapons despite having unarmed strikes (and fists), how is it that humans do?
glass.
FireLance
Legend
There's no question of prevenience from my perspective, because the the enhancement from INA doesn't make the monk's unarmed strike count as a natural weapon. What makes the monk's unarmed strike count as a natural weapon is the sentence in the description of its class features which states:Borlon said:
"A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."
Most people agree that this sentence applies to the benefits, i.e. the feat would improve the monk's unarmed strike if the monk could take it. The question is whether this sentence applies to the prerequisites of a feat, i.e. the monk can qualify to take the feat on the strength of this sentence. The argument is not so much that the effects of the feat reach back in time to apply to the prerequisite, but that the class feature that enables him to gain the benefits of the feat should also apply to the prerequisite when determining whether he can take it.
This is where the discussion on racial prerequisites becomes relevant. The word "effect" is also used when describing what it means to be considered a member of a particular race, and a number of texts can be interpreted to mean that a character considered to be a member of a particular race qualifies to take a feat that requires him to be a member of that race. Applying the same logic to the monk's unarmed strike, it should also qualify the monk to take a feat that requires him to have a natural weapon, such as Improved Natural Attack.
Hi FireLance,
I would say a feat is of the form "If X, then Y, otherwise Z." X is the prerequiste(s), Y is the benefit(s) and Z is what normally happens. Many feats omit the "normal" part. The benefit of the monk's weapon equivalency is to ensure that Y doesn't fizzle if it looks for natural or manufactured weapons. If you try to cast magic weapon on a claw, the spell will fizzle. A claw isn't the right kind of target for magic weapon. But it won't fizzle if you cast it on a monk. (I think that the monk's body is the weapon, so you just have to touch the monk- if that's contentious, let's start a new thread.) That's because the weapon equivalency rule makes the monk's unarmed attack count as a manufactured weapon for the purpose of an effect that enhances a manufactured weapon, like magic fang. I.e. it's a manufactured weapon for the purpose of Y.
But the No side says that the monk's weapon equivalency doesn't apply to X, because X is not an effect. They are conditions that have to be met.
How do you tell if something is an effect? You look to see if it prescribes a change in something. If it says "gain +1 to all attacks with the chosen weapons" it is an effect. If it says "do damage as if you were one size larger" it is an effect. If it says "BAB +4, must possess a natural weapon" then it is not an effect. However, an effect often contains an "if" statement too; deflect arrows, for example, requires you to have a hand free and be subject to a missile attack, and these additional conditions would be part of Y.
Magic items that have different effects for different races and classes also have conditionals in Y. But I think that, properly speaking, their prerequisites are what is required to make them; in their acquisition and use they are not the same as a feat.
Now, I don't want to jump into the racial prerequisites debate. Partly because I don't own any of the "races of" books and so I don't have the resources to debate the question. Partly because monks and INA are found in the core books, and the core books (and logic) should be sufficient to resolve the question. Partly because I don't think the question is any clearer than it is for monks and INA.
My diagnosis of the problem of the Yes side is that they are considering the effect of INA to be of the form "If X then Y, otherwise Z" where X are the prerequisites of the feat, and Y is the enhancement to natural weapons. They assimilate the whole "if then" statement of the prerequisites into the effect, which I guess is understandable because a lot of feats have effects that are conditional. But prerequisites are conditionals for gaining the feat, not for using its benefit, and thus the Yes side is making a mistake.
Unless I am mistaken in my diagnosis, that is.
But for a while last night I had changed my mind on the question, and it was because I was thinking of the feat effect as if it had the prerequisites of the feat. The confusion is a very subtle one.
I would say a feat is of the form "If X, then Y, otherwise Z." X is the prerequiste(s), Y is the benefit(s) and Z is what normally happens. Many feats omit the "normal" part. The benefit of the monk's weapon equivalency is to ensure that Y doesn't fizzle if it looks for natural or manufactured weapons. If you try to cast magic weapon on a claw, the spell will fizzle. A claw isn't the right kind of target for magic weapon. But it won't fizzle if you cast it on a monk. (I think that the monk's body is the weapon, so you just have to touch the monk- if that's contentious, let's start a new thread.) That's because the weapon equivalency rule makes the monk's unarmed attack count as a manufactured weapon for the purpose of an effect that enhances a manufactured weapon, like magic fang. I.e. it's a manufactured weapon for the purpose of Y.
But the No side says that the monk's weapon equivalency doesn't apply to X, because X is not an effect. They are conditions that have to be met.
How do you tell if something is an effect? You look to see if it prescribes a change in something. If it says "gain +1 to all attacks with the chosen weapons" it is an effect. If it says "do damage as if you were one size larger" it is an effect. If it says "BAB +4, must possess a natural weapon" then it is not an effect. However, an effect often contains an "if" statement too; deflect arrows, for example, requires you to have a hand free and be subject to a missile attack, and these additional conditions would be part of Y.
Magic items that have different effects for different races and classes also have conditionals in Y. But I think that, properly speaking, their prerequisites are what is required to make them; in their acquisition and use they are not the same as a feat.
Now, I don't want to jump into the racial prerequisites debate. Partly because I don't own any of the "races of" books and so I don't have the resources to debate the question. Partly because monks and INA are found in the core books, and the core books (and logic) should be sufficient to resolve the question. Partly because I don't think the question is any clearer than it is for monks and INA.
My diagnosis of the problem of the Yes side is that they are considering the effect of INA to be of the form "If X then Y, otherwise Z" where X are the prerequisites of the feat, and Y is the enhancement to natural weapons. They assimilate the whole "if then" statement of the prerequisites into the effect, which I guess is understandable because a lot of feats have effects that are conditional. But prerequisites are conditionals for gaining the feat, not for using its benefit, and thus the Yes side is making a mistake.
Unless I am mistaken in my diagnosis, that is.
But for a while last night I had changed my mind on the question, and it was because I was thinking of the feat effect as if it had the prerequisites of the feat. The confusion is a very subtle one.
FoxWander
Adventurer
Precisely, the monk is a valid target before there is any effect on him.Hypersmurf said:
Let's say I'm a wizard, there is a monk and a mountain in front of me. I cast Magic Weapon. Now, if I touch the mountain the spell does nothing. The mountain is not a weapon and therefore cannot be affected by the spell- it is not a valid target. But if I touch the monk, he now has a +1 to hit and damage, because he IS a valid target. Monks unarmed strikes are considered to be manufactured weapons. They are always considered to be so, otherwise touching the monk with my Magic Weapon effect (remember- the spell, when cast, is only a potential effect to be passed on with my touch-- it does not affect the monk until I touch him) would not give him the benefit of the spell. To even be affected by the spell the monk MUST be a valid target.
In this sense, spell targetting DOES work like a prerequisite. You must be a valid target before a spell can be cast on you. This is why I stopped talking about Magic Fang and went to MW instead. MF's target of "living creature" was too broad to prove why monks are always considered to have manufactured/natural weapons. MW, on the other hand, has a target that, normally, NO human could qualify for. And yet the monk does qualify. To have the spell cast on him- to even be chosen as a target "when the spell is cast, which is when targets must be selected"-- the monk must BE a valid target prevenient to the spell affecting him.
In other words, a human monk, without ANY effect or spell on him which enhances or improves natural or manufactured weapons, is already considered to have both natural AND manufactured weapons in the form of his Monk Unarmed Strike. This is what makes a monk a valid target of the spell Magic Weapon and, I believe, allows him to meet the 'natural weapon' prereq of INA.
PS. please note that I admit this is slightly different from my earlier position in this discussion. Specifically that monk's qualify for INA because it's an effect that improves natural weapons, thus invoking NWE and qualifying the monk to take the feat. I have been convinced by the opposition (
) that this equates to 'putting the cart before the horse.' It really doesn't make sense that one could benefit from an effect before having the effect for the purpose of qualifying for that effect. (yes.... i think that made sense. and if you think so as well, then you too have probably spent too much time involved in this post. 
)However the main reason for my slightly different position is the evidence presented by Magic Weapon and how spell targetting works... as I've gone into above.
So what happens, exactly, when you cast a magic weapon on Joe Commoner? I know it doesn't work, but why?
The target is a weapon. Well, Joe Commoner can make an unarmed strike, even though he is not proficient, and will draw an attack of opportunity, and so on. Since you use your body to make an unarmed strike, the wizard can just touch Joe Commoner. If this notion is troublesome, maybe the wizard can touch Joe Commoner's fists. The spell resolves.
When the spell resolves, you have to determine the target. Done- Joe Commoner (or his fists). Now it comes time for the effect. The spell effect enhances a natural weapon, but doesn't find it. Worse, the spell says it cannot be cast on an unarmed strike. Which means that the target ("weapon") that we cast the spell on isn't valid. Hmmm. Does that mean the spell didn't resolve after all? It was cast, but it doesn't resolve until the wizard touches a weapon. If it turns out that the weapon wasn't a manufactured weapon, what happens? Does it "unresolve"?
I would think that the spell resolves, but fizzles for lack of a valid target. Does anyone think that the "cannot be cast on unarmed strikes" means that the spell does not resolve if a wizard touches a Joe Commoner's fists after casting the spell?
I think I'll stop here. If we know what happens in Joe Commoner's case, we can figure out exactly how (and when) things are different for Martin Monk.
The target is a weapon. Well, Joe Commoner can make an unarmed strike, even though he is not proficient, and will draw an attack of opportunity, and so on. Since you use your body to make an unarmed strike, the wizard can just touch Joe Commoner. If this notion is troublesome, maybe the wizard can touch Joe Commoner's fists. The spell resolves.
When the spell resolves, you have to determine the target. Done- Joe Commoner (or his fists). Now it comes time for the effect. The spell effect enhances a natural weapon, but doesn't find it. Worse, the spell says it cannot be cast on an unarmed strike. Which means that the target ("weapon") that we cast the spell on isn't valid. Hmmm. Does that mean the spell didn't resolve after all? It was cast, but it doesn't resolve until the wizard touches a weapon. If it turns out that the weapon wasn't a manufactured weapon, what happens? Does it "unresolve"?
I would think that the spell resolves, but fizzles for lack of a valid target. Does anyone think that the "cannot be cast on unarmed strikes" means that the spell does not resolve if a wizard touches a Joe Commoner's fists after casting the spell?
I think I'll stop here. If we know what happens in Joe Commoner's case, we can figure out exactly how (and when) things are different for Martin Monk.
Magic weapon, for those away from their books, has range of touch, target: weapon touched. Saving throw: Will negates (harmless, object). The text says
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.
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.
Patryn of Elvenshae
First Post
Borlon said:
The problem is that the extra text in this sentence is incorrect.
It's no different from:
"You can only eat citrus fruit, such as apples."
Storm Raven
First Post
Patryn of Elvenshae said:
No, it is the rules-as-written. The rules-as-written cannot be an incorrect statement of the rules-as-written unless errated. Therefore, the extra text in the sentence must be correct. Now, it is up to you to rationalize it with any perceived inconsistencies.
- Status
Similar Threads
D&D 3E/3.5
Homebrew Content
