Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Pinotage]

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."

The RAW incorrect? Really?

Pinotage

 

[Borlon]

Magic fang and magic weapon seem to focus on the material that their targets are made of. If it is natural born flesh and blood, it is a natural weapon. If it is hand crafted metal and wood, it is a manufactured weapon. But if a giant tears off a monk's arm and hits him with it, it is treated by the rules as an improvised manufactured weapon.

I think magic weapon could have been better written. Would it have killed them to write "target: manufactured weapon touched"?

edit: if we are going to be talking about magic weapon, let's have the text on the same page:

Magic Weapon
Transmutation
Level: Clr 1, Pal 1, Sor/Wiz 1, War 1
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Weapon touched
Duration: 1 min./level
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless, object)
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless, object)
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.

 

[Lamoni]

The doorman shakes his head and says "That's a drink coupon. It's good at the effects bar, but show me where it says it is good for admission."

The monk is silent for a moment, then shakes his head and steps aside so the lizard man (who is next in line) can go in.

I apologize if this was already responded to. I have to run to class and I didn't have time to finish reading the rest of the posts.

However, if the Monk's ability doesn't meet requirements, then WHAT GOOD IS IT? It is only good for effects that improve natural weapons that DON'T require you to have natural weapons? Tell me one thing that improves a natural weapon without a natural weapon to improve. Magic Fang is brought up. Well, you can cast it on someone without a natural weapon, but it sure doesn't improve their natural weapon UNLESS THEY HAVE ONE.

The whole point of the Monk's ability is that it qualifies for any effect that REQUIRES a natural weapon. Entrance to the bar requires a natural weapon. The monk doesn't have a natural weapon. But he DOES have one if it improves natural weapons. The ability is ONLY for overcoming prerequisites.

To go one step further. We already established (maybe not established, but several people agreed) that prerequisite was an English word with an English meaning and not a D&D term. Anything that is required to have before you can enjoy a benefit is a prerequisite to that benefit. It may be listed explicitly under the heading prerequisites: or it may state that the effect improves your ability to wield a weapon. Having a weapon to wield is obviously a prerequisite to enjoying the benefit. So the monk's ability overcomes the prerequisites for spells like magic fang, and any other spell, potion, feat, or bonus you want to create that improves natural weapons. Of course, you could make a spell that could be cast on any creature that would improve their natural bite attack. In this case, the monk would qualify for the natural attack part, but not for the bite part so the spell would have no effect since the monk couldn't overcome the prerequisites... even though the spell didn't have the word prerequisites in bold.

 

[Artoomis]

...You can't cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang)...

This example, along with a number of others, shows that a fists and/or unarmed strikes and/or unarmed attacks are indeed considered natural weapons, but consider PHB page 139:

Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches...is much like attacking with a weapon, except for the following:...

and then goes on to talk about AoO, threatening, and subdual vs. real damage.

Taken as a whole, this means that humans, et. al., have natural weapons that are "special," that is, they are "natural weapons" but you get iterative attacks, etc., just like weapons, though you do not normally get AoOs, real damage or are "armed."

Thus, the rule about monks unarmed strike counting as a natural weapon and a manufactured weapon really is indeed only adding the category of "manufactured weapon" to the natural weapon of unarmed strike.

Wow!

A know this was stated earlier, but I am now convinced that this is truly the case and that this is the only way to reconcile ALL the rules that touch on natural weapons, fists, unarmed strikes and unarmed attacks.

I guess this would make the whole argument of effects and INA be moot as everyone (pretty much) can take INA, though it would be a sub-optimal feat for a non-monk human, to say the least.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The RAW incorrect? Really?

Pinotage

Yep - when it contradicts itself, we need to determine which definition is primary.

The primary place to find information about unarmed strikes *isn't* a spell description. It's the unarmed strikes description.

 

[Artoomis]

Yep - when it contradicts itself, we need to determine which definition is primary....

Or reconcile the two. Remember that unarmed attacks (or fists, or unarmed strikes) are referred to as natural weapons in numerous places.

 

[FoxWander]

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, ...

<snip>

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.

To figure out how the spell magic weapon affects Joe Commoner, you can stop reading your post right where I've snipped it.

Firstly, the spell's target is a weapon. Since the spell is explicitly differentiated from the spell magic fang (for natural weapons) we can pretty much stop quibbling over semantics and agree that, for magic weapon, "target: weapon touched" undoubtably implies "target: [manufactured] weapon touched." Since Joe Commoner IS NOT a manufactured weapon, and is also not considered a manufactured weapon and neither are his unarmed strikes, then he is NOT a valid target of the spell. The spell does not "resolve" when Joe is touched with it.

Secondly, aside from the "Target" aspect of the spell, the text also specifically states "You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike." Whether or not you agree with this implication that unarmed strikes "are" natural weapons, in either case this bit specifically says you can't cast the spell on Joe or his unarmed strikes.

That pretty much sums it up for Joe... no [manufactured] weapon, not a valid Target for the spell, and (if that by itself wasn't clear enough) the text goes on to say you can't cast it on him to begin with.

So that leaves us with Martin Monk. (nice how everything is getting a useful name or acronym here, really saves on repetitive typing. Can we add a +4 BAB to Martin so we can skip that specific call-out in discussing INA's prereqs?) My stance (as somewhat already stated) is that it's pretty much the opposite of Joe. By MWE, Martin is considered to have/be a manufactured weapon making him a prevenient valid target for the spell. And then of course there's the second sentence of the bit that killed it for Joe- "A monk’s unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell." And there's that phrasing again "monk’s unarmed strike is considered a weapon." An express implication of a static state- "...is considered a..." No reference to being a weapon merely because of an "effect which enhances or improves", just X is considered a Y.

 

[Borlon]

@FoxWander: I just want to get clear about Joe. Do you mean that the spell fizzles, or does it not resolve?

If it does not resolve, then the mage, after touching Joe, can touch a longsword the following round and the longsword will be enhanced. If it fizzles, the spell is wasted.

If it does not resolve, then why does it not resolve? If you cast charm person on someone who is not a person (a polymorphed succubus, say) the spell fails, and is wasted. Is it because it is delivered by touch?

Oh, and sure. Let's say Martin is 6th level and has a +4 BAB.

@Artoomis: so if someone asks the Sage or Customer Service whether humans have natural weapons, the answer will be an unambiguous yes?

I wonder if someone has done that. Is there a database of customer service answers, or is there just the FAQ? I've never actually asked a question of wizards customer service- is it easy? Do they get back to you quickly?

 

[Artoomis]

@FoxWander: I just want to get clear about Joe. Do you mean that the spell fizzles, or ...@Artoomis: so if someone asks the Sage or Customer Service whether humans have natural weapons, the answer will be an unambiguous yes?...

I expect the answer would be somewhat less than satisfactory even if the question pointed out places in the rules that seem to show it is a natural weapon and that show it is something other than a natural weapon (a third catgeory - manufactured weapon, natural weapon and unarmed attack). I suspect the answer would be ambigous and truly satisfy no one.

I think an unarmed attack is a special case natural weapon, as I stated above. It's like a manufactured weapon, but it's not. It's referred to in several places as being a natural weapon, but it's not really as it does not follow all the rules for one of those. Since it both is and is not a natural weapon, that makes it a special case, right?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

As for CW saying that human fists are natural weapons. I don't have my copy with me, but if it does in fact say that it is wrong. It contradicts the PHB, which is the primary source.

and additionally (from someone else):

The primary place to find information about unarmed strikes *isn't* a spell description. It's the unarmed strikes description.

Well, you're correct that the PHB is the primary source, and we all know the CW is only a set of optional rules, but the CW is the more recent formulation of the rules. Normally, that would indicate that its definitions supplant or clarify the older rules.

That aside, the CW doesn't contradict the PHB- it simply says "Unarmed attack: a melee attack made wtih no weapon in hand" (p314)- presumably meaning no mechanical weapon is being grasped by the attacker, especially in the light of the next entry- "Unarmed Strike: a successful blow, typically dealing non-lethal damage, from a character attacking without weapons. A monk can deal lethal damage with an undarmed strike, but others deal nonlethal damage." Finally On PHB p310, Natural Weapon is defined as "a creatrure's body part that deals damage in combat. Natural weapons include teeth, claws, horns, tails, and other appendages."

Nowhere in the PHB does it explicitly say that human fists are not natural weapons. Instead, some places list a "fist" as a natural weapon (Magic Fang PHB p250), and some places say things like "You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike..." (Magic Weapon PHB p251 and Align Weapon PHB p197).

Incidentally, the various definitions and lists of natural weapon also includes a teeth or a bite attack- which humans can also do (ask Evander Hollyfield)- they just aren't typically high-damage attacks.

But nowhere does it say that human fists or unarmed strikes are NOT natural weapons. If there were such a quote, someone surely would have posted it and reposted it several times.

Besides, simply saying "its wrong" doesn't make it so- give me a coherent rationale.

Then there are sections of text that seemingly distinguish between the two, such as:

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.

I think what we have going on in the rules is a case of "lawyer-speak."

To clarify: my Wills & Estate Professor once gave the class a 3 page section of an actual will (edited, of course) which he was able to pare down to a single paragraph. He did this largely by eliminating the synonyms and near-synonyms that the drafting lawyer had included in order to cover all of his bases, as in "X gifts, bequests, devises, leaves to...my children, offspring, progeny, descendants..." type language. Its all the same, but the lawyer felt that if he didn't "boiler-plate" his text, someone else will use the missing language in a legal challenge because it says "bequest" in one version of the probate code and "devise" in one little section that got replaced by subseqent legislation.

Its a crock, of course- probate judges understand that bequest = devise= gifts, etc.

In other words, the design team used "natural weapon" and "unarmed strike" without having clear working definitions for both, resulting in some conflicting sections of text when some drafters decided that "natural weapon = unarmed strike", some seemed to feel "natural weapon ≠ unarmed strike" (probably because a PC's unarmed strikes typically do non-lethal damage, whereas most natural weapons do lethal damage) and some probably felt that unarmed strikes were a special kind of natural weapon that required special rules.

As for the "effects" debate:

Under Damage PHB p134 you see "Effects that modify weapon damage apply to unarmed strikes and the natural physical attack forms of creatures." I'd read that as Strength bonuses, crits, sneak attacks, spells, damage reduction, and even feats.

But showing that magic weapon and magic fang both affect a monk's unarmed attack is only an illustration of the fact that for the purpose of spells, a monk's unarmed attack is counts both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon. It doesn't address the question of qualifying for feats because feats aren't mentioned in the rule (only spells and effects) and prerequisites aren't mentioned there either (except implicitly, the targetting conditions for spells- but that's because spells are specifically called out).

I know you weren't addressing me directly, but I'll say this- that was not MY purpose in citing those spells. I don't care much about the targeting, since both are, as has been pointed out, explicitly allowed to target the Monk. My point is that the body of the description of both spells define "natural weapons" in relevant ways- M.Fang includes "fist" in its list of natural weapons, and M. Weapon and Align Weapon state explicitly that an unarmed strike is a natural weapon.

IMHO, the only way to reconcile all of the various rules, spells, etc. dealing with unarmed strikes is to consider them a special subset of natural weapons. It is consistent with the PHB spells M. Fang/M. Weapon/Align Weapon; its consistent with the Monk and the Kensai; it explains why unarmed strikes have slightly variant rules from the bulk of natural weapons in the 2 weapon fighting rules (perhaps its meant to reflect martial training- my punches are significantly different from a black belt's).

If you rule that they are not, you negate the explicit text of several sections, both Core and optional- something I am loath to do.

+++

A Raging Damifino is one way of saying "Damn If I Know" with humor and emphasis.