Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Dimwhit]

Patryn, no offense, but I saw your proof elsewhere, and I didn't think it was at all correct. For what that's worth. I'd give it another read, but I have no idea where it is anymore and I'm too lazy to hunt it down. But I haven't really heard anything that supports the thinking that the feat isn't allowed. I'm open-minded (I think), but it just doesn't make sense.

Were you one of the ones using the 'feat isn't an effect' argument?

 

[Zandel]

And of course you (scion) are right.

PoE just because you can't see the truth of the rules or enough evidence to prove you wrong doesn't mean it isn't there. I came to this thread with the opinion that using human monks and INA was just wrong but i've wayed up all the rules and evidence and everything else and like it or not by the RAW scion is right. Personally i'm not sure i'd allow it in my game but by the RAW it is allowed.

 

[Scion]

Patryn, no offense, but I saw your proof elsewhere, and I didn't think it was at all correct. For what that's worth. I'd give it another read, but I have no idea where it is anymore and I'm too lazy to hunt it down. But I haven't really heard anything that supports the thinking that the feat isn't allowed. I'm open-minded (I think), but it just doesn't make sense.

Were you one of the ones using the 'feat isn't an effect' argument?

If I remember correctly he was useing the, 'monks unarmed strikes arent actually natural weapons and so do not meet the prereqs' arguement.

Which I find to be incredibly silly considering that the ability itself says that the monks unarmed strikes count as natural weapons for effects.

How one can reach 'counts as' does not mean 'counts as' I do not know.

 

[Hypersmurf]

How one can reach 'counts as' does not mean 'counts as' I do not know.

But "counts as a natural weapon for the purpose of effects that improve natural weapons" not meaning "counts as a natural weapon for the purpose of satisfying the prerequisites for a feat that improves natural weapons" is an easier one to see.

Whether one agrees with it or not is a separate issue, but a logical disconnect isn't as self-evident.

-Hyp.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

How one can reach 'counts as' does not mean 'counts as' I do not know.

A prerequisite is not an effect, even if (and this is still debatable) the feat for which it qualifies you is.

A monk can use the feat to improve his unarmed strike should he qualify to take the feat. A human monk does not qualify to take the feat (broadly speaking).

As far as "counts as," I presented to Scion and others an "effect" which was neither a feat nor a spell that improved a natural weapon. The monk's unarmed strike counts as natural weapon for purposes of that effect, and thus can be improved by that effect.

 

[Dimwhit]

But "counts as a natural weapon for the purpose of effects that improve natural weapons" not meaning "counts as a natural weapon for the purpose of satisfying the prerequisites for a feat that improves natural weapons" is an easier one to see.

Whether one agrees with it or not is a separate issue, but a logical disconnect isn't as self-evident.

-Hyp.

Magic Fang requires a natural weapon for it to be cast, yet a Monk can benefit. So it satifies the prereq for the spell (and many spells have prereqs, they just aren't listed as such like they are for feats). INA is a feat that requires a natural weapon for its effect to work. A Monk satisfies that, as well. It comes back to the are feats an effect argument.

 

[Scion]

But "counts as a natural weapon for the purpose of effects that improve natural weapons" not meaning "counts as a natural weapon for the purpose of satisfying the prerequisites for a feat that improves natural weapons" is an easier one to see.

Whether one agrees with it or not is a separate issue, but a logical disconnect isn't as self-evident.

No, I do not see the distinction.

If it counts as for a purpose then it counts as for that purpose.

I just dont see how it could count as being a natural weapon for a feat enough to get the benefit but not count enough to be counted as being a natural weapon in order to get the benefit.

The position is completely illogical in my eyes. Which means I have a very hard time feeling that it is a serious arguement.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Magic Fang requires a natural weapon for it to be cast,

Incorrect. Note the target line of the Magic Fang spell.

Magic Fang
Transmutation
Level: Drd 1, Rgr 1
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Living creature touched
Duration: 1 min./level
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless)
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless)

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.)
Magic fang can be made permanent with a permanency spell.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

No, I do not see the distinction.

If it counts as for a purpose then it counts as for that purpose.

And there are two purposes here. Your inability to see this is "completely illogical in my eyes."

The position is completely illogical in my eyes. Which means I have a very hard time feeling that it is a serious arguement.

Fortunately, I don't depend upon your "feelings" when discussing the rules.

 

[Dimwhit]

A prerequisite is not an effect

Yeah, this just baffles me. Of course a prereq isn't an effect. It isn't anything! Saying the feat requires a natural weapon (i.e. as a prereq) is the same as saying Magic Fang must be cast on a natural weapon (which is another way of refering to a prereq, as I mention above).

I don't understand how a prereq not being an effect has anything to do with this argument.