Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Scion]

a prerequisite is not an effect in and of itself

This is the part that I feel you have no basis in the RAW. Which means that the arguement fails on step one.

You have not shown that the prereq needs to be an effect, or that it even exists in some metaphysical realm outside of the feat itself, or that somehow even though one could qualify for the feat enough by having something that counts as a natural weapon for it (by feats being effects so the unarmed strike qualifies) that you cannot qualify to meet that very feats prereqs.

Pink bunnies.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Nice try.

I thought so.

The prereq doesn't NEED to be an effect.

I disagree. It absolutely must be an effect if the monk wants to use his special monk ability to treat his unarmed strike as a natural weapon to qualify for the feat. His special ability only works for certain effects, so if it isn't an effect, it doesn't work at all.

For the effect of Magic Fang to manifest, it does require a natural weapon. Yes, you can cast it on anyone, but you only get the benefit if you have a natural weapon.

Or, oddly enough, have a special ability that lets you treat your unarmed strike as a natural weapon for purposes of spells or effects that improve natural weapons.

Which the monk has.

That's why a human monk could benefit from the INA feat, if he could take it.

I'd bet you anything it would have a prereq of needing a natural weapon. Again, though, it's not the best example.

At which point the monk could no longer take the feat.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

You have not shown that the prereq needs to be an effect

I don't need to. The monk's ability requires it to be an effect:

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.

If a prerequisite is not an effect and it is not a spell, then a monk's unarmed strike does not count as a natural weapon for purposes thereof.

The onus is not on me to prove that prereqs are not effects. It is upon you to prove that they are. Something that, as far as the RAW are considered, I doubt you'll be able to do.

You could claim (and have!) that "Prereqs and feats are all part of the same package," but then you're on metaphysical ground that is just as shaky as mine.

 

[Scion]

I don't need to. The monk's ability requires it to be an effect:

You dont need to prove that the prereq is a seperate entity than the feat?

Why not? your entire arguement is hinged on that.

Without that little bit of info your arguement means the same as the pink bunnies.

The feat qualifies as an effect. So for all parts of that feat the monks ability qualifies. All parts, such as the prereqs.

The 'prereqs are not effects' simply means nothing. The prereqs mean nothing except in context of how they are used. They are used in the feat. The feat counts as a prereq therefore the monk can take it and he qualifies.

The onus is not on me to prove that prereqs are not effects.

You are making the claim that they are somehow disseperate entities.

So yes, the burden of proof lies on your shoulders.

You could claim (and have!) that "Prereqs and feats are all part of the same package," but then you're on metaphysical ground that is just as shaky as mine.

Unless of course we read the rules:

FEAT NAME [TYPE OF FEAT]
Prerequisite: A minimum ability score, another feat or feats, a minimum base attack bonus, a minimum number of ranks in one or more skills, or a class level that a character must have in order to acquire this feat. This entry is absent if a feat has no prerequisite. A feat may have more than one prerequisite.
Benefit: What the feat enables the character (“you” in the feat description) to do. If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.
In general, having a feat twice is the same as having it once.
Normal: What a character who does not have this feat is limited to or restricted from doing. If not having the feat causes no particular drawback, this entry is absent.
Special: Additional facts about the feat that may be helpful when you decide whether to acquire the feat.

This is what a feat is. The entire body makes up the feat. You cannot take away one part and have it still be the same feat.

After all, this is the basic feat entry.


Until then though, pink bunnies.

 

[Legildur]

<snip> Further discussion seems like it will be rather unproductive, so why don't we agree to disagree?

Probably the most sensible line about this topic that I've read across the now locked thread and the two poll theads.

It seems pretty darn clear to me that there are a core of people on both sides of the discussion that can't be swayed either way and many pages of posts don't seem to achieving a great deal now. Which is a shame, as I would like to see a final agreed position in this (even the poll results are not sufficiently conclusive for my liking).

Personally, I don't think that a human monk qualifies for INA for all the reasons already flagged, but, for me, it is mainly because it is in the MM and not in the PHB, that monks already get a progression of their unarmed strike, and that the 3.0e of Oriental Adventures required a significantly longer feat chain to obtain the Empty Hand Mastery (?) style.

That being said, I can see a certain logic on the 'for' side of the argument, and now the FAQ (for what it is worth) supports that view, and so wouldn't blink if a DM either allowed it or disallowed it.

 

[Dimwhit]

If a prerequisite is not an effect and it is not a spell, then a monk's unarmed strike does not count as a natural weapon for purposes thereof.

Man, that's just...wow. I don't know how else to explain it. The feat is the effect. The prereq is simply the state of being needed before the effect of the feat can be reached. A monk's unarmed attack qualifies as a natural weapon for the feat.

It's like Power Attack. You must have a STR 13 to take it. In other words, you must be 'this strong' to take it. That 13 STR isn't an effect...it's nothing. Just the prereq necessary. The state of being.

You're giving prereqs a quality that just doesn't exist.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

It's like Power Attack. You must have a STR 13 to take it. In other words, you must be 'this strong' to take it. That 13 STR isn't an effect...it's nothing. Just the prereq necessary. The state of being.

Similarly, that "natural weapon" isn't an effect ... it's nothing. Just the prereq necessary. The state of being. The one a human doesn't have.

 

[Dimwhit]

Similarly, that "natural weapon" isn't an effect ... it's nothing. Just the prereq necessary. The state of being. The one a human doesn't have.

Except for the Monk that needs it to qualify for a feat or other effect that requires natural weapons. See, you're coming around!

EDIT: I worded that poorly.

Exept for the Monk, which qualifies as having a natural weapon for effects that require one, like this feat.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Except for the Monk that needs it to qualify for a feat or other effect that requires natural weapons. See, you're coming around!

Err, no, I'm not. I'm saying that I don't think your line argument is productive in forcing me to come around.

A monk's unarmed strike qualifies as a natural weapon only for purposes of spells or effects. Nothing else.

By your arguments, a feat's prerequisite is not an effect - it's not anything! Ergo, a monk's unarmed strike does not qualify as a natural weapon for purposes of a feat's prerequisites.

Therefore, a human monk does not meet the prerequisites of the INA feat. Therefore, he cannot take the feat.

 

[Zandel]

Personally, I don't think that a human monk qualifies for INA for all the reasons already flagged, but, for me, it is mainly because it is in the MM and not in the PHB, that monks already get a progression of their unarmed strike, and that the 3.0e of Oriental Adventures required a significantly longer feat chain to obtain the Empty Hand Mastery (?) style.

Once again that's like saying a wizard doesn't qualify for Craft Construct just because of the book it's in (a monster manual) and that's just dam TFU if you ask me.

-