Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Dimwhit]

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.

Right there, that's the problem. The unarmed strike 'qualifying as a natural weapon' for an effect is the same thing as saying it 'satisfies the prerequisite for' an effect. The two are the same thing. The Monk's unarmed attack (which qualifies as a natural weapon) is the same as the prereq. One doesn't lead to the other. It doesn't satisfy the prereq, it IS the prereq. I don't know how else to put it.

 

[Zandel]

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

This is a very interesting point that I seem to have missed along the line. I've always said that a monk could 'use' the feat but now there's the question of how he gets it........ now I can see polymorph self being useful here but what happens when the duration runs out?

With feats as soon as you no longer meet the prerqus you loose all benifits for them so theoretically if a human monk somehow got this feat he could only use it while under magic of some form to give him a natural weapon.......

I have to look into this further...

 

[IanB]

The big problem with this argument, as I see it, is that the 'human monks don't qualify but lizardfolk monks do' letter-of-the-law interpretation results in the least logical and satisfying of the three possibilities, which is to say, 'human monks can't take it, but lizardfolk monks can take it and apply it to unarmed monk attacks.' There is a decent argument to be made for this, as there is for allowing it, based on the description of the monk's unarmed strike.

The three possibilities I see:

1) All monks qualify and can take the feat and apply it to unarmed strikes.
2) Monks with other natural weapons can take the feat and turn around and apply it to their unarmed strike. Monks without natural weapons cannot take the feat.
3) No monks can apply the feat to unarmed strikes, regardless of whether or not they have natural weapons that qualify them to take the feat.

From a standpoint of logic and rules consistency, options 1 and 3 are clearly better rulings than option 2. Option 3 clearly is the weakest from a RAW standpoint, but possibly strongest if you consider the likely designer intent behind the feat (I highly doubt they considered monks when designing it.) Now, we also have a Sage ruling in favor of option 1.

The combination of being a cleaner, more logical rule, having a Sage ruling, and having a decently strong RAW argument (equally as strong as the argument in favor of 2 in my opinion, but not stronger) in favor of 1 would seem to be enough to make the 'default' rule on this pretty clear.

IMC, I think I will go with option 3 and happily call it a house rule.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Right there, that's the problem. The unarmed strike 'qualifying as a natural weapon' for an effect is the same thing as saying it 'satisfies the prerequisite for' an effect.

No, see, that's where I disagree. They aren't the same thing at all.

It doesn't satisfy the prereqs of an effect. It can act as a target of an effect that only works on natural weapons, however.

 

[Dimwhit]

No, see, that's where I disagree.

Yep, you're right.

At least I finally know where the exact conflict is. I could never figure it out before.

 

[Borlon]

As Zandel's post illustrates, it is possible to follow this debate for quite a while without quite "getting" what the disputed issue actually is.

That said, let me put my oar in.

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.

It seems to me there are two "effects" that are relevant to the discussion. One effect is the benefit of the INA feat. I read the FAQ clarification as stating that human monks can benefit from the INA feat. That seems straightforward, and I don't think anyone is disputing this. The issue is whether a monk's unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon for the purpose of meeting prerequisites. Whatever a prerequisite is, it does not seem to be an effect that enhances or improves a natural weapon.

The other "effect" is the INA feat itself. If it were an effect, then it would certainly (as a whole) enhance or improve a natural weapon, and so, if it were an effect, it would treat a monk as having a natural weapon. If the whole feat treats a monk as having a natural weapon, then all the parts of the feat should treat the monk as having a natural weapon. Even the prerequisites.

There are two main arguments advanced for a feat to be considered an effect. One is the prerequisite of the Improved Spell Resistance epic feat:

Prerequisite: Must have spell resistance from a feat, class feature, or other permanent effect.

The other argument is to say that acquiring a feat is a result (=effect) of leveling up. Since "effect" is a rather imprecise term, this may be a legitimate reading.

Consider Dimwhit's latest argument in the context of INA being an effect.

The unarmed strike 'qualifying as a natural weapon' for an effect is the same thing as saying it 'satisfies the prerequisite for' an effect.

Patryn of Elvenshae refusal to accept this principle stems, I think, from treating the "effect" as being the first kind of effect (the benefit of the feat) and not the second kind of effect (the feat itself). After all, it is certainly possible to benefit from an ability without satisfying the prerequisites required to actually acquire the ability.

In short, I think that if the INA has an effect that enhances a natural weapon, it does not seem that a human monk is eligible to take it. But if INA is an effect that enhances a natural weapon, a human monk would be eligible to take it.

At the moment I tend toward the latter view, but I have the utmost respect for Patryn of Elvenshae and the other proponents of the Nay side, and would very seriously consider any objections that might be raised to this position.

 

[Artoomis]

No, see, that's where I disagree. They aren't the same thing at all.

It doesn't satisfy the prereqs of an effect. It can act as a target of an effect that only works on natural weapons, however.

Now THIS I understand and takes one right back to whether this boosting of damage to the next larger size damage is an "effect" or not.

If it is, then the prerequisite is met. If it is not an "effect," then the prerequisite is not met. For if it is an "effect" then the monks attack can benefit from it.

Mind you, all feats do not need to be "effects" for a monk to qualify for INA, only the boosting of the damage in the manner of INA needs to be an effect for this to be true.

 

[Hypersmurf]

That said, let me put my oar in.

Yup - that's summed up the situation fairly well, I think.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Now THIS I understand and takes one right back to whether this boosting of damage to the next larger size damage is an "effect" or not.

If it is, then the prerequisite is met. If it is not an "effect," then the prerequisite is not met. For if it is an "effect" then the monks attack can benefit from it.

As Borlon explained, the two are not necessarily inextricably linked.

If the benefit of the INA feat is an effect that improves a natural weapon, the prerequisite is not met.
If the INA feat is an effect that improves a natural weapon, the prerequisite is met.

-Hyp.

 

[Dinkeldog]

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.

Honestly, I think INA wasn't in the PHB because it wasn't ready when the PHB went to print.