Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Hypersmurf]

Essentially, you are given a free membership.

No, I'm not. I'm given free drinks, as if I were a member, but I'm not a member for purposes of entry to the bar. Once I'm in the bar, I can benefit from the privilege of membership, but I'm not considered a member for the step of actually getting inside.

Once I am subject to an effect that improves or enhances natural weapons, my unarmed strike can benefit from it... but they aren't considered natural weapons for anything preceding that.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

...Once I am subject to an effect that improves or enhances natural weapons, my unarmed strike can benefit from it... but they aren't considered natural weapons for anything preceding that.

-Hyp.

That might make some sense if the feat did ANYTHING other than that for which a monk qualifies as having a natural weapon.

About my bar comment - that appled only to my modified (and more correct, if still imperfect) analogy.

 

[Hypersmurf]

That might make some sense if the feat did ANYTHING other than that for which a monk qualifies as having a natural weapon.

Being a member does two things. It allows you to get to the barman, and get free drinks from him.

Having a natural weapon does two things. It allows you to qualify for INA, and it allows you to apply INA's benefit to improve your natural weapon.

My associate membership card counts as a membership for the purpose of getting free drinks, but it doesn't count as a membership for the purpose of getting to the barman.

My unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon for the purpose of effects that improve natural weapons, but it doesn't count as a natural weapon for the purpose of acquiring something that grants such an effect.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

...My unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon for the purpose of effects that improve natural weapons, but it doesn't count as a natural weapon for the purpose of acquiring something that grants such an effect.

-Hyp.

Ah, but it does when the "something that grants such an effect" does NOTHING ELSE but grant that effect. In such a case the distinction between getting the effect and acquiring something that grants such an effect becomes meaningless.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Ah, but it does when the "something that grants such an effect" does NOTHING ELSE but grant that effect. In such a case the distinction between getting the effect and acquiring something that grants such an effect becomes meaningless.

That's where we disagree.

-Hyp.

 

[Legildur]

You forget that folks can vote for more than one thing and the total voters was 120. 120 - (29+71) = 120 - 100 leaving only 20 votes for "Yes" or "No" unaccounted for.

That means, at most, 49 folks would have voted "No" had everone voted "Yes" or "No." A clear majority for "Yes," (71) for whatever that's worth.

Does that make sense now?

Ahhhh, I see the light (actually, I'm too lazy to revisit it personally, but I see the sense in your argument)! Thanks to both you and Rystil Arden. I concede, your maths-shui is superior to mine So, roughly speaking, a 2:1 majority. Still don't make it right

(and I missed the part where people could vote for more than one option.... stupid poll :\ )

 

[Artoomis]

That's where we disagree.

-Hyp.

I guess so.

I'd be more inclined to your point of view if the feat granted, say, a natural armor bonus as well. In that case, I think that the prerequisite would NOT be met (maybe) - the argument gets MUCH more interesting then.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I'd be more inclined to your point of view if the feat granted, say, a natural armor bonus as well. In that case, I think that the prerequisite would NOT be met (maybe) - the argument gets MUCH more interesting then.

While I can see (and disagree with) Scion's interpretation, I can't see how this one works.

Either both feats are effects that improve a natural weapon (as Scion maintains) - in which case the monk qualifies for both Improved Natural Attack, and your hypothetical Improved Improved Natural Attack with the armor bonus.

Or both feats grant an effect that improves a natural weapon (as I maintain) - in which case the monk qualifies for neither.

I can't see how it's possible to rule that the monk qualifies for Improved Natural Attack and yet does not qualify for Improved Improved Natural Attack.

-Hyp.

 

[glass]

A prerequisite is not a thing by itself, it's what qualifies you to take a feat. If a monk has a natural weapon for the purpose of reaping the benefits of INA, then they must be meeting the prerequisite of having a natural weapon.

Do you not see the problems with 'A prerequisite is not a thing by itselft, it's...'? Either a prerequisite is something, or it's not. And if it's not something, it doesn't exist and can't be used to qualify you for anything.


glass.

 

[glass]

Since swords are NOT "physically a part of a creature" (see the first sentence of the "natural weapon" definition) then they are NOT natural weapons, and thus, obviously, do not qualify for INA. However, a monk's fists/elbows/knees/feet are clearly "physically a part of" him and so DO fit the definition thus qualifying for INA.

You never mention being part of you, first time around. You said natural weapons threatened and could attack with provoking an AoO, so I pointed out (slightly facetiously) that the same was true of manufactured weapons.

So the analogy should be: (coming from a monk or person with IUS feat) My fists are part of me, I am considered to be armed with them and don't provoke AoO when I attack with them. Natural weapons are part of a creature, make that creature to be considered armed and don't provoke AoO when used to attack. My fists are natural weapons.

This makes more sense, but unfortunately it is still wrong. Unarmed strikes are explicitly not the same as natural weapons, whether you have IUS or not.


glass.