Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[FireLance]

AHA! Determining that is an integral part of the EFFECT, but the EFFECT is not an integral part of the DETERMINING. So by a very literal (and admittedly pedantic) reading, no, the DETERMINING is not an effect, and as such, he is not a dwarf for the purposes of the determining. Of course, we're splitting hairs, but this is how I read the rules taken literally.

As long as we recognize we are splitting hairs, here . My particular hair-split is that since the determining is part of the effect, anything that affects the effect also affects the determining.

She did not say it...

He, by the way.

 

[moritheil]

As long as we recognize we are splitting hairs, here . My particular hair-split is that since the determining is part of the effect, anything that affects the effect also affects the determining.
He, by the way.

Ah, sorry. It's past 6am here.

Let me put it another way. You agree that the determining is part of the effect, and not the effect. A similar situation is: my tires are part of my car. However, they are not themselves a car. I do not put a lisence plate on my tires.

You state that "anything that affects the effect also affects the determining." But what we have here is that the effect is not what is affected; it is what is effected! The affect should be a result of him qualifying, not the other way around.

I.e. the dwarven thrower rules state that:

IF the guy is dwarven
THEN (bonus damage effect happens.)

You seem to be stating that:
THEN (bonus damage effect)
Therefore the guy is dwarven.

But this seems backwards to me.

If you wanted to state that the IF portion was an effect, I would agree that he would qualify as dwarven. That is, if the act of the dwarven warhammer checking to see if the guy is dwarven is ITSELF an "effect," which is possible, then the guy counts as dwarven, because it is an effect.

Hence my asking whether or not you considered the checking itself to be its own effect.

 

[FoxWander]

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.

Ok, I REALLY don't want to get into a "I said, you said" argument but I have to point that I DID mention the "being part of you" bit- I just didn't underline it. If you'll re-read my original post the first sentence of the first quote has the "part of you" bit.

Anyway, that's besides the point... I shouldn't have bothered in the first place because I knew the iterative attacks part of that definition would throw the whole thing off. Of course I didn't expect it to draw comparisons to using your own children as "natural weapons", because that's just an inconceivably bizarre argument to make.

So here are two quick arguments for "unarmed strikes ARE natural weapons"...

Imbuing natural weapons: The process for imbuing a kensai's natural weapons (such as his fists)...

See: fists -- natural weapons.

And here's an even simpler one, perhaps THE simplest...
UNARMED STRIKES ARE LISTED ON THE WEAPONS TABLE!!!!!!

 

[FoxWander]

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.
-Hyp.

Emphasis my own, of course. Hyp- I really don't understand the difference you are trying to qualify with these two statements. How does 'being' an effect vs. 'granting' an effect matter for the purpose of monks and INA?

A monk's unarmed strikes are considered natural weapons for the purpose of spells or effects that enhance or improve natural weapons. INA both grants and is an effect that improves natural weapons, therefore a monk's unarmed strikes are considered natural weapons for this purpose, thus fulfilling the "natural weapon" prerequisite for the feat and allowing monk's, with a +4 BAB as well, to take the feat. All that seems quite clear to me. How does "granting" the effect vs. "being" the effect change how it applies to monks?

If "granting" an effect made a difference then monks could not benefit from, say, a potion of Magic Fang. The potion is not a spell it is (per the SRD) "a magic liquid that produces its effect when imbibed" and so must go the 'effect' route to benefit a monk. Clearly the potion "grants" an effect (that effect being a +1 to natural weapons) rather than "being" the effect, but I doubt anyone would dispute that a monk benefits from drinking it.

What am I missing in your "grants" vs. "is" argument?

 

[glass]

Ok, I REALLY don't want to get into a "I said, you said" argument but I have to point that I DID mention the "being part of you" bit- I just didn't underline it. If you'll re-read my original post the first sentence of the first quote has the "part of you" bit.

Ah yes, it was in you SRD quote, my apologies.

Anyway, that's besides the point... I shouldn't have bothered in the first place because I knew the iterative attacks part of that definition would throw the whole thing off.

If you already knew that iterative attacks 'would throw the whole thing off', why did you and do you persist in arguing that they are.

So here are two quick arguments for "unarmed strikes ARE natural weapons"...

Imbuing natural weapons: The process for imbuing a kensai's natural weapons (such as his fists)...

See: fists -- natural weapons.

Your fists can be a natural weapon (if say, you have a slam attack). That doesn't make unarmed strikes a natural weapon, although I do agree the wording could be better.

And here's an even simpler one, perhaps THE simplest...
UNARMED STRIKES ARE LISTED ON THE WEAPONS TABLE!!!!!!

The simplest way to torpedo your own point. Yes they are listed on the weapon table with all the manufactured weapons, because they are treated as manufactured weapons for (almost) all purposes.


glass.

 

[glass]

Emphasis my own, of course. Hyp- I really don't understand the difference you are trying to qualify with these two statements. How does 'being' an effect vs. 'granting' an effect matter for the purpose of monks and INA?

Au contraire, in the opinion of most of those arguing in this thread (on both sides) it is at the very heart of the argument.

A monk's unarmed strikes are considered natural weapons for the purpose of spells or effects that enhance or improve natural weapons. INA both grants and is an effect that improves natural weapons, therefore a monk's unarmed strikes are considered natural weapons for this purpose, thus fulfilling the "natural weapon" prerequisite for the feat and allowing monk's, with a +4 BAB as well, to take the feat. All that seems quite clear to me. How does "granting" the effect vs. "being" the effect change how it applies to monks?

If "granting" an effect made a difference then monks could not benefit from, say, a potion of Magic Fang. The potion is not a spell it is (per the SRD) "a magic liquid that produces its effect when imbibed" and so must go the 'effect' route to benefit a monk. Clearly the potion "grants" an effect (that effect being a +1 to natural weapons) rather than "being" the effect, but I doubt anyone would dispute that a monk benefits from drinking it.

What am I missing in your "grants" vs. "is" argument?

All of it, basically. In your potion example, the potion provides the effect ('grants' if you like), which is an effect which enhances or improved natural weapons. Therefore the monk benefits from it, just like it would benefit from INA if it had it.

However, what if the monk couldn't drink the potion for some reason? (maybe it is of an exotic rece that does not drink). Obviously it would still be eligable for the potions effects, but that is irrelevant if it can't drink the potion.

Those of us on the 'No' side of the argument believe that not having a mouth for the purposes of drinking potions and not having a natural weapon for the purposes of taking INA are analogous. In either case, the fact that you could benefit from it is irrelevant.

The reason the 'grants' verses 'is' argument is significant is that if a feat is 'an effect that enhances natural weapons' (as opposed to granting/providing/having 'an effect that enhances natural weapons'), then it is possible to argue that the prerequisite of the feat are also part of the 'an effect that enhances natural weapons', and the monks ability allows him to take the feat.

Is that a fair summary, everyone?

FWIW, I personally don't believe it follows. Even if the feat as a whole is 'an effect that enhances natural weapons' (which I don't believe it is), I don't believe the feat's prerequisites necesarily are.




glass.

 

[Artoomis]

That's the fundamental problem. Suppose I have arcade tokens. They count as money for the purposes of paying for games. They do not count as money for the purposes of paying, say, my taxes. So they are not really money, they just sometimes can be used as money, when in the arcade. Does this make sense?

Ah, but if the prerequisite was "money" to get into the Arcade and "tokens" count as "money" for the purposes of paying for arcade games, you gain admission by presenting "tokens" because they count as "money."

A very nice analogy. Thank you.

In FFTA, the "swordbreaker" weapon grants a thief the "Steal Weapon" ability.

My character is a thief. He can therefore benefit from the swordbreaker.

But, I can't buy the swordbreaker early in the game. I only run across it being wielded by enemies.

If I could only GET the swordbreaker, I could benefit from it and gain the "Steal Weapon" ability. Alas, I cannot get the ability, because I cannot get the swordbreaker. Getting the swordbreaker would mean that I would have to steal the weapon from an enemy, and I do not have the Steal Weapon ability.

I am "cleared" for the benefit of the ability if I have the Thief job. However, it's a moot point, because I lack the means to obtain the swordbreaker.

Is it obvious, in THIS example at least, how it is conceptually possible to benefit from something and yet be unable to attain it?

I never argued against that. I argue that when an ability is situational, than the presence or lack of that ability (or characteristic, if you prefer) can ONLY be determined in context.

PC: I'd like to take the INA feat. I have BAB +4 now.
DM: Does your monk have a natural weapon?
PC: Are you asking in the context of an effect that enhances natural weapons?
DM: No, only as a prerequisite.
PC: Um... prerequisite for what? I cannot answer yes or no to your question without knowing the context in which the monk would be using his special attack.
DM: The context is qualifying as having a natural weapon.
PC: Again, I have to know the total context. If it is in the context of qualifying for an effect that will grant a enhancement to a natural attack, then yes, my monk has a natural weapon.

Now here are possible scenarios that take it from there:

1. DM: Hmmm.. the prerequisite is for getting an effect that only enhances a natural weapon, so I guess that's the context and you have a natural weapon and may take INA.

2. DM: The context does not matter, either you have a natural weapon or you do not. Since your monk doe not have a natural weapon for all purposes, you fail to meet the prerequisites and cannot take INA.

I think number 2 is ludicrous, as it ignores context completely when the "have a natural weapon" characterstic of a monk is completely context-driven.

Now, assuming number 1, here’s a possible scenario for the fictional "Improved Improved Natural Attack" that also grants a Natural Armor bonus.

3. DM: Hmmm… the prerequisite is for getting an effect that enhances a natural weapon AND grants a natural armor bonus. Since you have a natural weapon for the purpose of an effect that enhances a natural weapon and do not have a natural weapon for the purpose of an effect that enhances a natural armor, I'm going to rule you do not qualify as qualifying would grant you an effect that your character is not entitiled to have.

Context is everything for situational characteristics such as a monk having natural weapons.

 

[Borlon]

A monk's unarmed strikes are considered natural weapons for the purpose of spells or effects that enhance or improve natural weapons. INA both grants and is an effect that improves natural weapons, therefore a monk's unarmed strikes are considered natural weapons for this purpose, thus fulfilling the "natural weapon" prerequisite for the feat and allowing monk's, with a +4 BAB as well, to take the feat. All that seems quite clear to me. How does "granting" the effect vs. "being" the effect change how it applies to monks?

If "granting" an effect made a difference then monks could not benefit from, say, a potion of Magic Fang. The potion is not a spell it is (per the SRD) "a magic liquid that produces its effect when imbibed" and so must go the 'effect' route to benefit a monk. Clearly the potion "grants" an effect (that effect being a +1 to natural weapons) rather than "being" the effect, but I doubt anyone would dispute that a monk benefits from drinking it.

What am I missing in your "grants" vs. "is" argument?

When you cast magic fang two conditions have to satisfied for the creature to get the benefit. One, it has to be a living creature, and two, it has to have a natural weapon. These two conditions are different. A creature has to be alive to be a valid target, but you can cast the spell on a living creature that lacks a natural weapon. A druid might cast it on herself, and then wildshape into a bear, for instance; at the moment the spell is cast it has no effect, but the effect kicks in when a natural weapon is acquired by wildshaping. You can't cast it on an zombie (even one that has natural weapons) because undead aren't alive. Even if you used a wish to restore the wolf to life, the magic fang spell would still be wasted; you have to bring the wolf back to life first, then cast magic fang.

In other words, the magic fang checks its target once to see if it is an eligible recipient of the spell; then it checks continuously to see if it is an eligible recipient of the spell effect. It checks to see if the target is alive, and then it checks for natural weapons. If the first check is failed, the spell fails. If the second check fails, the spell hangs around and waits to see if the subject of the spell acquires some natural weapons.

Look at the INA feat. There are also two conditions it checks. First it checks to see if the creature has a natural weapon; if the creature doesn't have a natural weapon, it can't take the feat. This is a continuous check; just like a creature could have a strength penalty that prevents them from benefiting from power attack, so too could a creature stop benefiting from INA if it stopped having a natural weapon. The second check is to see if the creature has a natural weapon; if it does, they are enhanced.

See the possibility for confusion? The two conditions for magic fang are satisfied in different ways. The first condition of magic fang is satisfied by the target being alive, the second by the target having natural weapons. In the case of INA, the first condition is the same as the second condition, and it is very tempting to think of them as one condition. But they are resolved separately.

The RAW, it is argued, says that there is an exception for monks that allow them to be treated as having natural weapons, but only when the second condition is checked. The RAW, it is argued, are silent about the first condition, and so the monk's unarmed attack is treated normally, as a manufactured weapon. The fact that the second condition is satisfied means nothing; a zombie wolf has a natural weapon, and so satisfies the second condition of magic fang but it does not satisfy the first condition of magic fang, and so the spell doesn't work.

Similarly a monk satisfies the second condition of INA; when the feat looks to enhance a natural weapon, it is satisfied by the monk's unarmed attack. But it is argued that the first condition is not satisfied by the monk's unarmed attack. Why? Because the special rule about monks' unarmed attacks counting as natural weapons applies only to spells and effects that enhance those attacks. And meeting the first condition doesn't enhance the natural attacks, only the second one does. Remember the druid that casts magic fang on herself; being a living creature makes her an eligible target, but doesn't provide any benefit. Satisfying the first condition doesn't provide any benefit, only the second one does. So only the second condition treats the monk as having a natural weapon, not the first.

Hypersmurf's example of an associate membership card to an exclusive club is a good one. If you are a full member (or accompanied by a full member) you can enter the club, and you can use your card to get cheap drinks. But the card doesn't get you in the door.

The question about human monks and INA is whether they can "get in the door." We agree that they could "get cheap drinks" once they were in, but we are saying that their card won't gain them admission. The card satisfies the bartender that they should be treated as members, but it doesn't satisfy the bouncer. And if the bouncer is not satisifed, they won't even see the bartender.

With INA the "associate membership card" is the rule that a monk's unarmed attack is treated as a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance natural weapons. Those beneficial effects are the cheap drinks, and the benefit part of the feat is the bartender. But the card doesn't satisfy the bouncer (the prerequisite part of the feat), and so they don't get the effects; they don't even see the bartender.

For magic fang the bouncer checks to see if the target is a living creature; the bouncer is the target line of the spell. The effect line of the spell checks to see if the target has natural weapons; that's the bartender, and the drinks are the bonus that magic fang provides. But you don't get to see the bartender or get any drinks unless you pass the bouncer.

For INA, the argument goes, a human monk can't get past the bouncer, so no drinks.

This is the argument if the INA feat grants effects, rather than *is* an effect.

If INA *is* an effect, then the argument is much simpler. INA enhances a monk's unarmed attacks, and so it treats monks as having natural weapons. It is like having a trial membership in the club. Even though you haven't paid your dues, you are treated as a full member; the bouncer lets you in, and the bartender gives you cheap drinks. Monks are treated as having natural weapons for the purposes of INA, and so a human monk can take the feat as soon as the BAB prerequisite is satisfied.

The argument is then whether the rule about a monk's unarmed attacks etc. is like an associate membership card (that doesn't get you past the bouncer) or like a trial membership card (which does). The rule will be like an associate membership card if INA grants effects, and it will be like a trial membership if INA is an effect.

So that's how "grants" and "is" are different, and why the difference is important.

 

[glass]

PC: I'd like to take the INA feat. I have BAB +4 now.
DM: Does your monk have a natural weapon?
PC: Are you asking in the context of an effect that enhances natural weapons?
DM: No, only as a prerequisite.
PC: Um... prerequisite for what? I cannot answer yes or no to your question without knowing the context in which the monk would be using his special attack.
DM: The context is qualifying as having a natural weapon.
PC: Again, I have to know the total context. If it is in the context of qualifying for an effect that will grant a enhancement to a natural attack, then yes, my monk has a natural weapon.

Since I posted a reasonable fictional conversation in response to you first unreasoable one, continuing to post further unreasonable fictional conversation does will not prove that the IAN-No rule is unreasonable. And even if the rule is unreasonable, that doesn't preclude it from being the rule.

Now here are possible scenarios that take it from there:

1. DM: Hmmm.. the prerequisite is for getting an effect that only enhances a natural weapon, so I guess that's the context and you have a natural weapon and may take INA.

2. DM: The context does not matter, either you have a natural weapon or you do not. Since your monk doe not have a natural weapon for all purposes, you fail to meet the prerequisites and cannot take INA.

3. DM: The context matters. Does the ability say you have a natural weapon for the purposes of meeting prerequisites? No? Then you don't have a natural weapon for the purposes of meeting prerequisites even though you have one for the purposes of effects.


glass.

 

[Borlon]

Even if the feat as a whole is 'an effect that enhances natural weapons' (which I don't believe it is), I don't believe the feat's prerequisites necesarily are.

I am uneasy about the feat as a whole being considered an effect. An effect of leveling up. I wouldn't dispute the fact that INA enhances natural weapons, though. I take it, then, that you share my discomfort with taking feats as effects. Could you share the reasons for your discomfort? I haven't been able to get beyond the feeling stage, myself, and I can't find solid (or even tenuous) arguments for feats not being effects.

The arguments Hypersmurf raises about racial prerequisites have caught my attention. A half-orc is considered an orc for all effects that involve race, but some feats list "orc or half-orc" as the prerequisite, and others list "orc" as pre-requisite. Suggesting that a feat's racial prerequisites are not an effect involving race. The application to INA is pretty clear; if "counts as X" doesn't satisfy the prerequiste "must have/be X" then a monk's unarmed attack can count as a natural weapon, but won't satisfy a prerequiste that demands a natural weapon.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, though. Perhaps you have different reasons for thinking that a feat could treat a monk as having a natural weapon, but not the feat's prerequisites.