Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[glass]

I can give you one example where the "before" is implied. Something that we're all missing in all this talk about the monk's NWE- that they also have Manufactured Weapon Eqivalency. So here's Magic Weapon...

I take it that no one will argue that this spell cannot be cast on a Monk.

*raises hand* I will!

The spell's target is 'weapon touched'. A monk is not a weapon, so this spell certainly cannot be cast on a monk.

Whether you can cast it on a monk's unarmed strike depends on whether or not you have some way of targetting it. Since the monk's unarmed strike uses potentially his whole body, would just touching the monk be sufficient? I don't think it is, since anybody's unarmed strikes potentially use the whole body, so if that were a solution it would apply to everyone, not just monks.

I agree that the monks MWE ability is probably intended to allow (G)MW to target the monk's unarmed strikes, but as written it (arguably) doesn't.

PS. - And just as a side note, Magic Weapon throws another kink in the growing 'just what in the heck is a natural weapon' argument with this bit- "You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike..."

That is odd. But since spell descriptions are not the primary source for how unarmed strikes operate, it is simply a mistake in the writeup.trikes

 

[FoxWander]

*raises hand* I will!

The spell's target is 'weapon touched'. A monk is not a weapon, so this spell certainly cannot be cast on a monk.

And yet the spell clearly states that it CAN be cast on a monk. It even gives a reason, "A monk’s unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell."

This is not intended to be a "primary source" on how unarmed strikes operate, but merely how the spell Magic Weapon operates. And since the spell itself references the monk's MWE as the reason for why it operates on a monk, this can be a guideline on how MWE/NWE operates in similar situations.

Since pretty much the entire basis for the argument against monk's taking INA has been 'they can't meet the prereqs before they have the feat' I've provided an example of an effect that they DO meet the prereqs of (target: weapon touched), via MWE, before they "have" the effect. And since the fact that monk's DO qualify as a valid target (because of MWE) is explicitly stated in the spell(!) your statement that the spell "certainly cannot be cast on a monk" is, quite simply, wrong. And it's not me saying you're wrong, it's the RAW.

So- if monk's qualify for the prereqs, before the fact, of Magic Weapon via MWE...
then it follows that, since the circumstances with INA are essentially identical, that they qualify for the prereqs of INA before the fact as well, via NWE. And the RAW clearly support this conclusion.

 

[FireLance]

The effect of INA together with NWE makes the monk's unarmed attack count as a natural weapon. If INA has no effect, you are missing an essential ingredient in the recipe that makes the monk's unarmed attack count as a natural weapon.

Okay, things are getting a little clearer, now. I think the confusion arose because I never suggested that Improved Natural Attack makes the monk's unarmed strike into a natural weapon. I only argued that it would enhance it as if it was. To use FoxWander's magic weapon example, the spell enhances a monk's unarmed strike as if it was a manufactured weapon, but it doesn't turn it into a manufactured weapon.

Looking at the magic fang spell, we have another interesting bit of text:

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.)

I find it strange that the text mentions that it doesn't change an unarmed strike's damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage, almost as if an unarmed strike, even from someone without the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, was a natural weapon that could be affected by the spell. You'd think that they'd come right out and say that an unarmed strike can't be affected by magic fang since it isn't a natural weapon in the first place .

Anyway, it seems that a monk's unarmed strike is considered something very special. It can be affected by magic weapon, even if:
(1) it isn't a manufactured weapon; and
(2) magic weapon doesn't affect the unarmed strike of someone who isn't a monk, even if he has the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, since it isn't a manufactured weapon.

It can be affected by magic fang, even if:
(1) it isn't a natural weapon; and
(2) magic fang doesn't affect the unarmed strike of someone who isn't a monk, even if he has the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, since it isn't a natural weapon.

Improved Natural Attack isn't a spell, but since I consider it to be an effect, I'd feel comfortable enough reasserting the position that a monk can qualify to take it since his unarmed strike seems to be special enough to be treated as either a manufactured weapon or a natural weapon, as necessary.

 

[Borlon]

The monk's unarmed attack is considered a manufactured weapon for the purpose of spells and effects. Magic weapon is a spell. So for the purposes of magic weapon (including targetting) a monk's unarmed attack is a valid target.

The problem for the Yes side is that the weapon equivalency rule either says too much or too little. If it said "effects" instead of "spells and effects" then the fact that magic weapon and magic fang both work on monks would necessitate a very generous reading of "effects"- we would have to read it as meaning "effects and the causes of the effects" or "qualifying for effects" or "effects that enhance., etc. and their associated prerequisites" or something of the sort. And if it mentioned "feats" in addition to "spells and effects," and/or if the words "qualifying for" were in there somewhere, then the Yes side would be obviously correct.

But neither of these are the case. It has been argued that "feats" are a kind of effect, but I don't buy it. If only for the reason that a feat doesn't exist (and thus has/is no effect) before it is taken. And if it were an effect, then surely a spell is an effect too. If a spell is an effect too, why is it specifically mentioned? A successful argument showing that a feat is an effect would have to be such that you could not conclude that a spell is an effect, or the wording of the feat wouldn't make sense.

But showing that magic weapon and magic fang both affect a monk's unarmed attack is only an illustration of the fact that for the purpose of spells, a monk's unarmed attack is counts both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon. It doesn't address the question of qualifying for feats because feats aren't mentioned in the rule (only spells and effects) and prerequisites aren't mentioned there either (except implicitly, the targetting conditions for spells- but that's because spells are specifically called out). Prerequisites have to be separate from effects because a feat can't have an effect before it is taken, but it does have prerequisites that have to be satisfied before it is taken. So prerequisites have different properties than effects, so they can't be effects.

 

[Artoomis]

Well, the "Magic Weapon" does it for me and closes the door on any ambiguity, even.

1. Magic Weapon requires that a monk have a manufactured weapon BEFORE the spell can be cast.
2. Both Magic Weapon and the monk description the PHB clearly state that a monk's unarmed attack may be enhanced by Magic Weapon.

We now have a two sources (monk's class description and Magic Weapon spell) that clearly show how a monk's unarmed attack counts as a weapon to qualify for an spell (at the least) that enhances a manufactured weapon.

3. Since the monk description lumps together counting as a manufactured weapon and as a natural weapon into the same sentence, what is true for one must be true for the other at least as far as for when the unarmed strike counts as a weapon (manufactured or natural).

4. Given 1 thorugh 3, a monk's unarmed strike must count to meet the prerequisite for a natural weapon for INA (if it was a spell).

5. Finally, how is a spell different from an effect in this case? It looks like the same logic to me. In order to gain the benefit of the effect of the MW spell, a monk must FIRST have a manufactured weapon BEFORE the spell is cast. This looks like a direct analogy to the feat - before gaining the benefit of the effect of the feat a monk must have a natural weapon BEFORE taking the feat. IF one is true (and it is), then the other must also be true.

Case closed, right?

I am VERY interested in anyone who can come up with any arguments that counter this one.

 

[Dimwhit]

Tell me, if an effect cannot exist before its associated feat, how can you claim that the monk's unarmed attack counts as a natural weapon when it lacks an essential element to being considered a natural weapon- an effect that enhances a natural weapon?

Feat prerequisites, on the other hand, do exist and do have to be met before their associated feats. That's what "pre-requisite" means- the criteria which have to be satisfied before the associated entity can become actual.

Your admission that feats don't have effects before they are taken demolishes your position. If there is no effect that enhances a natural weapon, then a monk's unarmed attack is not considered a natural weapon.

By your own words, there is no effect prior to taking the feat. This is so obvious that you said it was silly for me to actually come out and say it. But if there no effect prior to taking the feat, then there is nothing for which the unarmed attack counts as a natural weapon. How can you say "It qualifies as a natural weapon so that you can apply some effect to it..." when you have just admitted there is no effect?

One more time...there doesn't have to an effect in place ahead of time. The monk's unarmed strike IS A NATURAL WEAPON for the purpose of any effect that will, at any time in the future, be placed on it.

I don't know why you think the effect has to be in place beforehand. Nothing says it does.

It's basic English.

Besides, the Magic Weapon tie-in above pretty much closes the argument.

 

[Dimwhit]

I am VERY interested in anyone who can come up with any arguments that counter this one.

They're gonna say a spell description isn't a primary source...

 

[Artoomis]

Damnation: I spotted a legitimate (if very picky) counter to my own argument.

A spell is actually already "going" for a "touch" range spell before the effect happens. This means that once cast (but before touching anything), the monk's unarmed strike counts as a manufactured weapon for the spell which is already "going," even though teh effect is nto yet in place.

This distinguishes it from other effects (such as INA).

Oh, well, let the argruments continue...

Really, though, the intent is very clear to me. They (the unarmed strikes) are natural weapons for spells and effects and anything needed to put that spell or effect in place (such as prerequisites for feats that produce an enhancing effect).

BTW: I'd let ANY unarmed attack count for INA, though going from 1d4 to 1d6 is probably not worth it, but, given the ambiguity fo all humanoid unarmed attacks and their relationship to natural weapons, I'd allow it.

 

[Borlon]

The effect of INA together with NWE makes the monk's unarmed attack count as a natural weapon. If INA has no effect, you are missing an essential ingredient in the recipe that makes the monk's unarmed attack count as a natural weapon.

Okay, things are getting a little clearer, now. I think the confusion arose because I never suggested that Improved Natural Attack makes the monk's unarmed strike into a natural weapon. I only argued that it would enhance it as if it was. To use FoxWander's magic weapon example, the spell enhances a monk's unarmed strike as if it was a manufactured weapon, but it doesn't turn it into a manufactured weapon.

I'm confused. Where did I (or anyone else) say that INA makes an unarmed attack into a natural weapon? I used "counts as" throughout. I don't know what you are responding to, but it can't be the bit of text you quote from my post.

Looking at the magic fang spell... magic weapon...

It's safe to say, I think, that we all know that a monk's unarmed attack counts as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells. Spells are specifically called out in the rule, and it is unnecessary to remind us of the fact. It would be like reminding us that the Sage ruled on the question in the latest issue of Dragon. However feats, unlike spells, are not called out in the monk's weapon equivalency rule. Neither are prerequisites.

Improved Natural Attack isn't a spell, but since I consider it to be an effect, I'd feel comfortable enough reasserting the position that a monk can qualify to take it since his unarmed strike seems to be special enough to be treated as either a manufactured weapon or a natural weapon, as necessary.

In whatever vague sense a feat is an effect, it isn't anything before it is taken. Effects do not exist prior to their source. Prerequisites are distinguished from effects precisely in that they have to be satisfied before their associated entity becomes actual. They can't be conflated without eliminating this temporal distinction. And eliminating the temporal distinction would cause chaos to ensue; a character could get the benefit, now, of every feat it will take in its adventuring career. This extreme scenario would be the result of conflating prerequisites and effects; you can't accept one without the other.

 

[glass]

And yet the spell clearly states that it CAN be cast on a monk. It even gives a reason, "A monk’s unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell."

Yes, it can be enhanced by the spell, rather like it can be enhanced by INA. However, it can't be 'touched', so there is not way to cast the spell on it.

This is not intended to be a "primary source" on how unarmed strikes operate, but merely how the spell Magic Weapon operates. And since the spell itself references the monk's MWE as the reason for why it operates on a monk, this can be a guideline on how MWE/NWE operates in similar situations.

If it's not the primary source on how unarmed strikes operate, then it cannot overrule how they operate in the combat and equipment chapters. IF it contradict them (as it does here) it is wrong.

Since pretty much the entire basis for the argument against monk's taking INA has been 'they can't meet the prereqs before they have the feat'

Of course. Otherwise, it would hardly be a prerequisite, would it?

I've provided an example of an effect that they DO meet the prereqs of (target: weapon touched), via MWE, before they "have" the effect.

You have provided an example of someone on the PHB team making a mistake, nothing more.

And since the fact that monk's DO qualify as a valid target (because of MWE) is explicitly stated in the spell(!) your statement that the spell "certainly cannot be cast on a monk" is, quite simply, wrong. And it's not me saying you're wrong, it's the RAW.

Have you even read the spell decription? 'Target: Weapon touched'. A monk is not a weapon so can't be targetted. How is this difficult?

You could argue that the MWE allows you to target a monk's unarmed strikes, although IMO as worded it doesn't, but there is no way you can (sensibly) argue it can target the monk.

EDIT: For reasons discussed below, I have changed my mind about whether MW can target a monk's unarmed strikes. Some people are still trying to argue it can target the monk himself, which I find interesting.


glass.