Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Artoomis]

...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.


glass.

huh? The monk's class description SPECIFICALLY calls out Magic Weapon as being one of the cases where the monk's unarmed attacks count as a manufactured weapon.

For this to be true, the monk MUST be a legitimate target of the spell which has a target of "weapon touched."

 

[Borlon]

@glass. The monk uses his whole body for unarmed attacks. So if you touch his body, you are touching a weapon. Furthermore, MWE says that the monk's unarmed attacks are treated as manufactured weapons for the purpose of spells that enhance or improve manufactured weapons, so that is why the spell can effect monks; the spell is mentioned and that includes the targeting restrictions of the spell, which can be satisfied before the spell has an effect.

The rule says nothing about feats or their prerequisites, though, so this doesn't affect the debate on INA. That is, it doesn't say that the weapon equivalency applies to the prerequisites of a feat that has not yet been taken and so cannot yet be or have an effect.

 

[glass]

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.

On second thoughts, I've changed my mind. We have spent so long arguing about effects, I forgot MWE said 'spells or effects'. That said, I'd say you can touch a monks unarmed strike for the purposes of casting spells on it, since fore the purposes of spells it counts as something you can touch. This is a bit of a stretch on it's own, but IMO the line in the spell description smooths over any cracks.


glass.

 

[glass]

@glass. The monk uses his whole body for unarmed attacks. So if you touch his body, you are touching a weapon.

So does everybody else. Can you cast GMW and any creature's unarmed strikes?

Furthermore, MWE says that the monk's unarmed attacks are treated as manufactured weapons for the purpose of spells that enhance or improve manufactured weapons, so that is why the spell can effect monks; the spell is mentioned and that includes the targeting restrictions of the spell, which can be satisfied before the spell has an effect.

I had forgotten it said 'spell', which is why I have changed my position slightly. It still targets the weapons themsleves, not the monk, though.

The rule says nothing about feats or their prerequisites, though, so this doesn't affect the debate on INA. That is, it doesn't say that the weapon equivalency applies to the prerequisites of a feat that has not yet been taken and so cannot yet be or have an effect.

Quite.


glass.

 

[Dimwhit]

The rule says nothing about feats or their prerequisites, though, so this doesn't affect the debate on INA. That is, it doesn't say that the weapon equivalency applies to the prerequisites of a feat that has not yet been taken and so cannot yet be or have an effect.

Just what do you think a prerequisite is?

 

[Artoomis]

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...

I agree. The distinction between "treated as... natural weapons" for having the effect and qualifying for it seem to me to be rather strained, to say the least.

 

[glass]

huh? The monk's class description SPECIFICALLY calls out Magic Weapon as being one of the cases where the monk's unarmed attacks count as a manufactured weapon.

For this to be true, the monk MUST be a legitimate target of the spell which has a target of "weapon touched."

Read what you have just posted again carefully. Can you see the disconnect between your paragraphs?

The monk's unarmed strikes count as manufactured weapons, not the monk himself. Even if you could cast it on the monk (which you can't), it wouldn't do anything if you did because (G)MW (unlike (G)MF) affect the weapons it targets, not weapons possesed by the creature it targets.


glass.

 

[Artoomis]

Read what you have just posted again carefully. Can you see the disconnect between your paragraphs?

The monk's unarmed strikes count as manufactured weapons, not the monk himself. Even if you could cast it on the monk (which you can't), it wouldn't do anything if you did because (G)MW (unlike (G)MF) affect the weapons it targets, not weapons possesed by the creature it targets.


glass.

Well, technically it's the monk's unarmed strike, but it amounts to the same thing, right?

Edit: That's because he can strike with any part of his body.

 

[glass]

So does everybody else. Can you cast GMW and any creatures unarmed strikes?

I had mostly been refering to (G)MW to refer to both Magic Weapon and its Greater sibling, in the belief that they were both 'target: weapon touched'. They are not: GMW targets a weapon, saying nothing about touching.

Interesting I should forget the parentheses here, because the answer could be said to be 'yes'. Unlike MW, you can cast GMW on anyone's unarmed strikes, because you don't have to touch them!


glass.

 

[Artoomis]

I had mostly been refering to (G)MW to refer to both Magic Weapon and its Greater sibling, in the belief that they were both 'target: weapon touched'. They are not: GMW targets a weapon, saying nothing about touching.

Interesting I should forget the parentheses here, because the answer could be said to be 'yes'. Unlike MW, you can cast GMW on anyone's unarmed strikes, because you don't have to touch them!


glass.

GMW is indeed a different case. Touch spells start before the the "touch" is done - we know this because you can hold a touch spell and wait for your target - so the spell already exists.

For GMW, the range is "Close," not "Touch." This is entirely different. For a monk's unarmed attack to qualify the reasoning would have to be the same as for the feat, I think.

This is all getting rather hype-technical. I think it is pretty clear that the monk's unarmed attack is meant to be treated as a manufactured or natural weapon for any spell or effect and qualifying for spells or effects.