Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Borlon]

Just what do you think a prerequisite is?

A condition that has to be met before something else can happen.

 

[Dimwhit]

A condition that has to be met before something else can happen.

There you go. Before you can take INA, you must have a natural weapon, or something that is considered a natural weapon. Monk's have what is considered to be a natural weapon. Monks can take INA.

You all are making it out to be WAY more complicated than it is.

 

[Artoomis]

A condition that has to be met before something else can happen.

Rigt:

To qualify for XXX you must first have YYY. "YYY" is the prerequisite(s).

The tricky part is that if you are said to have "YYY" for the purpose of "XXX," then can you actually take "XXX?" Of course, I say yes, by any plain reading.

 

[Artoomis]

There you go. Before you can take INA, you must have a natural weapon, or something that is considered a natural weapon. Monk's have what is considered to be a natural weapon. Monks can take INA.

You all are making it out to be WAY more complicated than it is.

Agreed - simple, isn't it?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

You all are making it out to be WAY more complicated than it is.

I disagree; rather, you are ignoring parts of the rules in an attempt to simplify them, such that you seem correct.

That's not the right way to go about this.

 

[Borlon]

@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 creatures unarmed strikes?

What does everybody else do?

In your second sentence, do you mean "Can you cast GMW on any creature's unarmed strikes?" I would say that only if they are a monk will their unarmed strikes count as manufactured weapons. Otherwise they could be in range (touch/close, doesn't matter) but they aren't the right kind of weapon. If they are monks, then their body is their weapon, and could be touched/would be in range.

 

[Borlon]

Rigt:

To qualify for XXX you must first have YYY. "YYY" is the prerequisite(s).

The tricky part is that if you are said to have "YYY" for the purpose of "XXX," then can you actually take "XXX?" Of course, I say yes, by any plain reading.

If the rule said that you have natural weapons for the purpose of "qualifying for feats that enhance or improve natural weapons" then I'd say yes, too. If you have natural weapons for the purpose of "spells and effects that enhance or improve natural weapons" I'd say that it only applies for spells and effects, not for qualifying for feats.

 

[Artoomis]

If the rule said that you have natural weapons for the purpose of "qualifying for feats that enhance or improve natural weapons" then I'd say yes, too. If you have natural weapons for the purpose of "spells and effects that enhance or improve natural weapons" I'd say that it only applies for spells and effects, not for qualifying for feats.

In other words, it only counts if the spell or effect is already in place? That way lies madness...

In fact, that way, I think they won't be able to be enhanced by any effect that requires they have a natural weapon or manufactured weapon. Does that not seem... wrong... to you?

 

[Dimwhit]

I disagree; rather, you are ignoring parts of the rules in an attempt to simplify them, such that you seem correct.

That's not the right way to go about this.

No, I'm just not giving the term 'prerequisite' some sentient existence.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Sentient ...

"I do not think it means what you think it means."