Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[glass]

In your second sentence, do you mean "Can you cast GMW on any creature's unarmed strikes?"

Yes I did. I'll go and edit in the apostrophe when I've finished with this reply.

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.

Unarmed strikes always count as manufactured weapons for most purposes, you just can't actually touch them. A monk's ability overcomes that for MW, but for GMW you don't need to touch them.

You could argue (in fact I did for a while) that because unarmed strikes are a concept rather than a physical item you can't target them with spells at all, but if that is the case MWE doesn't work either.


glass.

 

[Dimwhit]

Sentient ...

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

Yes I do. You're giving it a life of its own and a function beyond what it really has.

 

[Artoomis]

Yes I do. You're giving it a life of its own and a function beyond what it really has.

Go back and edit the grammer in the sentence you typed earlier to clear it up - it's not right.

I think you meant:

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

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Yes I do. You're giving it a life of its own and a function beyond what it really has.

Again, I don't think that word means what you think it means.

1 : responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
2 : AWARE
3 : finely sensitive in perception or feeling

Sentient doesn't mean "alive."

I'm giving prereqs exactly the kind of "life" it needs. You must meet a prereq before you can take a feat. Since human monks don't treat their unarmed strikes as natural weapons for purposes of meeting prerequisites, they don't meet prerequisites that say "natural weapon."

 

[Dimwhit]

Well, you seemed to have figured it out just fine. But I will fix it.

 

[Dimwhit]

Again, I don't think that word means what you think it means.



Sentient doesn't mean "alive."

I'm giving prereqs exactly the kind of "life" it needs. You must meet a prereq before you can take a feat. Since human monks don't treat their unarmed strikes as natural weapons for purposes of meeting prerequisites, they don't meet prerequisites that say "natural weapon."

Saying a feat requires a natural weapon is the same as saying, for example, that GMW requires a manufactured weapon. No difference. Same result. Meeting a prereq for a feat is the same as meeting it for a spell.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Saying a feat requires a natural weapon is the same as saying, for example, that GMW requires a manufactured weapon. No difference. Same result. Meeting a prereq for a feat is the same as meeting it for a spell.

Except, of course, that it isn't. One's a spel, the other is neither a spell nor an effect.

 

[Artoomis]

Again, .... You must meet a prereq before you can take a feat. Since human monks don't treat their unarmed strikes as natural weapons for purposes of meeting prerequisites, they don't meet prerequisites that say "natural weapon."

If that were true, then monks could hardly qualify for anything that enhances weapons for natural weapons, which surely is not the intent here.

In fact, normal reading would say that if applicability for prerequisites was NOT intended, than that should be specifically spelled out, not the other way around.

Normally, if one says you are considered to have "XXX" for the purpose of "YYY," you also mean that you qualify for "YYY."

 

[Dimwhit]

Except, of course, that it isn't. One's a spel, the other is neither a spell nor an effect.

Wrong. A feat 'effects' the natural weapon in the same way a spell 'effects' the natural weapon. And the Monks qualifies to receive (or take) both in exactly the same manner.

 

[Artoomis]

never mind