Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Dimwhit]

Everything else is just being silly, splitting nonexistent hairs, and running about waving your arms for no really useful purpose.

Of course! This is the rules forum, you know.

 

[Borlon]

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?

Spells are mentioned in the equivalency rule, and so a monk's unarmed attack qualifies both for targetting and effects.

Feats are not mentioned, but if an already taken feat has an effect that enhances a natural weapon, the monk's unarmed attack qualifies.

But a feat's prerequisites are not effects, because they precede the feat and that is something that a feat's effects cannot do. Since they are not effects, the monk's unarmed attack doesn't count as a natural weapon for the purpose of prerequisites.

And aside from INA, how many feats, prestige classes or racial substitution levels are we talking about, anyway? Or is INA the only one?

Everything else is just being silly, splitting nonexistent hairs, and running about waving your arms for no really useful purpose.

So are you going to join us? You know you want to- else why post to this thread?

 

[Hypersmurf]

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.

If it said 'effects' rather than 'spells and effects', you could still make a case to allow GMW without allowing INA.

You must satisfy a feat's prerequisites before a feat can be taken.

However, you don't need to be a valid target for a spell before a spell comes into effect.

"You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect."

So, the spell is 'in effect' at the time a target is chosen... and target validity is determined when the target is chosen.

Contrast this with a feat, whose prerequisites msut be met before the feat can be considered 'in effect'.

-Hyp.

 

[FoxWander]

Spells are mentioned in the equivalency rule, and so a monk's unarmed attack qualifies both for targetting and effects.

Given that statement, and this one...

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 have a few questions for you:

1. Would you agree that the monk's equivalency rule qualifies a monk's unarmed strikes for both targetting and effects?

2. Do you agree with often-stated-here idea that "prerequisites" are functionally identical to a spell's "target"?

3. Does the monk's equivalency rule make him a valid target of a spell before the spell has an effect?

 

[Hypersmurf]

3. Does the monk's equivalency rule make him a valid target of a spell before the spell has an effect?

See above. Targets are not chosen until the spell comes into effect, so the situation is inherently different to a feat.

-Hyp.

 

[FoxWander]

See above. Targets are not chosen until the spell comes into effect, so the situation is inherently different to a feat.

-Hyp.

Yes, but the spell doesn't choose the target, the spellcaster does. In order to cast Magic Weapon on a monk in the first place, he must be a valid target of the spell. So is he a valid target before or after the spell is cast?

 

[Hypersmurf]

So is he a valid target before or after the spell is cast?

He's a valid target when the spell is cast, which is when targets must be selected.

-Hyp.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Yes, but the spell doesn't choose the target, the spellcaster does. In order to cast Magic Weapon on a monk in the first place, he must be a valid target of the spell. So is he a valid target before or after the spell is cast?

He's always a valid target because he's a living creature. There's no difference between 'before' and 'after'. However, let's say the wizard/monk readied to dimension door when the druid cast magic fang. The druid's spell would still be cast, but before it comes into effect the druid would choose the target. The monk is no longer a choice because he's out of range, so perhaps the druid could select her animal companion or just lose the spell. So, I think the answer you're begging the question on is 'after', but it's the wrong question.

 

[Hypersmurf]

He's always a valid target because he's a living creature.

Magic Weapon, not Magic Fang

-Hyp.

 

[Borlon]

If it said 'effects' rather than 'spells and effects', you could still make a case to allow GMW without allowing INA.

You must satisfy a feat's prerequisites before a feat can be taken.

However, you don't need to be a valid target for a spell before a spell comes into effect.

"You make all pertinent decisions about a spell (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the spell comes into effect."

So, the spell is 'in effect' at the time a target is chosen... and target validity is determined when the target is chosen.

Contrast this with a feat, whose prerequisites msut be met before the feat can be considered 'in effect'.

-Hyp.

Does it make a difference that the spell description says "you can't cast this spell on a natural weapon"?

@FoxWander: it appears that targetting doesn't, in general, work like prerequisites. I think there is an exception for MW; but I want to see what Hypersmurf says.

If I said "Yes, targetting restrictions are functionally the same as prerequisites" what would follow?