Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Hypersmurf]

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

What sort of difference? A claw is a valid target for Magic Weapon, but the spell cannot be cast on it.

-Hyp.

 

[FireLance]

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.

(middle snipped)

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.

Ah, even clearer now. I misread your comment about using the effect of a feat to meet its own prerequiste. I believe your reasoning was along the lines of:

1. A monk's unarmed strike is not considered a natural weapon.
2. If a monk were to somehow take the Improved Natural Attack feat, his unarmed strike would be considered a natural weapon.
3. However, since the monk's unarmed strike is not a natural weapon in the first place, he cannot take the feat.
4. If he did, that would be using the effect of the feat to qualify for it.

Whereas from my perspective, whether or not the monk takes the feat has no bearing on whether or not his unarmed strike is considered a natural weapon.

If his unarmed strike is considered a natural weapon, he qualifies for the feat and can benefit from it. If his unarmed strike is not considered a natural weapon, he cannot benefit from the feat even if he somehow manages to acquire it.

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.

So we're back to the discussion of whether a feat is an effect or a prerequisite is an effect. As Storm Raven points out, "effect" is undefined in the rules, and some of us interpret it more broadly than others. Elf blood and Orc blood mention "effects" only. Presumably, "effects" also includes spells in that context, assuming we ever have a spell that works differently depending on whether the target is an orc, an elf, or a human (or is considered to be one of the above). Races of Eberron contains spells that require you to be a dwarf, or which gnomes can cast at +1 caster level. Presumably, if you were a dwarf-bonded stoneblessed or a gnome-bonded stoneblessed, you also interact with those spells as if you were a dwarf or a gnome, although the text of the stoneblessed PrC description mentions "effects" only. Races of Stone also has text which can be interpreted to mean that qualifying for a racial substitution level is an "effect", and therefore, qualifying for racial prestige classes and feats should also be "effects". Races of Destiny even goes so far as to say that the elf subtype qualifies a half-elf to take elf-only prestige classes.

It's an argument based on a lot of cross-referencing and implication, but the alternative argument from the rules is that some feats and prestige classes have prerequisites of "elf or half-elf" or "orc or half-orc", and others simply have prerequisites of "elf" and "orc".

All the above leads me to adopt a more generous interpretation of what an "effect" is, but as always, YMMV.

 

[Borlon]

What sort of difference? A claw is a valid target for Magic Weapon, but the spell cannot be cast on it.

-Hyp.

Maybe my days of MTG are messing me up; there, if you didn't have a valid target, you couldn't cast the spell. In D&D you can always cast the spell, but the spell fizzles if you don't have a valid target. And the extra line in the text of MW doesn't change it.

Is this correct?

@FireLance: I don't think we need to get into the racial prerequisite stuff to solve this problem. I have a different worry:

My main concern revolves around "prevenience"- the notion that an effect can precede its cause. I understand that prerequisites are around before their associated feats; that's what the prerequisite means. But I don't like the notion that an effect enhancing a natural weapon could be around before the feat that provides the effect is around.

I was under the impression that targetting took place before a spell had its effects; that targetting was a prevenient phenomenon. Hypersmurf has quoted a rule to the effect that this is mistaken. So it seems that only prerequisites are prevenient.

If the enhancement from INA is going to make the monk's unarmed attack count as a natural weapon, it has to do it at the time when the prerequisites are satisfied, which is before the feat is taken. To do this, the enhancement effect would have to be prevenient. I can't see how this is possible.

Let me ask a question: In your opinion does a 3rd level monk meet the natural weapon prerequisite of INA? He hasn't multiclassed, so his BAB is only +2; he *doesn't* meet the BAB prerequisite. But does he meet the natural weapon prerequisite?

I would immediately answer no. If his unarmed attack counts as a natural weapon for the purpose of the INA feat at level 3, then that means that, somehow, the INA feat is enhancing his weapon even though he isn't going to take it for another 3 levels. Is this monk therefore doing damage as a monk one size category larger because of the feat that he someday might take? I certainly hope not!

Now, I proposed a principle that when X counts as Y for the purpose of effects, it counts as Y for the purpose of prerequisites. I call it the principle of prerequisite conversion. I think it is a sensible rule, and it allows INA to be taken by human monks. I just think it is an addition to the rules, not implied by them.

My claim is that any attempt to eliminate the distinction between prerequisites and effects runs into the prevenience problem; if there is not distinction then effects, like prerequisites, can exist prior to their associated feats. And that leads to 3rd level monks getting the benefit of a feat they haven't taken and don't yet qualify for.

If you can solve the prevenience problem for me, then you might have a convert.

 

[Dimwhit]

If the enhancement from INA is going to make the monk's unarmed attack count as a natural weapon, it has to do it at the time when the prerequisites are satisfied, which is before the feat is taken. To do this, the enhancement effect would have to be prevenient. I can't see how this is possible.

INA doesn't make the monk's unarmed attack count as a natural weapon. It takes the monk's natural weapon and causes it to do more damage.

Let me ask a question: In your opinion does a 3rd level monk meet the natural weapon prerequisite of INA? He hasn't multiclassed, so his BAB is only +2; he *doesn't* meet the BAB prerequisite. But does he meet the natural weapon prerequisite?

Yes, but until the BAB is higher, he can't take the feat. He's still sitting there with what is considered a natural weapon for that purpose. But since there are other requirements, he has to wait.

I would immediately answer no. If his unarmed attack counts as a natural weapon for the purpose of the INA feat at level 3, then that means that, somehow, the INA feat is enhancing his weapon even though he isn't going to take it for another 3 levels. Is this monk therefore doing damage as a monk one size category larger because of the feat that he someday might take? I certainly hope not!

No, because the monk doesn't even have the INA feat yet, so he can't do the extra damage. But he can take the feat when his BAB is higher.

Now, I proposed a principle that when X counts as Y for the purpose of effects, it counts as Y for the purpose of prerequisites. I call it the principle of prerequisite conversion. I think it is a sensible rule, and it allows INA to be taken by human monks. I just think it is an addition to the rules, not implied by them.

My claim is that any attempt to eliminate the distinction between prerequisites and effects runs into the prevenience problem; if there is not distinction then effects, like prerequisites, can exist prior to their associated feats. And that leads to 3rd level monks getting the benefit of a feat they haven't taken and don't yet qualify for.

If you can solve the prevenience problem for me, then you might have a convert.

I think you're getting a little too...metaphysical or something. I had an example all typed out, but it was lame. Proved my point nicely, though. You would have been very impressed and easily swayed to my position. Trust me.

 

[Borlon]

INA doesn't make the monk's unarmed attack count as a natural weapon. It takes the monk's natural weapon and causes it to do more damage.

Sure it does. It enhances a natural weapon. And that makes the unarmed attack count as a natural weapon.

He's still sitting there with what is considered a natural weapon for that purpose.... I had an example all typed out, but it was lame.

Ok. I have a lame example, too.

Think of the monk as having two little LEDs on his forehead. The green one glows when his unarmed attacks are enhanced by an effect that enhances a natural weapon. The red one glows when his unarmed attacks are enhanced by an effect that enhances a manufactured weapon. When he's hanging around at 3rd level, nothing is affecting him and both lights are off.

Magic Fang will make it go on, but it's a dim light, 'cause it's only on for the magic fang. If he puts on a ring that grants him INA, the green light will go on, but still dim, since it is only on for the INA granted by the ring. Turns out that the green light goes on and off at exactly the same times as his unarmed attacks count as natural weapons. The red light goes on and off when his unarmed attacks count as manufactured weapons.

But when he reaches 6th level, the light is off, or if it's on, it is only on for other effects (say he has a permanent magic fang- that isn't on bright enough) And the prerequisite for INA effectively says "green light must be on." INA can't turn the light on until he takes it, but until he takes it, the green light is either off, or so dim it might as well be off.

If, prior to 6th level, he acquires a natural weapon (by a graft or something) then the green light will be on bright enough that he can take the INA feat.

 

[Artoomis]

...Now, I proposed a principle that when X counts as Y for the purpose of effects, it counts as Y for the purpose of prerequisites. I call it the principle of prerequisite conversion. I think it is a sensible rule, and it allows INA to be taken by human monks. I just think it is an addition to the rules, not implied by them.
...

Well, I think that your priniciple is indeed implied by the rules. I think that, unless stated otherwise or somehow made clear, that's exactly the way one would normally treat this situation.

Otherwise you get the very odd situation where a monk's attack counts as a natural weapon for INA but only if somehow the monk can get INA, like through having some other natural weapon.

Now that just plain does not make good sense, and, by the way, a fist may very well qualify as natural weapon anyway because unarmed attacks (and fists) are so poorly defined and a fist and/or an unarmed attack is specifically cited as a natural weapon more than once in the rules.

 

[Borlon]

We might be using a different sense of the word "implies." I'm using it in a kind of strict, technical sense, as if I were to say that "the fact that all mammals have kidneys implies that rabbits have kidneys, because rabbits are mammals."

Perhaps there is a looser sense of the word that is appropriate to D&D. Call it "implize." A implize B if, given A, B makes it easier to play the game, the designer would be expected to presuppose B when writing other rules, B minimizes player confusion and frustration, B is easier to remember and so on. In short, B makes good sense. If that is the case then I would certainly agree that A implize B.

Anyways, the discussion is about what the rules imply. And I hold that the PPC is not implied by the rules in the strict, technical sense. The PPC says that one thing is treated as another thing when the default situation would be that the two things are different. It is not normally the case that things that are different are treated as the same. You need a special rule to allow them to be treated the same; you don't need a special rule to preserve the status quo. So I have to disagree with you when you say

I think that your principle is indeed implied by the rules. I think that, unless stated otherwise or somehow made clear, that's exactly the way one would normally treat this situation.

The rules might implize my principle, but I don't think they imply it. If they did imply it, then a very careful, step by step proof would be possible that the rules do imply the principle. But no one has provided a proof, even a preliminary one.

***

Hey! Know what? This thread is by far the longest thread ever to appear in the Rules Forum. Count the closed thread and the other poll, and we are well over 900 posts. Do you think we're getting any closer to a consensus?

 

[Artoomis]

...Hey! Know what? This thread is by far the longest thread ever to appear in the Rules Forum. Count the closed thread and the other poll, and we are well over 900 posts. Do you think we're getting any closer to a consensus?

No, I don't!!

And I think it does imply the PPC. By normal english reading. I think it takes a strained reading to get to where you can qualify for the feat (you can get it's effects) but not to take the feat, which is essentially what folks are saying.

BTW: What do you think of the approach that says that virtually EVERYONE has a natural weapon due to multiple references of fist and unarmed attacks as natural weapons. Thus anyone can qualify for INA, and, thus, a monk can take it.

 

[Dimwhit]

Sure it does. It enhances a natural weapon. And that makes the unarmed attack count as a natural weapon.

No, an unarmed attacked doesn't have to be enhanced before it's a natural weapon. All INA does is enhance an existing natural weapon, and the Monk's unarmed attack is counted as a natural weapon for spells and other effects. So they're already natural attacks before being enhanced.

I guess what I'm saying is that a monster's natural weapon is such before being enhanced by INA. So INA doesn't make an unarmed attack a natural weapon, it only enhances them.

 

[Borlon]

No, I don't!!

Me neither. :\

And I think it does imply the PPC. By normal english reading. I think it takes a strained reading to get to where you can qualify for the feat (you can get it's effects) but not to take the feat, which is essentially what folks are saying.

Any new arguments? Or maybe you could go through your old argument step by step, nice and slow and careful, so even we stubborn rules lawyers can follow it? Remember to spell out even things that seem obvious- because there is, no doubt, something that seems obvious to you that does not seem obvious to me.

BTW: What do you think of the approach that says that virtually EVERYONE has a natural weapon due to multiple references of fist and unarmed attacks as natural weapons. Thus anyone can qualify for INA, and, thus, a monk can take it.

I think Hypersmurf demolished this thesis pretty decisively. I don't remember exactly where; this thread needs an index with hyperlinks! But he says that if we had natural weapons we would always threaten the area around us, we would use different rules for TWF and iterative attacks, and so on, and so on.

What's the alternative to thinking all the rules that Hypersmurf cites are wrong? How do you account for the handful of cases where fists or unarmed strikes are referred to as natural weapons? IMHO it is much easier to assume that a designer was a bit careless when writing the Kensai class. And that the magic fang and magic weapon spells focus on what their targets are made of (natural-born flesh and bone = natural weapon, handcrafted metal and wood = manufactured weapon) than on the precise rules designations for a monk's unarmed attacks and other characters' unarmed strikes.