Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Borlon]

So the Sage totally missed the boat on monks and INA, then? If I understand the position of some other posters correctly, they would rather he had said something like "sure a monk can take INA. Any player character with +4 BAB can, because even Joe Commoner can make an unarmed strike, and an unarmed strike is a natural weapon. In fact, whenever you see 'natural weapon' as a prerequisite, just cross it out; why bother listing a prerequisite that everyone qualifies for? And anyone with a body has a natural weapon."

What he actually said (for folks who have forgotten in the course of 950+ posts made on this topic) is

Yes. As stated on page 41 of the Player's Handbook, a monk's unarmed strike "is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either," which includes feats such as Improved Natural Attack.

Barring multiclassing, the earliest a monk could take this feat would be at 6th level (due to the base attack bonus prerequisite), at which point her unarmed strike damage would improve from 1d8 to 2d6 (which represents an average increase of +2.5 points of damage). The same monk at 20th level would deal 3d8 points of damage with her unarmed strike.

Note that the weapon equivalency rule is key in this ruling. Not a hint that Joe the 9th level commoner could take the feat.

I am waiting for someone to start a new poll with the question "Can anyone with a +4 BAB take Improved Natural Weapon?" I'd do it myself, except that I don't think the correctness of a rule is determined by majority vote. And, really, the question doesn't interest me near as much as the question about INA and monks. If this thread keeps discussing this new question, I'll probably bow out.

 

[FireLance]

And, really, the question doesn't interest me near as much as the question about INA and monks. If this thread keeps discussing this new question, I'll probably bow out.

Well, stick around the Rules forum and I'm sure we can find something else to discuss . I think everything that needs to be said has been said in this thread, anyway. As far as I'm concerned, feats are effects (the "official" position from the Sage says that), and if you're treated as something for the purpose of effects, you're treated as that something when it comes to meeting the prerequisites of a feat.

 

[Borlon]

I think everything that needs to be said has been said in this thread, anyway.

Several times, in fact.

As far as I'm concerned, feats are effects (the "official" position from the Sage says that), and if you're treated as something for the purpose of effects, you're treated as that something when it comes to meeting the prerequisites of a feat.

Yeah, well, I think you and the Sage are both wrong about feats being effects, and the rest of what you say is a new rule. But I seem unable to change anyone's mind on either point, and I don't have any new arguments, so perhaps I should just let it rest.

 

[Pinotage]

Yeah, well, I think you and the Sage are both wrong about feats being effects, and the rest of what you say is a new rule. But I seem unable to change anyone's mind on either point, and I don't have any new arguments, so perhaps I should just let it rest.

I don't think you can say feats aren't effects, but at the same time I don't think you can necessarily say they are effects. All you can say is that the ruling is unclear, certainly not wrong. The Human Heritage Feat conclusively indicates that feats and their prerequisites are effects, whereas the orc/half-orc thing seems to indicate that prerequisites aren't effects. The position in the rules in unclear. The sage isn't wrong, nor is anybody else - the sage has provided a clarification on something which is unclear in the rules. What you believe the rules to say is, as has been said numerous times, at times supported and at other times not supported.

Pinotage

 

[glass]

I certainly do not deny that. Thus unarmed attacks are a SUBSET or SPECIAL CASE of natural weapons whch neatly reconciles all the places where they are referred to as natiural weapons with decsriptions of how natural weapons and unarmed attacks work.

A subset or special case that follows none of the rules for natural weapons?


glass.

 

[glass]

Exactly right.

Agian, for emphasis:

...the only way to reconcile all of the various rules, spells, etc. dealing with unarmed strikes is to consider them a special subset of natural weapons.

Except that there are also several areas of the rules (such as the power attack description) where they are refered to as separate things.

I think theonly way to reconcile the various references to natural weapons is to remember the primary source rules and go by the descriptions ine the Combat and Equipment chapters, ignoring obliques references in spells as the errors they are.


glass.

 

[Artoomis]

In the 3 core rule books? I've seen it in some of the supplemental material, but I don't recall anywhere that this mistake is made the core rule books.

It's already been pointed out in this thread that it (this "mistake") appears in the core books (PHB, to be specific) in spell descriptions, at least.

See:

* Align Weapon: "...You can t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike..."
* Magic Weapon "...You can t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike..."
* Magic Fang "...The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon..."
* Protection from Evil" "...Third, the spell prevents bodily contact by summoned creatures. This causes the natural weapon attacks of such creatures to fail and the creatures to recoil if such attacks require touching the warded creature..." (By implication otherwise one could use a unarmed attack here even though touching is disallowed)

There you have it. At least 3 direct references and one indirect. Plus references in other, later books.

 

[Artoomis]

Except that there are also several areas of the rules (such as the power attack description) where they are refered to as separate things.

I think theonly way to reconcile the various references to natural weapons is to remember the primary source rules and go by the descriptions ine the Combat and Equipment chapters, ignoring obliques references in spells as the errors they are.


glass.

You can take two approaches:

1. They are NOT natural weapons in any sense and every place that refers to them as such is in error.

2. They ARE natural weapon but do NOT follow all the natural weapon rules because of page 139 in the PHB which specifcally says they do not follow all the natural weapon rules.

My way (number 2) is quite elegant and preserves ALL the rules.

Your way throws out some rules in deference to others.

My way reconciles the rules together.

Your way does not reconcile the rules together but tosses out some PHB (and other source books) text out the window.

 

[Borlon]

...as the errors they are.

It's a fine balance. There are going to be mistakes in the rules, and not all of them are going to be covered in erratta. Sometimes you can find a very ingenious interpretation that reconciles a bunch of seemingly contradictory rulings- Hypersmurf is very good at this. But this reconciliation often has a high price; you have to take things very literally, make distinctions between expressions that are apparently synonymous, and accept some very strange consequences of the rules under your twisty interpretation.

Even then, there may be things that are flat out impossible to reconcile. The standard example is the FAQ's take on whether acid ignores hardness or not.

So one extreme case is tying yourself in knots finding an interpretation where (almost) all the rules come out consistent. The other extreme is saying of anything that doesn't fit your conception of the rules is a misprint, or an error. Sometimes there is truth in a claim that something in the books is a mistake; I think anyone would be prepared to admit that. And admit that even customer service or the Sage sometimes makes mistakes. Sometimes even the DM makes mistakes, but as long as the game goes on and people have fun, it's ok. But people who agree that there are errors in the rules will usually disagree where the errors are, and how plentiful they are. If you get to the point where every piece of evidence against your position is a mistake in the book, well, it can get ridiculous pretty fast. Suppose I say that wizards can spontanteously cast any spell in the PHB. And then when people cite rules that say I can't, I just say that those contrary rules are misprints. What can you say to someone like that?

Then there are people who just want a particular conclusion to be true. They can tie themselves in knots to find support for their position *and* allege that all the contrary evidence is just a mistake or misprint. These kind of people are hard to identify, because they look just like someone who takes a middle road (that sometimes the rules require a sophisticated interpretation, and sometimes mistakes have to be recognized as mistakes). But if you find a person who never admits they are wrong, and who never changes their mind, I think there is a good chance that they are this kind of person.

What kind of person am I, I wonder? I was briefly converted to the Yes side (by the feats=effects argument) in the other thread, but that was for only a few pages. I was even more briefly converted in this thread (by the Magic Weapon argument, before I realized that the specific mention of spells was not paralleled by a specific mention of feats) but I did not post in that brief interval. So I do admit that I make mistakes. That's a hopeful sign, but maybe it is just pride that makes me not want to change my position now. I think I am more the "tying in knots" kind of hair-splitting rules lawyer than the "that is misprint" kind of rules lawyer. Dunno.

But the issue of how, in general, to deal with inconsistencies in the rules, and how to deal specifically with discordant rules concerning natural weapons... well, I think the question is a lot more difficult than deciding if, by the RAW, monks can take INA. Although I suppose a complete answer to the one would determine the other.

Anyways, I think I'm going to say goodbye to this thread now. It has been a lot of fun! Thanks to everyone else who participated, and do have fun without me!

-Borlon

 

[Artoomis]

A subset or special case that follows none of the rules for natural weapons?


glass.

Pretty much, yep. Page 139 of the PHB establishes the basic rules for unarmed attacks which are NOT the same as for natural weapons as delineated in the MM. Various places in the core rules and subesquent source books refer to unarmed attacks as natural weapons.

Question: Why cannot BOTH be true?

Answer: Indeed, they CAN both be true. Unarmed attacks are natural weapons with special rules. They can be enhanced like all other natural weapons, but do not follow the other natural weapon rules. This seems to be clearly the intent of how unarmed attacks are to be viewed if you take all the D&D material as a whole.