Improved monk attack

[Mordane76]

They can't qualify, simply because they are eligible for effects, not for prerequisites.

Unless someone is going to argue that a prerequisite is an effect.(!)

They wouldn't have to argue that - they would have to argue that the feat is the effect, and hence as an effect the monk's attacks qualify for it.

 

[Egres]

They wouldn't have to argue that - they would have to argue that the feat is the effect, and hence as an effect the monk's attacks qualify for it.

How can you benefit from a feat's effect without taking it?

Or are you arguing that the feat is the effect?

Weird!

 

[Mordane76]

I'm saying that it is not illegitimate to accept either of these interpretations as correct, and thus allow the monk to take the feat:


A) The description of the monk's unarmed attacks as natural weapons or manufactured weapons qualifies them for this feat as natural weapons.

B) The feat applies an effect to the monk's attacks, and thus because a monk's unarmed strikes can be treated as natural weapons for effects they qualify for this feat.


These are both valid interpretations, IMO, as are their opposites -

A) A monk's unarmed attacks are not natural weapons, even though they can be qualified as such for spell effects.

B) The feat does not apply an "effect," and thus the character cannot utilize this feat to improve their damage.


Unless someone actually has posited this to the people over at Wizards, then I'd say run with whichever of these interpretations makes you feel the most comfortable.

 

[Egres]

A) The description of the monk's unarmed attacks as natural weapons or manufactured weapons qualifies them for this feat as natural weapons.

How can it make them qualify if they aren't Natural Weapons for the purposes of prerequisites?

B) The feat applies an effect to the monk's attacks, and thus because a monk's unarmed strikes can be treated as natural weapons for effects they qualify for this feat.

Yes, if you can take the feat it applies to the Monk's Unarmed Strikes.

B) The feat does not apply an "effect," and thus the character cannot utilize this feat to improve their damage.

I never said that.

I said that, since you must take the feat in order to benefit from its effect, you can't have an effect before taking it.

No Natural Weapon, No prerequisite, No effect.

 

[adienpryde]

How can it make them qualify if they aren't Natural Weapons for the purposes of prerequisites?

How can they be considered Manufatured Weapons in regards to the Vow of Poverty and not be considered Natural Weapons in regard to INW?

 

[Arkhandus]

I'd allow Improved Natural Attack for monks, as I see it as reasonably fair given the monk's weakness in combat. I've played several in 3.0 and 3.5, and they're quite simply underpowered in battle. Rogues outdamage them, and tend to have higher AC to boot. A fighter can use Power Attack to take -5 on attack rolls and deal +10 damage with their greatsword, and they'll still have a better attack bonus than the monk, while dealing around twice as much damage. INA would just bring the monk reasonably close so they could still be useful in the party. No monk of mine (I haven't seen anyone else even dare to try the weaklings) has been useful nor survivable as the party's primary or secondary melee or ranged combatant. The party's druid and his wolf companion do better in melee, without even resorting to spells or wild shape. Trust me, Improved Natural Attack would not overpower monks, it would only bring them close to being comparable with other warriors, so they could at least do as decently as the party rogue.

The term 'effect' has not been specifically defined in the rules of the d20 System, so there is no definate exclusion of 'prerequisites' from being also 'effects'. Nothing particularly excludes them from being 'effects', nor from feats being 'effects.

Just because a natural weapon does not count as an unarmed strike, does not mean that an unarmed strike cannot be counted as a natural weapon. I believe your argument in that regard is a Non Sequitor. Or something very similar to that extent, it has been a few years since my Critical Thinking class........

 

[Sejs]

How can they be considered Manufatured Weapons in regards to the Vow of Poverty and not be considered Natural Weapons in regard to INW?

You can own manufactured weapons and still retain your VoP. You just can't own expensive (defined in the feat's terms as non-simple, or magical) manufactured weapons without violating it.

The issue with the VoP/Unarmed Kensai isn't that they're manufactured weapons, it's that they're magically enhanced, which the VoP bottom line says is a no-no. No magic items, period, including magic sorta-items-but-not-really.

Just because a natural weapon does not count as an unarmed strike, does not mean that an unarmed strike cannot be counted as a natural weapon.

They're seperate statements.

A natural weapon is not an unarmed strike. Natural weapons do not make use of iterative attacks, and do not provoke an AoO when used against an armed opponent, and are related to a speciffic part of the body (eg. claws).

An unarmed strike is not a natural weapon. Unarmed strikes do make use of iterative attacks, do provoke AoOs when used against an armed opponent unless a feat or class feature negates such, and are not related to any speciffic part of the body (eg. punches, kicks, headbutts, knees, etc are all unarmed strikes equally).

 

[hong]

How can it make them qualify if they aren't Natural Weapons for the purposes of prerequisites?

Because saying otherwise strips any semblance of meaning from the oft-quoted SRD passage.

I said that, since you must take the feat in order to benefit from its effect, you can't have an effect before taking it.

No Natural Weapon, No prerequisite, No effect.

The very obvious intent of the passage is that monk attacks can benefit either from things that work on weapons, or from things that work on natural attacks. Stop with the sophistry already.

 

[hong]

A natural weapon is not an unarmed strike. Natural weapons do not make use of iterative attacks, and do not provoke an AoO when used against an armed opponent, and are related to a speciffic part of the body (eg. claws).

An unarmed strike is not a natural weapon. Unarmed strikes do make use of iterative attacks, do provoke AoOs when used against an armed opponent unless a feat or class feature negates such, and are not related to any speciffic part of the body (eg. punches, kicks, headbutts, knees, etc are all unarmed strikes equally).

Correct. Hence the necessity for the passage in the SRD that states that monk attacks are treated as natural weapons. If monk attacks were unambiguously natural weapons to start with, the passage would be moot.

 

[Egres]

Because saying otherwise strips any semblance of meaning from the oft-quoted SRD passage.
.

?

That passage allows a monk to benefit from spells, psionic powers, spell-like abilities and supernatural effects that enhance or improve Manufactured or Natural Weapons.

This doesn't have anything to do with prerequisites.

Accept it.