Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mordane76" data-source="post: 1987870" data-attributes="member: 7172">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.</blockquote>