Improved Natural Attack and Claws of the Beast

[Bront]

I guess one question here would be what, exactly, Improved Natural Attack represents. Is it an actual physical alteration, that makes the natural weapon in question slightly deadlier than it was (i.e. for a claw attack, the claws become sharper and/or elongated)? Or does it represent an improvement in the creature's technique, allowing him to use the same attack more adeptly, to inflict greater damage?

If it's the former, then there's a good argument for it applying only to a specific natural weapon. If it's the latter, then there's a good argument for it being applicable to any weapon of the specified type that the creature gains.

Unfortunately, the feat description does not particularly suggest which interpretation is more appropriate.

The ruling that the monk can take it would suggest that it is some skill, unless the monks hands become functionaly deadlier for some odd reason, but you're right.

Related question here:

Natrual claws, and Claws of the Beast... If the Natural Claws are enchanted, do the Claws of the Beast retain that enchantment?

 

[FireLance]

I guess one question here would be what, exactly, Improved Natural Attack represents.

From a metagame perspective, Improved Natural Attack is simply an in-game resource (a feat) spent to gain an in-game mechanical benefit (an increase in the damage dice for a specific attack form). From that perspective, it is similar in nature to Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) or Exotic Weapon Proficiency (dwarven waraxe).

As for the exact way in which this advantage manifests in the game world, why does it have to work in the same way for every creature?

Maybe for some creatures (e.g. monks), it represents specialized training or techniques that increase damage.

Maybe for other creatures (e.g. animals), it represents sharper or larger claws, fangs, horns, etc.

Maybe for yet others (e.g. druids, psychic warriors, wizards) it represents ways to alter a base ability, power or spell so that it results in a more powerful form.

Between flavor and mechanics, flavor is the easier to change if it's getting in the way of your fun.

 

[Infiniti2000]

"... psionically transforming your hands into deadly claws..."

If your hands possess claws already, those claws are part of the hands that are psionically transformed into something else.

-Hyp.

Right. So, then, you agree with me?

From a metagame perspective, Improved Natural Attack is simply an in-game resource (a feat) spent to gain an in-game mechanical benefit (an increase in the damage dice for a specific attack form). From that perspective, it is similar in nature to Exotic Weapon Proficiency (bastard sword) or Exotic Weapon Proficiency (dwarven waraxe).

Sure, but the same reason you wouldn't allow the +1 on attacks from weapon focus (bastard sword) to apply with attacks with a dwarven waraxe, the INA shouldn't apply to claws of the beast. The claws of the beast are not the same claws as your normal natural claws, just like a dwarven waraxe is not a bastard sword. It's just extremely odd consider that you are "changing" out your natural weapons for others.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Sure, but the same reason you wouldn't allow the +1 on attacks from weapon focus (bastard sword) to apply with attacks with a dwarven waraxe, the INA shouldn't apply to claws of the beast. The claws of the beast are not the same claws as your normal natural claws, just like a dwarven waraxe is not a bastard sword. It's just extremely odd consider that you are "changing" out your natural weapons for others.

Let's say you have a power that turns any weapon you're wielding into a bastard sword.

When you use the power, Weapon Focus (Bastard Sword) applies. If your weapon was already a bastard sword, Weapon Focus (Bastard Sword) applies before and after you turn it into a different bastard sword.

If you have Improved Natural Attack (claw) - like a Dire Tiger, say - then it applies to the natural attack form, 'claw'. All of the Dire Tiger's claw attacks do more than the 1d6 a Large creature's claw would normally deal; one feat applies not just to a single claw, but to a single attack form, 'claw'.

So if you change his claws into different claws, they're still of the form to which the feat applies.

-Hyp.

 

[D.Shaffer]

Just to add to the discussion a bit, the Magic of Incarnum book also lets player characters gain Claw (And other) natural attacks as part of a power.

One of the sample characters (Page 157) is a human totemist with Improved Critical (Claw) and Weapon Focus (Claw) as feats. This would seem to imply, to me anyways, that any similar feats (Including INA) would work on any Claw attacks the character would gain, no matter the source.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Let's say you have a power that turns any weapon you're wielding into a bastard sword.

No. To use this analogy, you would have to be saying something like , "Let's say you cut the claws off a leopard and swing them at an opponent. When you use those claws you can apply your INA."

No dice, and not a valid analogy. You cannot compare INA with weapon focus and you cannot compare manufactured weapons with natural weapons.

A valid analogy that supports my position would be: let's say you cast magic weapon on a longsword. You drop that longsword and pick up a different one. Can you apply the magic weapon spell on the new longsword?

 

[Seeten]

How does the magic weapon spell in any wayrelate to "Improved natural attack" being skill and ability to use claws?

I am baffled by this analogy.

You dont cast "Improved Natural Attack" on your claws. Your skill and ability with claws enables you to deal more dmg with them, just like Weapon Specialization: Longsword enables you to hurt people with it more. Whether it has magic weapon cast on it or not, you still get +2 to dmg from Weapon Spec.

 

[Hypersmurf]

You cannot compare INA with weapon focus...

Why not?

INA applies to one natural attack form (and demonstrably applies to all instances of that attack form, since all the Dire Tiger's claws deal the same damage despite only taking the feat once). WF applies to one type of weapon. What's the difference?

-Hyp.

 

[FireLance]

Sure, but the same reason you wouldn't allow the +1 on attacks from weapon focus (bastard sword) to apply with attacks with a dwarven waraxe, the INA shouldn't apply to claws of the beast. The claws of the beast are not the same claws as your normal natural claws, just like a dwarven waraxe is not a bastard sword. It's just extremely odd consider that you are "changing" out your natural weapons for others.

In addition to the points already raised by Hyp, Seeten and D.Shaffer, I'd just like to point out that although the claws granted by claws of the beast may not be the same as a creature's natural claws (assuming it has them), they are probably very similar.

Again, it boils down to how you choose to explain the game effect. If it is simply a matter of technique, INA could work like Weapon Focus or Weapon Specialization. If it is a matter of actual physical change, perhaps a creature that already has INA (claw) instinctively knows how to shape deadlier claws - either larger versions of its existing claws, or improving on the standard design granted by the power based on its knowledge of how its own claws work.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Why not?

INA applies to one natural attack form (and demonstrably applies to all instances of that attack form, since all the Dire Tiger's claws deal the same damage despite only taking the feat once). WF applies to one type of weapon. What's the difference?

-Hyp.

INA does not apply to a 'type' of weapon, it applies to this natural weapon. I commented earlier about the 'claw' vs. 'claws' distinction. I don't read INA to be applied to a generic type of natural weapon that should the creature ever possess any similar type of weapon, the feat applies. Note that types of natural weapons are clearly defined, yet INA does not use that terminology. If it did, I would agree with you.

INA: Choose one of the creature’s natural attack forms. The damage for this natural weapon . . .
WF: Choose one type of weapon.

The difference in our opinions comes from the use of the word 'forms'. You interpret that to mean 'type'. And that's a reasonable choice. In fact, I guess I would have to concede to your interpretation based on the M-W definition "the component of a thing that determines its kind." That's closer to 'type' than a specific thing.

As an odd example (because I can't think of a better one) to better explain my rationale, and without the books on hand at the moment, I'm sure there's a Graft of some sort that gives a creature a claw attack. If you add that graft to a tiger, the tiger does not gain INA with the graft IMO. IYO, it does.