Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[Artoomis]

Okay, one more time. Using PHB, DMG, MM and errata ONLY, may monks take INA?

By 100% certain I really mean it - no room whatsoever for an opposing view.

If this is not clear enough, then someone else can take over because a fourth attempt will have ceased to be fun.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I can always be swayed by a good debate. I don't think I will ever be pursueded that monks can take INA, however I'm sure there's a possibility out there somewhere that something may persuade me somehow. I just highly doubt it.

I mean RC persuaded me into slightly changing my viewpoint on Rule 0, which I never thought would happen. So, weirder things have happened!

 

[Sejs]

Depends on what your definition of "is" is.

And by "is", I mean "effect".

(Personally, using the listed criteria, no, unless the monk in question has actual natural weapons, he does not qualify for the feat.)

 

[RigaMortus2]

I voted that using just PHB, DMG, MM and errata, the Monk can not take INA.

Of course when you incorporate the FAQ into the equation, and use the new rule the FAQ made up, you can. But I firmly believe the FAQ is not supposed to make up new rules like this, only the errata can.

 

[Cedric]

Well (and I'll use the SRD, since it's easily handy and quotable to me right now)...when I read

A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

And then I also read

Natural Weapons

Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature. A creature making a melee attack with a natural weapon is considered armed and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Likewise, it threatens any space it can reach. Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons. The number of attacks a creature can make with its natural weapons depends on the type of the attack—generally, a creature can make one bite attack, one attack per claw or tentacle, one gore attack, one sting attack, or one slam attack (although Large creatures with arms or arm-like limbs can make a slam attack with each arm). Refer to the individual monster descriptions.

Unless otherwise noted, a natural weapon threatens a critical hit on a natural attack roll of 20.

When a creature has more than one natural weapon, one of them (or sometimes a pair or set of them) is the primary weapon. All the creature’s remaining natural weapons are secondary.

The primary weapon is given in the creature’s Attack entry, and the primary weapon or weapons is given first in the creature’s Full Attack entry. A creature’s primary natural weapon is its most effective natural attack, usually by virtue of the creature’s physiology, training, or innate talent with the weapon. An attack with a primary natural weapon uses the creature’s full attack bonus. Attacks with secondary natural weapons are less effective and are made with a -5 penalty on the attack roll, no matter how many there are. (Creatures with the Multiattack feat take only a -2 penalty on secondary attacks.) This penalty applies even when the creature makes a single attack with the secondary weapon as part of the attack action or as an attack of opportunity.

Natural weapons have types just as other weapons do. The most common are summarized below.
Bite

The creature attacks with its mouth, dealing piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning damage.
Claw or Talon

The creature rips with a sharp appendage, dealing piercing and slashing damage.
Gore

The creature spears the opponent with an antler, horn, or similar appendage, dealing piercing damage.
Slap or Slam

The creature batters opponents with an appendage, dealing bludgeoning damage.
Sting

The creature stabs with a stinger, dealing piercing damage. Sting attacks usually deal damage from poison in addition to hit point damage.
Tentacle

The creature flails at opponents with a powerful tentacle, dealing bludgeoning (and sometimes slashing) damage.

It just seems crystal clear to me that the Monk's Unarmed Strike is a "Slap or Slam" Natural Weapon and that the first statement about enhancing or improving it is meant to be a blanket statement that applies to all manner of effects (spells, abilities, feats, etc).

So I voted 100% yes, allowed.

I would also add that text like:

Magic Weapon
Transmutation
Level: Clr 1, Pal 1, Sor/Wiz 1, War 1
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Weapon touched
Duration: 1 min./level
Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless, object)
Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless, object)

Magic weapon gives a weapon a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. (An enhancement bonus does not stack with a masterwork weapon’s +1 bonus on attack rolls.)

You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang). A monk’s unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell.

Helped reinforce my belief that this was a broad range categorization of Monk's unarmed strikes as being "different" and that I was not meant to apply unnecessary limitations to it based on particular verbage.

 

[Sejs]

A creature making a melee attack with a natural weapon is considered armed and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Likewise, it threatens any space it can reach. Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons.

None of which is true for an unarmed strike. Normally an unarmed strike does provoke, does not threaten, and does benefit from iterative attacks from a high BAB.

Likewise, a creature with a Slam attack (a vampire, say) can multiattack interspersing unarmed attacks and slams. If an unarmed attack -was- a slam they could not do this.

In the grappling section, under attack your opponent: "You can make an attack with an unarmed strike, natural weapon, or light weapon against another character you are grappling". There are several other instances in the same section that state you deal damage as an unarmed strike normally when grappling, not that you deal damage via natural weapons unless you want to take the standard -4 penalty to hit. It does also specify that monks deal more damage than normal with their unarmed strikes.

 

[RigaMortus2]

There is nothing (that I have found) in the PHB, DMG, MM or errata that states a feat is considered an effect, the benefit of a feat is an effect, or the prerequisite of a feat is an effect. Until that is defined within those Core products, I think assuming a feat (or a part of a feat) is an effect is just speculation.

 

[Cedric]

A creature making a melee attack with a natural weapon is considered armed and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Likewise, it threatens any space it can reach. Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons.

None of which is true for an unarmed strike. Normally an unarmed strike does provoke, does not threaten, and does benefit from iterative attacks from a high BAB.

Likewise, a creature with a Slam attack (a vampire, say) can multiattack interspersing unarmed attacks and slams. If an unarmed attack -was- a slam they could not do this.

In the grappling section, under attack your opponent: "You can make an attack with an unarmed strike, natural weapon, or light weapon against another character you are grappling". There are several other instances in the same section that state you deal damage as an unarmed strike normally when grappling, not that you deal damage via natural weapons unless you want to take the standard -4 penalty to hit. It does also specify that monks deal more damage than normal with their unarmed strikes.

From Magic Weapon

You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang). A monk’s unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell.

This tells me that an unarmed strike is a form of natural weapon, it just has some special rules associated with it, most of which don't apply to a Monk's unarmed strike.

 

[Cedric]

There is nothing (that I have found) in the PHB, DMG, MM or errata that states a feat is considered an effect, the benefit of a feat is an effect, or the prerequisite of a fear is an effect. Until that is defined within those Core products, I think assuming a feat (or a part of a feat) is an effect is just speculation.

*nods* I understand that point of view, but there's also nothing to say a feat is not an effect. And as I said before, the rules are clear (to me) that the monk's unarmed strike is broadly defined to be affected by as many "things" as possible.

 

[Slaved]

There is nothing (that I have found) in the PHB, DMG, MM or errata that states a feat is considered an effect, the benefit of a feat is an effect, or the prerequisite of a fear is an effect. Until that is defined within those Core products, I think assuming a feat (or a part of a feat) is an effect is just speculation.

Didn't I just find one for you in the last thread about this? I believe that the part I quoted, which is in the SRD, was in the 3.5 DMG as well.