Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[Hypersmurf]

From Magic Weapon

Of course, there are a few spells in the Spell Compendium that refer to a 'natural weapon or unarmed strike', just like several places in the PHB.

This tells me that a natural weapon is not an unarmed strike.

-Hyp.

 

[gabrion]

I voted yes. Although I must admit that I had to go outside the sources listed in the poll. I used Core+Errata+basic English.

 

[IcyCool]

I voted yes. Although I must admit that I had to go outside the sources listed in the poll. I used Core+Errata+basic English.

I did the same thing. But we have different answers.

 

[Stalker0]

Of course, there are a few spells in the Spell Compendium that refer to a 'natural weapon or unarmed strike', just like several places in the PHB.

This tells me that a natural weapon is not an unarmed strike.

-Hyp.

Agreed, but is the unarmed strike of a monk (with its special clause) a natural weapon for most purposes?

 

[RigaMortus2]

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.

Just read it now.... I'm not sure...

This is only a single example of a feat specifically mentioning that it has (or is) an effect. Not all feats refer to themselves has having effects. I would say in this particular example, this specific feat is an effect and stacks with itself. But can we take this as a "hidden" rule and make a blanket statement out of it, that all feats are effects? I don't know...

 

[Hypersmurf]

Agreed, but is the unarmed strike of a monk (with its special clause) a natural weapon for most purposes?

No; only for the purpose of spell and effects that improve or enhance natural weapons.

-Hyp.

 

[gabrion]

I did the same thing. But we have different answers.

How strange. It would seem that one of us needs to brush up on our vocabulary.

 

[frankthedm]

I say nope on the core 3+E due to prerequirment of a natural weapon and the feat has to apply to a natural weapon. If that prerequirment was not there and the feat normally applied to all natural weapons the being has, the effect of the feat would work on the the monk psuedo-slams.

Now if I am asked if they really need the feat to be less behind the power curve, that i might agree to. As it happen I allow a feat for monks to raise thier unarmed strike damage die by one die step on the monk chart, which some might not feel is enough.

 

[seans23]

I say no because there's a feat in the Book of Nine Swords, which provides a similar effect anyway.

Superior Unarmed Strike +4 class level when determining damage.

Not sure if this stacks with the monk's belt.

 

[Cedric]

Of course, there are a few spells in the Spell Compendium that refer to a 'natural weapon or unarmed strike', just like several places in the PHB.

This tells me that a natural weapon is not an unarmed strike.

-Hyp.

I guess the difference to me is that one is exclusionary, one is not. For instance, it would be somewhat strange, but I could say, I like fruit or apples for breakfast. Or, I could change it up and say I like fruit or bread for breakfast.

In the first case, apples is a subsection of fruit. In the second case, they are unrelated.

However, I could not say, I like fruit, such as bread, for breakfast. However, I could say, I like fruit such as apples for breakfast.

So when the description for Magic Weapon says You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike it is absolutely including "unarmed strike" into the overall category of "what is" a natural weapon.

However, as a subsection of natural weapons it does have some of its very own rules that govern its use.

Back to my example Apples do not share all of the same traits as other fruit, however, they are still considered a fruit.