Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[Artoomis]

Note the possessive. The description defines "its effect". The effect of the feat.

'The feat has an effect', not 'the feat is an effect'...


-Hyp.

Even were I to grant you this point, for the sake of argument, who's to say that if the feat's effect would apply (INA) that the monk's "natural weapon" for "spells and effects" was NOT meant to apply here?

As a better example with more clarity (perhaps): If a character somehow had a Su ability to grant Magic Fang to another PC, would a monk qualify to recieve the "Magic Fang" benefit?

Well, under your logic, not really, because the Su ability grants an effect and is not a "spell" or an "effect' in and of itself. Much like INA.

I'd say that's the wrong appraoch and that "effects" should be read broadly enough so that if you would benefit form the effect, then for that effect (whatever it is) you have a natural weapon for qualifying for that effect.

 

[KarinsDad]

What you point out is why a FAQ entry was really needed. Your second paragraph is really not such an issue though, for example, does BAB improve or enhance natural weapons? I don't think so - not except by a really, really strained interpretation

You misinterpret my intent for that sentence.

If you use the broad definition of the word effects, every game element (and game rule) is an effect since they affect the game. BAB does, saves do, etc.

If you use the narrow definition of the word effects, it is an external to the creature Effect. The creature could instigate the effect (e.g. cast a spell), but the Effect is the magic itself. It is outside the creature. Properties of the creature (e.g. BAB, saves, feats, etc.) are not effects since they are not external from the creature.

In this narrow definition, Effects are things like Acid, Fire, the results of Spells, the results of Supernatural abilities, etc. Casting a spell is not an Effect, it is an ability. The cast spell produces an Effect.


Once every game element becomes an effect, there could be issues on how the rules work.

For example:

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.

Player 1: "Mr. DM, I would like the PC Wizard to use his Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat to make my Unarmed Strike permanently magical."
DM: "That cannot be done."
Player 1: "Au contraire. We are using the broad definition of the word "effects" as per your house rules and hence, unarmed strikes are considered manufactured weapons for all purposes."
DM: "Err, ahh, well, we are changing the house rules."

 

[KarinsDad]

Note the possessive. The description defines "its effect". The effect of the feat.

'The feat has an effect', not 'the feat is an effect'.

Note the fact that in that same post, I stated that this sentence has semantical issues. No need to school me on something I already know.

 

[Artoomis]

...In this narrow definition, Effects are things like Acid, Fire, the results of Spells, the results of Supernatural abilities, etc. Casting a spell is not an Effect, it is an ability. The cast spell produces an Effect.

And a feat produces/grants/has an effect.

...Player 1: "Mr. DM, I would like the PC Wizard to use his Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat to make my Unarmed Strike permanently magical."
DM: "That cannot be done."
Player 1: "Au contraire. We are using the broad definition of the word "effects" as per your house rules and hence, unarmed strikes are considered manufactured weapons for all purposes."
DM: "Err, ahh, well, we are changing the house rules."

Good luck with that one. How do you improve the unarmed strike to make it masterwork, also a requirement to improve it. The tiniest, smallest amount of common sense can go a very, very long way.

I do kind of like the image of the monk being taken to the forge to re-work his unarmed strike. I don't think he'd survive the modifications that are required, even if he did qualify.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Note the fact that in that same post, I stated that this sentence has semantical issues. No need to school me on something I already know.

No, just making the important point that Artoomis missed anyway

If a feat has an effect, and that effect improves or enhances a natural weapon, the monk's unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for purposes of that effect. Not for purposes of that feat; for purposes of the effect of the feat.

The feat's effect can only apply to a character who has the feat, though... and you can't take a feat for which you don't meet the prerequisites. And since the monk's unarmed strike does not count as a natural weapon for purposes of the feat (just the effect of the feat), he can't take the feat in the first place.

Which is why the minotaur monk (who has a natural weapon) can take the feat, and apply its effect to his unarmed strike... but the human monk can't.

Because feats have effects, rather than being effects.

-Hyp.

 

[Artoomis]

No, just making the important point that Artoomis missed anyway

-Hyp.

And what makes you think I missed the point? I most certainly have not. Look back five posts.

"As a better example with more clarity (perhaps): If a character somehow had a Su ability to grant Magic Fang to another PC, would a monk qualify to recieve the "Magic Fang" benefit?"

 

[KarinsDad]

Good luck with that one. How do you improve the unarmed strike to make it masterwork, also a requirement to improve it. The tiniest, smallest amount of common sense can go a very, very long way.

Again, you missed the point. If it is a manufactured weapon for all effects using a broad definition, making it masterwork would be an effect of using the Craft skill. Hence, no problem making it masterwork first and magical second.

The tiniest, smallest amount of common sense can go a very, very long way. One cannot have a "broad definition" work broadly sometimes and narrowly at others based on a whim and still be considered RAW.

 

[Hypersmurf]

"As a better example with more clarity (perhaps): If a character somehow had a Su ability to grant Magic Fang to another PC, would a monk qualify to recieve the "Magic Fang" benefit?"

Well, yes, but that's because of the weird "such as a fist" wording in Magic Fang.

You can cast Magic Fang on a commoner and enhance his unarmed strike, whether it's a spell or a Su ability.

But even if the wording didn't mention unarmed strikes, it would still work; the target of Magic Fang is 'living creature touched', so the monk is a valid target. Once the spell (or Su ability) is cast on the monk, the effect of the spell is to improve or enhance a natural weapon, so he's fine.

If the target of the spell were "one natural weapon", then the spell would work, but the Su version might not.

-Hyp.

 

[DanMcS]

Because feats have effects, rather than being effects.

In the chapter on feats, feats have benefits, not effects. A benefit is probably a subclass of an effect, but it's yet another term that doesn't have a strict definition.

 

[BryonD]

In the chapter on feats, feats have benefits, not effects. A benefit is probably a subclass of an effect, but it's yet another term that doesn't have a strict definition.

Which all leads back to it is much better to use sense to judge what was meant in a couple sentences rather than try to expect 10,000 word regulations that waste space in an futile effort to avoid reader imposed logic traps.