Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[Thurbane]

The amount of deabte on this particular subject, both here and elsewhere, just staggers my mind. Considering the other munchkinville feat/race/class combos I've seen get the green light, this has to be the most innocuous bone of contention ever.

For the record, I'm in the "100% Monk can have INA" camp...

 

[Zimri]

1) A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon

2) Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature

3) A creature making a melee attack with a natural weapon is considered armed and does not provoke attacks of opportunity

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

1) Check Monks unarmed strike = natural weapon
2) Check my monk's fists, elbows, legs, feet, etcetera all parts of her body
3) Check a monk is considered armed when using unarmed strikes and does not provoke attacks of oppurtunity as normal humanoids would
4)And check a Monk's unarmed strike crits on a 20

Therefore I have to vote yes seeing as how it is a natural weapon it qualifies. Saying a part of my body is "un-natural" strikes me as more than a tad bizarre

 

[Hypersmurf]

1) Check Monks unarmed strike = natural weapon
2) Check my monk's fists, elbows, legs, feet, etcetera all parts of her body
3) Check a monk is considered armed when using unarmed strikes and does not provoke attacks of oppurtunity as normal humanoids would
4)And check a Monk's unarmed strike crits on a 20

Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons.

A monk receives additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using unarmed strikes.

A creature’s primary attack damage includes its full Strength modifier (1-1/2 times its Strength bonus if the attack is with the creature’s sole natural weapon).

A monk doesn't add 1-1/2 times his Strength bonus to unarmed strikes.

1) A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon

You missed a bit.

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. Not for all purposes.

-Hyp.

 

[Slaved]

But the Monk description refers to 'spells and effects'. If "effects (such as the Keen Edge spell or the Improved Critical feat)" is read to mean "spells are effects and feats are effects", then the phrase "spells and effects" is nonsensical - it's like saying "longswords and weapons" or "Magic Missile and Evocations".

Nonsensical? Not even close.

Redundant? Sure, but there isn't anything wrong with redundancy in a rule book such as this.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Slaved, it's redundant as in "unnecessary repetition" and not redundant as in a failsafe backup device. One of the definitions of nonsensical is "things of no importance or value." IMO, unnecessary repetition fits that bill so the two words are synonomous.

Considering the other munchkinville feat/race/class combos I've seen get the green light, this has to be the most innocuous bone of contention ever.

Actually, INA is an extremely powerful feat. It's much stronger than anything a fighter could take. Combine that fact with it being a non-tier, low-prerequisite feat and it's absurdly powerful. Allowing it because you think monks are a weak class is just bad game design. I would only accept an opinion that INA for monks is not overly powerful if you allow Improved Manufactured Weapon Attack as a feat. And even then, you need to justify it because a normal manufactured weapon does not get much more powerful at higher levels.

 

[Slaved]

Slaved, it's redundant

Glad you agree. The rest of your post was unneccisarrily redundant after that

Still though, if you are actually not agreeing then I could go through and point out the hundreds/thousands of redundancies in the books. In this case however I think it is acceptable to just say it is a turn of phrase, redundant, and basically how english works.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Still though, if you are actually not agreeing then I could go through and point out the hundreds/thousands of redundancies in the books. In this case however I think it is acceptable to just say it is a turn of phrase, redundant, and basically how english works.

Just pick one other instance of unnecessary repetition.

True, it could be just non-legalized wording in a rulebook (i.e. careless rule-writing), but then again it might not be. My point of commenting was merely to support Hyp's view that in this case it is not necessarily redundant, whereas the opposing view requires it to be redundant.

 

[Kem]

I voted yes

To me, The Natural Weapon Clause for the monks attack allows it to take INA.

Saying a minotaur can take it and benefit his Monk attacks seems counter-productive. Especially with "Choose one of the creature’s natural attack forms."

How can it choose that natural attack form if it is not in fact, a natural attack form?

 

[Hypersmurf]

How can it choose that natural attack form if it is not in fact, a natural attack form?

Because it's considered a natural attack form for the purposes of effects that improve natural weapons, and "treat a natural weapon as one size larger" is an effect that improves a natural weapon.

-Hyp.

 

[Zimri]

Sorry Hype, it's my contention that you and your ilk are splitting hairs. A monk's unarmed strike is considered both manufactured and natural weapons. You would have a far easier time convincing me they are not manufactured weapons (and erego not valid recipients for "magic weapon" or the kensai's weapon improvements) than that they are not "natural". But hey if you want to continue to claim part of my (and your) body is not a part of nature feel free.