Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[Hypersmurf]

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.

What do you consider the rest of the sentence to mean, then?

But hey if you want to continue to claim part of my (and your) body is not a part of nature feel free.

I'm not claiming it's not a part of nature; just that it doesn't fit the mechanics of the game concept 'natural weapon'.

-Hyp.

 

[Zimri]

What do you consider the rest of the sentence to mean, then?



I'm not claiming it's not a part of nature; just that it doesn't fit the mechanics of the game concept 'natural weapon'.

-Hyp.

I consider it clarification to remove ambiguity not add to it.

My fist is part of my natural body, my fist is being used as a weapon. It is therefore both natural and a weapon.

As a side note I am quite certain that this debate will not reach a conclusion til Wizards, and/or the author of said feat make a coherent ruling ........ Oh wait nope that didn't help anything at all did it.

 

[Rystil Arden]

To those who think that an unarmed strike is a natural weapon, I haven't seen this mentioned yet in this thread (though I may have missed it), but here's another bit that shows that either it is not, or we've added more redundancy:

Attack Your Opponent
You can make an attack with an unarmed strike, natural weapon, or light weapon against another character you are grappling. You take a -4 penalty on such attacks.

 

[brendan candries]

could someone clarify why a monk would qualify for INA and not, say, every humanoid of whatever class?

 

[Rystil Arden]

I consider it clarification to remove ambiguity not add to it.

My fist is part of my natural body, my fist is being used as a weapon. It is therefore both natural and a weapon.

As a side note I am quite certain that this debate will not reach a conclusion til Wizards, and/or the author of said feat make a coherent ruling ........ Oh wait nope that didn't help anything at all did it.

So, would you contend, then, that a fist is thus a natural weapon for nonmonks as well. It is a natural part of their bodies too, right?

 

[Artoomis]

could someone clarify why a monk would qualify for INA and not, say, every humanoid of whatever class?

I am not necessarily advocating that position, but why not? It would make little difference.

The biggest rules problem that letting an unarmed striuke always be considered a natural weapon would be that it woudl have to be a different type of natural weapon since it does allow intertainv attacks (and something else that escapes me at the moment), but that's really not so very different from certain weapons that have their own rules.

 

[Rystil Arden]

I am not necessarily advocating that position, but why not? It woudl make little difference.

The biggest rules problem that letting an unarmed striuke always be considered a natural weapon would be that it woudl have to be a different type of natural weapon since it does allow intertainv attacks (and something else that escapes me at the moment), but that's really not so very different from certain weapons that have their own rules.

If everything would qualify for that clause under that unusual logic, then why bother making the prereq at all? As well add "BAB +0" as a prereq to every feat or "Base Fort +0" to Great Fortitude.

 

[Zimri]

So, would you contend, then, that a fist is thus a natural weapon for nonmonks as well. It is a natural part of their bodies too, right?

Sure telling a regular untrained humanoid that their body is either un-natural, or that they can not hit stuff with parts of it seems silly. A monk can merely do so better because of training (ie improved unarmed strike et al)

I suppose then that begs the question "Do the effects of improved unarmed strike and improved natural attack stack ?"

 

[Artoomis]

If everything would qualify for that clause under that unusual logic, then why bother making the prereq at all? As well add "BAB +0" as a prereq to every feat or "Base Fort +0" to Great Fortitude.

True. I did NOT say I was advocating that position, only that it would not break the game to do so.

 

[Artoomis]

Sure telling a regular untrained humanoid that their body is either un-natural, or that they can not hit stuff with parts of it seems silly. A monk can merely do so better because of training (ie improved unarmed strike et al)

I suppose then that begs the question "Do the effects of improved unarmed strike and improved natural attack stack ?"

No. That's just too good to allow, and logic can be applied to prevent that from happening though, strictly rules-speaking, probably yes.

Of course, even at that what really bad things would happen? The monk would use up two very valuable feats to get a two-step increase in damage, right? Hardly game-breaking. It might actually make them more-or-less effective in offensive combat. (ooohhh - scary stuff )