Shifter Using Shifter Feats

[zook1shoe]

Yes they are referring the attack with the natural weapon. But you have to USE that weapon to make the attack.

The way you seem to be interpreting the Aptitude special ability, then most feats (like Weapon Focus) wouldn't work, since it applies to the attack roll, not the weapon itself.

[EjoThims]

Yes they are referring the attack with the natural weapon. But you have to USE that weapon to make the attack.

Not explicitly true. And a strict reading of the RaW actually seems to imply otherwise, since, again, Slam is by RaW not a natural weapon even though it's a natural attack.

But even if true, it doesn't change anything.

Aptitude works on feats that designate a weapon and then modify attacks made with that weapon.

Shifter feats (dealing with attack traits) designate and modify attacks. This is not what Aptitude works on.

INA designates an attack and then modifies the weapon associated with it. This is the wrong order for Aptitude to work on.

INA could work with aptitude, if you ignored the strict RaW and went with RaI instead, but if you did that it still wouldn't work with Shifter Feats (since RaI aptitude only applies to feats that let you choose a weapon, not feats that designate one for you).

[skydragonknight]

Improved Grab

If a creature with this special attack hits with a melee weapon (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. No initial touch attack is required.

...you were saying?

Edit: also check the definition of "natural weapon" in the back of MM and tell me that slam is not listed there.

[zook1shoe]

RAI for aptitude is more like 'feats affecting weapons similar weapons, like swords or axes'

EjoThim, are you just arguing because you're bored? Or do you actually believe what you're saying? *says nicely*

[EjoThims]

Improved Grab

If a creature with this special attack hits with a melee weapon (usually a claw or bite attack), it deals normal damage and attempts to start a grapple as a free action without provoking an attack of opportunity. No initial touch attack is required.

...you were saying?

That 'claw' is a type of weapon (a natural one) and a type of attack (a natural one).

But INA and Shifter feats both specify that they refer to the attack.

Edit: also check the definition of "natural weapon" in the back of MM and tell me that slam is not listed there.

It mentions slam after it talks about attacks, but since "Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature." I must once more note that technically slams are not natural weapons (despite being natural attacks). Unless, of course, you can point to me which part of a creature is the 'slam.'

Or do you actually believe what you're saying? *says nicely*

Yes, I actually believe that if you are going to do something by abusing the poorly written RaW you must take it in its completeness instead of picking and choosing which poorly written sections you are going to use.

I agree, it is 100% ridiculous that the feats work that way in conjunction, but by their particular writings, that's how they work.

[skydragonknight]

Slam is a type of natural weapon. The body part is either an arm or leg (an appendage). The only difference between a slam and a claw is that the appendage must be sharp to be a claw.

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.

Tome of Battle's not on me currently, so I'll have to read the text of Aptitude again to double check, since making statements without reading text seems to be the easiest way to make mistakes.

[EjoThims]

Slam is a type of natural weapon.

Hrmm, where is that chart? Under what section, I mean?

I had totally missed it before, but it would be an example of specific overriding general to make Slams a Natural Weapon despite not fitting the definition.

[zook1shoe]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm

Under natural attacks

[EjoThims]

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm

Under natural attacks

I fail so hard at reading the way that site is organized sometimes. As I said, I must retract my earlier claim about slams, because of specific over general, but I feel like a total idiot that the override comes further down in the same definition in a bullet point that through formatting I had assumed was the start of the next entry. 

It doesn't change anything about Aptitude's interaction with INA or Shifter Feats though.

[zook1shoe]

I agree that the srd is poorly set up.

I still don't see how aptitude doesn't affect those feats, without causing the entire special ability to crumble (most feats not being able to work)

[skydragonknight]

"Feats that affect the use of a particular kind of weapon, such as Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization."

It could easily be argued that the use of a weapon is attacking with it, and anything affecting an attack with it would affect the use of it. This would be, IMHO, the most common interpretation, but I can see how there might be another.

I see no contradictions with INA. ...interesting. I see a reasonable interpretation of Longtooth not working because the extra Con damage comes from the feat itself and is not actually dealt by the weapon, thereby not affecting it's use. Very different wording from Wounding where it says the weapon causes the Con damage. I'm willing to accept that.

[EjoThims]

"Feats that affect the use of a particular kind of weapon, such as Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization."

It could easily be argued that the use of a weapon is attacking with it, and anything affecting an attack with it would affect the use of it.

I can see the argument, but when dealing with the literal written rules, it requires a logical jump that just isn't actually written.

The feat INA affects the natural attack. That affect on the attack then affects the weapon, by having used the weapon in the attack. Aptitude would have to be able to see this transition to be able to note that, in the end, the feat does have an affect on the weapon's use even though it directly applies to the attack.

The problem is that, when we are being as strict as we need to to make aptitude apply to feats that don't give a choice, we must also be strict enough to note that said transition is not actually noted in the rules.

And this is why I argue that, while it would make sense for INA to also affect it, we must conclude that it does not.