Can monks get improved natural attack?

Captain Howdy · Sep 12, 2006

Quick question:

Can a monk's unarmed attack be affected by the improved natural attack feat (MM page 304), and does a monk's unarmed attack qualify for the natural weapon prerequisite of the feat?

Fieari · Sep 12, 2006

Relevant text, for reference, again.

3.5 SRD said:
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.

3.5 SRD said:
IMPROVED NATURAL ATTACK [GENERAL]

Prerequisite: Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4.

Mitigating circumstances: The PHBII specifically states that YES, YOU CAN.

There are references (someone else can quote them for me) which states that a feat is an effect. Some people choose to ignore these, insisting that a feat is not an effect.

I have heard it argued that a prerequisite is a seperate thing from the feat, and that the prerequisite is not an effect, meaning that the monk doesn't qualify. I personally do not buy this.

People will mention that the FAQ expressly states that INA can be taken by a monk. There may be arguments as to the validity of the FAQ, however, the above still stands.

Others still will argue that it is unbalancing to allow monks to take the feat, and regardless of whether WotC says they can or not, they shouldn't be allowed to take it. This is still under debate, espcially given that many people consider monks to be a rather weak class even with the feat.

pawsplay · Sep 12, 2006

Yes. Some GMs, and Living Greyhawk, do not permit it.

TheEvil · Sep 12, 2006

frankthedm · Sep 12, 2006

Monks unarmed strikes are made with all parts of thier bodies. Last i checked INA represents a larger natural weapon, Bigger jaws or paws, or an impresive rack of horns. A Human with INA would look like

knocker from Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back

A monk’s attacks may be with either fist interchangeably or even from elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may even make unarmed strikes with her hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed.

I do allow a feat where monk's unarmed attacks use the next highest die on the monk chart. Some powergreedy folks feel it is not enough for a feat.

Artoomis · Sep 12, 2006

From the core rules themselves there are at least two equally valid viewpoints.

1. Read broadly, "effects" from the monk class description includes feats such as INA since effects is a undefined game term, in the general sense, and therefore inludes things that produce effects, such as feats, not just the effect itself and thus excluding feat prerequisites.

2. Read narrowly, "effects" is a very limited term. Feats have effects (or not, it matter not to this choice), but are not in and of themselves effects or, even if they are, the prerequisites for them are not.

I have a lot of trouble with number two, as it seems like an overly-technical reading that assumes an unreasonably high level of precision in the original writing of these rules.

In addition to the above, the PHB II and the FAQ both allow for INA for monks, so it seems that if you use sources outside the core rules (assuming you consider the FAQ and PHB II to be outside the core rules), then yes you should allow it per the rules. Whether or not the FAQ is part of the core rules is the subject for some debate.

There are other variations of how to look at the results, too, but, generally, that's about it.

Bottom line: some folks feel this is overpowered and/or not allowed by a very strict reading of the rules. WotC has taken the opposite view.

I don't know what else there is to say. You (or your DM) are now, I think, fully armed to make your own choice.

RigaMortus2 · Sep 12, 2006

Artoomis said:
2. Read narrowly, "effects" is a very limited term. Feats have effects (or not, it matter not to this choice), but are not in and of themselves effects or, even if they are, the prerequisites for them are not.

Feats have Benefits. I have yet to see it defined anywhere in the rules where benefit = effect

(Psi)SeveredHead · Sep 12, 2006

There's three conflicting systems - natural attacks, manufactured attacks, and the horribly unclear "unarmed attack". I don't believe the RAW are clear.

Personally I think Superior Unarmed Strike makes the point moot, at least if you're using Tome of Battle (which is admittedly not core rules and not used in a lot of groups). SUS definitely works with a monk's unarmed attack. I wouldn't let Improved Natural Attack work, as a result, and stacking would definitely be a no-no!

Using INA with monks is a bit silly anyway. That doesn't solve the monk's real problems. Oh look, you can do some more damage but still suffer from a crappy attack bonus, lack of reasonable enhancement bonuses, MAD, flavor problems and a bunch of other stuff.

Slaved · Sep 12, 2006

RigaMortus2 said:
Feats have Benefits. I have yet to see it defined anywhere in the rules where benefit = effect

This is at least interesting. It states that feats are permanent effects.

SRD said:
IMPROVED SPELL RESISTANCE [EPIC]
Prerequisite: Must have spell resistance from a feat, class feature, or other permanent effect.
Benefit: The character’s spell resistance increases by +2.
Special: A character can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects stack.

KarinsDad · Sep 12, 2006

RigaMortus2 said:
Feats have Benefits. I have yet to see it defined anywhere in the rules where benefit = effect

PHB page 141?

8 The description of a feat defines its effect.

Oh, I forgot. The feat description consists of the prerequisite, the benefit, what normally happens without the feat, and any special information. Somehow, all of this is the definition of the feat effect, even what normally happens without the feat.