Can a monk take improved natural attack for his unarmed attack?

Gort · Sep 14, 2004

The title says it all, really.

Hypersmurf · Sep 14, 2004

Gort said:
The title says it all, really.

Well, the feat has a prerequisite of one or more natural weapon.

A human monk doesn't have any.

His unarmed strike is considered a natural weapon for the purpose of certain spells and effects, but it isn't actually a natural weapon.

Oddly, if a minotaur monk, for example (who has the prerequisite) took the feat, the 'considered a natural weapon' clause would probably let him apply it to his unarmed strike.

But the human monk doesn't qualify for the feat, so he can't exploit the same weirdness.

-Hyp.

Gort · Sep 14, 2004

Fair enough.

hong · Sep 14, 2004

Hypersmurf said:
Well, the feat has a prerequisite of one or more natural weapon.

A human monk doesn't have any.

His unarmed strike is considered a natural weapon for the purpose of certain spells and effects, but it isn't actually a natural weapon.

Oddly, if a minotaur monk, for example (who has the prerequisite) took the feat, the 'considered a natural weapon' clause would probably let him apply it to his unarmed strike.

But the human monk doesn't qualify for the feat, so he can't exploit the same weirdness.

-Hyp.

Hm. Wouldn't "certain spells and effects" include "for the purposes of this feat"...?

jarlaxlecq · Sep 14, 2004

I would say no. Improved Unarmed Strike already improves on the persons natural weapon. If it improved anything it would be the human's "normal natural attack" which is like 1d4 subdual. (i think)

Sejs · Sep 14, 2004

it's normally 1d3 subdual, it would go to 1d4 sub with the feat.

Scion · Sep 14, 2004

I would allow it, both on the effect wording and because it is basically just like the exotic weapon prof feat (many exotic weapons improve something over a similar weapon, in this case it would be damage die up by one).

Lord_Fergus · Sep 14, 2004

Heh, we have been over this before and last time we went round and round about it. Technically you probably should not be allowed to do it. My DM allowed it and for that I am grateful. If I were the DM I would allow it as it fits the spirit of what you are trying to do as a monk. I would allow it to be only taken one time however.

Scharlata · Sep 14, 2004

Hypersmurf said:
[...] His unarmed strike is considered a natural weapon for the purpose of certain spells and effects, but it isn't actually a natural weapon. [...]

Hi, all!

I think the opposite is true. A monk fighting unarmed uses her most natural attack(s) she has.

. And I've allowed not only the application of above mentioned feat but also the applicatoin of the feat Intuitive Attack from the BoED (p. 44) to a monk's unarmed attacks, naturally.

The quote from Hypersmurf (3.5) is due to a badly needed clarification of the kind/type of weapon a monk uses (when attacking unarmed and benefitting from spells/effects/feats) that 3.0 neglected to point out.

Kind regards

Hypersmurf · Sep 14, 2004

Scharlata said:
A monk fighting unarmed uses her most natural attack(s) she has. .

An unarmed strike is not a natural weapon.

There are some lines in the current FAQ addressing this:

A natural weapon (any natural weapon) is neither an unarmed strike nor a special monk weapon, so you can't use it along with a flurry.

and

It's worth noting here that a vampire monk using its unarmed strike ability is not using its slam attack and cannot drain energy.

And from the MM:

Energy Drain (Su): Living creatures hit by a vampire’s slam attack (or any other natural weapon the vampire might possess) gain two negative levels.

A vampire using any natural weapon it might possess can use Energy Drain.

A vampire using an unarmed strike cannot use Energy Drain.

An unarmed strike is, therefore, not "any natural weapon it might possess".

Which is perfectly reasonable, since unarmed strikes aren't natural weapons.

-Hyp.