D&D 3E/3.5 Can a Monk use the Improved Natural Attack feat (from the MM 3.5)

Any ideas, I have no clue?

From the monk's unarmed strike ability in the SRD:
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.

While a monk's unarmed strike is not a natural weapon, it is treated as one for the purposes of effects that improve it (but not for class features like flurry of blows). The only debatable point is what was meant by the term "effect." (this is not mine, got it off the wizards feat board)

This debate comes up fairly regularly, and there is no clear answer. The rules are vague and there has been no errata to clarify them. People will say one way is correct or another, but really, it's up to your DM.

With that wording, unless is was specifically stated otherwise somewhere, I would say "yes"

There are really two questions here.

1) Could a monk benefit from the Improved Natural Attack feat?
2) Could a monk qualify the Improved Natural Attack feat?

Here's the feat itself:

SRD said:

IMPROVED NATURAL ATTACK [GENERAL]

Prerequisite: Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4.

Benefit: Choose one of the creature’s natural attack forms. The damage for this natural weapon increases by one step, as if the creature’s size had increased by one category: 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6.

A weapon or attack that deals 1d10 points of damage increases as follows: 1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8.

Click to expand...

We'll actually answer those questions in reverse order.

2) Does a [presumably human] monk meet the prerequisites? My answer to this is "No." A human - even a human monk - does not actually have a natural weapon. He's got something that counts as a natural weapon for targeting purposes, but it's not an actual natural weapon.

1) Could a monk who qualified for the feat in another way apply the benefits to his unarmed strike? My answer to this is "Eh." The first line of the feat says, "Choose one of the creature's natural attack forms." An unarmed strike is not a natural attack form, though it sometimes acts like one. So I could probably be persuaded that the feat could affect a monk's unarmed strike - if he could qualify for the feat to begin with.

Patryn said what I was going to. *nod*

A monk that's a member of a race that does not have natural weapons would not normally qualify for the feat, as a prerequisite is not an effect, however a monk that did have natural weaponry (e.g. a minotaur) may, at the DMs discretion. Prerequisites are not an effect, but the benefit of the feat is.

Sejs said:

Patryn said what I was going to. *nod*

Click to expand...

An me!


glass.

dagger said:

From the monk's unarmed strike ability in the SRD:
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.

Click to expand...

From this quote, I would say the the monk is "treated" as having a natural weapon for the effect granted by this feat.

I actually see the opposite to Patryn and the others because a human has a vriety of natural weapons, just we aren't really trained to use then.

If you want to get down to it, we have our fists and feet of course - which if you've been in any fight without weapons are the obvious choices to use. A human can also choose the bite or scratch their enemies (depending mainly on the length of their fingernails). None of the these natural attacks are especially effective untrained. Biting and scratching are almost worthless in a D&D combat situation (I just the bit the tentacle of a mindflayer - yay), and untrained the fists and feet do very little effective damage (d3 +str). If you ever seen anybody who does martial arts, their skills can make their attacks very painful, which is a close as you can get to a monk. Since it's some defense mechanisms most humans are born with, why would it not be a natural weapon? It's not like, we at age X said - Hey! Let's make ourselves fists to fight with! That's my little thought on natural weapon.

The more pertinent discussion seems to center around effect, I would call the feat and effect. This is because the feats are created as description, prequesites, benefit, and if applicable 'normal'. A benefit is also an effect, it grants something. How does the feat work, it's effect/benefit is that it increases.... the natural attack damage from... to...

Viashimo said:

I actually see the opposite to Patryn and the others because a human has a vriety of natural weapons, just we aren't really trained to use then.

Click to expand...

Er, no, that's a dangerous line of thinking.

There's a difference between natural weapons and manufactured weapons. Unarmed Strike - which all humans have - is treated by the game as a manufactured weapon.

Humans, in D&D, have absolutely 0 natural weapons.

Viashimo said:

I actually see the opposite to Patryn and the others because a human has a vriety of natural weapons, just we aren't really trained to use then.

Click to expand...

Regardless of training you are never going to be able to use tooth and nail as well as a cat or bear. humans just aren't equipped with natural weapons worth speaking about.


I'd say no to improved natural weapon for species that don't have a game indicated natural weapon to start with. Monks already get an improved unarmed strike becasue of the special training one gains with the class they don't develop a natural weapon.