Can monks get improved natural attack?

[atomn]

This is slightly off topic, but does a non-monk character with Improved Unarmed Strike count as a natural weapon or manufactured weapon? Logic says it'll be a natural weapon but D&D rules don't always stick with logic.

 

[Gargoyle]

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?

I will agree with those that said "Yes". Technically it's allowed.

However, IMC I don't allow monks to take it, including NPC monks. My thinking is:

1) The feat was intended to be given to monsters. I know that saying "this feat is for monsters only" is a poor argument. The line between a monster and a character is blurred or non-existant in 3E/3.5 and that's as it should be. If something is good enough for the characters, it should be obtainable by monsters, and vice versa.

Still, I think whoever wrote it didn't have monks in mind, including monsters with monk levels. There are no notes about monks in the description, and they specifically note a damage progression that is much less generous that what monks gain from using this feat. I just don't think they thought it through.

2) It's a boring feat. It has no visible effect in the game except that you hit harder. I would rather PC monks take something more flashy or interesting, like Power Attack. Feats that do nothing except increase numbers are great for NPC's / monsters because it make it that much easier for the DM to run, but I don't like them for player characters.

3) Frankthedm makes a compelling argument about the damage increase. It seems too good for monks at lower levels.

 

[Legildur]

However, if you allow precident from WotC (in this case with precident being established by the FAQ and PHB2), then WotC has clearly established that INA is allowed for Monks.

Okay, we now have three threads kicking around the INA for monks idea.

And this is funniest bit yet. In claiming that WotC is setting precedent for Monks and INA through the FAQ and PHBII, I believe you are asserting that those two sources are official (I agree on official, but not core RAW) and that they are accurate. You would normally expect that to be a reasonable assertion.

'Official' I don't have a problem with (though I note it is not core RAW).

But 'accurate'? Well, that's a whole new ball game. I came across this new thread: INA and PHBII where Testsubo makes a pertinent observation that the example 1st level monk in the PHBII doesn't actually meet the BAB prerequisite for INA! The example monk has BAB +0, whilst the prerequisite is, in fact, BAB +4 (ignoring the natural weapons argument for the sake of simplicity). There's a (not necessarily fatal) mark against the PHBII supporting the argument.

Similary for the FAQ, where at the bottom of page 11 it states that "... nor could she... or feint (which requires a move action)." When you look at the SRD or the PHB, a feint clearly requires a standard action. There are other errors in the FAQ which undermines it's credibility as a rules source - I still use it as a reference, and I don't attach a great deal of weight to the clarification it is meant to provide. But, once again, I'm not sure that this is a necessarily fatal error.

 

[Thanee]

By the core rules, I would say, that it is not possible.
The FAQ states, that it is possible, however.

So, officially: yes you can.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Artoomis]

... There are other errors in the FAQ which undermines it's credibility as a rules source - I still use it as a reference, and I don't attach a great deal of weight to the clarification it is meant to provide. But, once again, I'm not sure that this is a necessarily fatal error.

There are errors in the CORE RULES which undermines it's credibility as a rules source.

 

[Artoomis]

This is slightly off topic, but does a non-monk character with Improved Unarmed Strike count as a natural weapon or manufactured weapon? Logic says it'll be a natural weapon but D&D rules don't always stick with logic.

Definately NOT a manufactured weapon. That much is clear.

Some say unarmed strikes are in their own category - neither a natural weapon nor manufactured weapon.

I think they ought to be a natural weapon, but, like I said, nto all agree.

In any case, it matters not weather you have IUS or not when you want to know how to categorize an unarmed strike.

 

[KarinsDad]

Sure, why not? If a ranger could only use his favored enemy with manufactured weapons I would certainly allow a monk/ranger to use his unarmed strikes in place of a manufactured weapon.

So, if class features are effects, the ability to cast a spell is an effect. Not just the results of the spell itself, but the ability to do so.

Weapon proficiency is an effect.

Armor proficiency is an effect.

Illiteracy is an effect (well, maybe sometimes here on the message boards ).

Bonus Languages are an effect.

This is a very unusual interpretation of the word effect.

 

[Enforcer]

To weigh in briefly, while a monk with this feat would eventually be rolling some heavy damage dice, I believe a warrior-class is still likely to outdamage the monk, based on magic weapons, usually higher strength (due to the monk's MAD), and most importantly a MUCH better attack roll--a Fighter with Power Attack can reduce his attack bonus down to a monk's level with a two-hander and outclass the monk's damage.

That said, I haven't seen a monk with this feat in play, perhaps my new campaign will have a monk that I can test this theory on. It does look like we'll have a big, bad Fighter to compare to.

 

[Slaved]

So, if class features are effects, the ability to cast a spell is an effect. Not just the results of the spell itself, but the ability to do so.

Weapon proficiency is an effect.

Armor proficiency is an effect.

Illiteracy is an effect (well, maybe sometimes here on the message boards ).

Bonus Languages are an effect.

This is a very unusual interpretation of the word effect.

Unusual interpretation of the word effect? It fits with both what is written in the d&d books and it fits with the dictionary definition of the word.

In this case weapon/armor proficiency is the effect of training (or, from the player perspective, taking a level in a certain class and/or spending a feat). It is represented by those words on your paper in the appropriate place, but that does not change what it actually is.

Illiteracy is the effect of never learning how to read or some other condition which blocks off that part of the mind. Again, it is just a word used to describe the actual effect that is going on.

Etc etc.

I think that perhaps you are taking an overly narrow interpretation of effect given the sources that I have seen. In this case I am meaning references in the books and the dictionary definition as the word effect seems to refer more to that when written than it does to a d&d term like damage.


Can anyone put up the actual text from the monstrous manual by chance? Someone mentioned earlier that it would represent the creature somehow getting bigger, which would mean I guess that a bear with it would have huge paws the size of its body or something. The SRD does not mention anything about the natural weapon actually increasing in size and I had always thought that it was a representation of more cunning use of the weapon or something similar.

After all, it isnt a feat that must be picked up early on, if a monster is awakened and gains class levels there doesnt seem to be anything restricting it from picking it up with bonus feats from extra hd.

 

[werk]

No, PCs may not take feats from the Monster Manual unless they are playing monstrous races

That was easy...