Can monks get improved natural attack?

[Deset Gled]

It's just the same as dwarf treating the waraxe as a martial weapon, whether or not he actually owns one or is even proficient with martial weapons.

I believe the example you chose here is actually one that demonstrates my point. A dwarf with levels in fighter is proficient with the dwarven waraxe, because they are proficient with "all martial weapons", and because they treat the waraxe as a martial weapon. However, a dwarf rogue cannot take the feat Martial Weapon Proficiency: Dwarven Waraxe, because there is no such thing as a martial dwarven waraxe. They have to take Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Dwarven Waraxe instead, because the waraxe is still an exotic weapon. The same issue comes up with the Bastard Sword.

Being treated "as" something for a specific purpose is very different than actually being something else.

QFT

w00t!

 

[Nail]

There are core spells that specifically describe fists and such as natural attacks

So an unarmed attack is an attack with a natural weapon?

Really?

 

[Deset Gled]

IMHO, its a natural weapon.

My reading of the rules as a whole regarding natural weapons & PC races (monk description, feats, key spells, Kensai description, etc.) leads me to the opinion that what the monk's "Unarmed Strike" language adds to their abilities is to be affected by spells and effects that would normally be limited to manufactured weapons, since their unarmed strikes are already natural weapons.

Thus. the Monk and only the Monk has an unarmed strike that scales up with level advancement, and is also the only class that can treat its unarmed strikes as manufactured weapons.

There are two problems with this ruling.

1. Natural weapons do not use the itterative attack sequence.

2. The text from the Equipment section, which states:

A Medium character deals 1d3 points of nonlethal damage with an unarmed strike. A Small character deals 1d2 points of nonlethal damage. A monk or any character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat can deal lethal or nonlethal damage with unarmed strikes, at her option. The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.

Which states that the monk's unarmed strike is a modified unarmed strike, not a modified natural attack.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So an unarmed attack is an attack with a natural weapon?

Seeing as how an unarmed attack uses things that are body parts to do damage, yes. I don't have them in front of me right now, but check out the PHB glossary definitions of unarmed attacks and natural weapons.

1. Natural weapons do not use the itterative attack sequence.

True. And there are creatures with natural weapons that are not, in reality, truly weapons- like a horse's hooves. Hooves are part of the horse's locomotive anatomy, and are only pressed into service as weapons as a last resort. The characteristics that make a horse's hooves useful as a weapon are a direct result of the main task they perform.

In comparison, they are no more real weapons than the natural attacks of a human being- whose punches, kicks, gouges, chokes and bites are quite capable of killing even if untrained.

2. The text from the Equipment section, which states:

And there is language elswhere in the PHB that explicitly calls a fist a natural weapon, such as spells that affect natural weapons.

End result (as I've stated elsewhere): the natural weapon/unarmed strike/manufactured weapon rules are a contradictory mess, and should be replaced with a natural weapon/manufactured weapon regime, with trained unarmed martial strikes considered to be a form of specialized training that improves a creature's natural weapons.

Much cleaner and less confusing.

 

[Stalker0]

The monk's unarmed strikes are NOT natural attacks HOWEVER they often do count as natural attacks for certain effects. Arguing about whether a monk's unarmed strike is a natural attack is pointless. The critical point is whether the monk's "certain effect" clause counts for the prereqs of feats.

 

[pawsplay]

I believe the example you chose here is actually one that demonstrates my point. A dwarf with levels in fighter is proficient with the dwarven waraxe, because they are proficient with "all martial weapons", and because they treat the waraxe as a martial weapon. However, a dwarf rogue cannot take the feat Martial Weapon Proficiency: Dwarven Waraxe, because there is no such thing as a martial dwarven waraxe. They have to take Exotic Weapon Proficiency: Dwarven Waraxe instead, because the waraxe is still an exotic weapon. The same issue comes up with the Bastard Sword.

Being treated "as" something for a specific purpose is very different than actually being something else.

w00t!

What makes you think that?

Weapon Familiarity: Dwarves may treat dwarven waraxes and dwarven urgroshes as martial weapons, rather than exotic weapons.

Looks like you can take WWP (dwarven waraxe) to me. I believe your argument is circular.

 

[Unkabear]

I say give the Monk whatever leg up you can. If they wanted to be a damage dealing monster straight fighter is the way to go. Let them have thier strange flavor and not be the weak(er) link in the party.

 

[mvincent]

The FAQ was mentioned earlier, but I didn't see the applicable portion cut/pasted into the thread yet, so here it is (for reference):
"Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack (Monster
Manual, page 304) to improve his unarmed strike?
Yes. As stated on page 41 of the Player’s Handbook, a
monk’s unarmed strike “is treated as both a manufactured
weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and
effects that enhance or improve either” which includes feats
such as Improved Natural Attack.
Barring multiclassing, the earliest a monk could take this
feat would be at 6th level (due to the base attack bonus
prerequisite), at which point her unarmed strike damage would
improve from 1d8 to 2d6 (which represents an average increase
of +2.5 points of damage). The same monk at 20th level would
deal 4d8 points of damage with her unarmed strike."

 

[RigaMortus2]

The FAQ was mentioned earlier, but I didn't see the applicable portion cut/pasted into the thread yet, so here it is (for reference):
"Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack (Monster
Manual, page 304) to improve his unarmed strike?
Yes. As stated on page 41 of the Player’s Handbook, a
monk’s unarmed strike “is treated as both a manufactured
weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and
effects that enhance or improve either” which includes feats
such as Improved Natural Attack.
Barring multiclassing, the earliest a monk could take this
feat would be at 6th level (due to the base attack bonus
prerequisite), at which point her unarmed strike damage would
improve from 1d8 to 2d6 (which represents an average increase
of +2.5 points of damage). The same monk at 20th level would
deal 4d8 points of damage with her unarmed strike."

From this quote, it seems the FAQ is doing one of two things:

a) clarifying that feats are effects
b) creating a new rule which states/implies that feats are effects

It's because of this line “is treated as both a manufactured
weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and
effects that enhance or improve either” which includes feats
such as Improved Natural Attack.

By Core RAW, it doesn't work. By FAQ RAW... well, it's obvious it does.

 

[Cedric]

Rules aside, I'll give you just my opinion. I would allow it because I feel that monks are not in any way overpowered and that adding this feat to a monk (even a "Large" race Monk) would not make them overpowered.

I think monk's best shine under situational conditions and outside of those conditions are mediocre at best.

However, I fully respect the fact that others do NOT agree and feel that adding such a significant damage boost to monks would be abusive. Likewise I would suspect that a lot of those people have very well balanced and prepared games where the situational benefits of a monk are often showcased and monk players feel 'satsified' with their level of contribution to the team as a whole...but that's just suposition.