Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack? - Official answer

[turbo]

The effect is that a natural weapon's damage dice is increased by one step.

The effect is the feat you get from gaining a level (or, rarely, possessing a magic item): feats are effects of leveling up; feats are not little engines that do things; a gain in level has effects, of which feats are one.

 

[Babylon Knight]

^ Good statement.

 

[Dinkeldog]

So it looks like the only "ramifications" to take in account are 1) that the exact appendage that the human monk uses is not specified, and 2) a monk receives iterative attacks from a high BAB. For 1) we know that one time it can be a kick, and the next it can be a hand. The type of damage seems to always be bludgeoning damage. For 2) perhaps the monk is an exception.

However, a monk can benefit from a magic fang spell, which specifies that it improves a natural attack. This already sets the monk up as an exception in the natural attack hierarchy. Did I say before that sometimes the rules are self-contradictory?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

So it looks like the only "ramifications" to take in account are 1) that the exact appendage that the human monk uses is not specified, and 2) a monk receives iterative attacks from a high BAB.

... and the fact that, if it were a natural weapon, the monk wouldn't need Improved Unarmed Strike, and the interaction of a monk attacking with monk or non-monk weapons in conjunction with unarmed strikes, and the interaction of monk attacks with the TWF rules more generally, among others.

For 1, it's actually spelled out what appendages a monk uses. It's in the Combat section:

Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

Etc. That's the reason a monk can wield a longspear and still attack with his unarmed strike as an light off-hand weapon.

"Light off-hand weapon" is a meaningless distinction when applied to natural weapons, which are either primary or secondary.

For 2) perhaps the monk is an exception.

Which is called out where, exactly?

There are no exceptions. Unarmed strikes, even monk unarmed strikes, are not natural weapons.

However, a monk can benefit from a magic fang spell, which specifies that it improves a natural attack. This already sets the monk up as an exception in the natural attack hierarchy. Did I say before that sometimes the rules are self-contradictory?

They aren't, because the monk class description clearly points out the exception involved: even though it isn't a natural weapon, a monk's unarmed strike may benefit from spells and effects that normally affect manufactured or natural weapons. Magic Fang is one of those spells.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The effect is the feat you get from gaining a level (or, rarely, possessing a magic item): feats are effects of leveling up; feats are not little engines that do things; a gain in level has effects, of which feats are one.

In which case I'll just counter that the ability to gain a feat is the effect of gaining levels. A particular feat is therefore not an effect of leveling.

 

[turbo]

In which case I'll just counter that the ability to gain a feat is the effect of gaining levels. A particular feat is therefore not an effect of leveling

A particular feat still amounts to a particular set of aspects that a character has, aspects taken as a result of the opening of a feat slot, and this still establishes a particular feat as the effect of something else (the act of taking that feat), all of which means that the point remains the same: it is nowhere written that a feat has an effect defined as its benefit (or its benefit defined as an effect!).

 

[Pinotage]

And, I hope, you readily admit that your interpretation of the game designers intent is far less reliable than a RAW interp.

After all: there are lots of ways to see "intent"........

Well, in the majority of cases I think intent and RAW boil down to the same thing, so I don't think there's anything to admit. Where the RAW is based on literal nitpicking, then I don't think it's any different from an opinion, and as such a discusion on intent is as valid. There are lots of ways to see intent, yes, and RAW literal nitpicking is one of them.

Hey, look, I made it to level 2. Huh, don't really feel any different.

Pinotage

 

[Dinkeldog]

... and the fact that, if it were a natural weapon, the monk wouldn't need Improved Unarmed Strike, and the interaction of a monk attacking with monk or non-monk weapons in conjunction with unarmed strikes, and the interaction of monk attacks with the TWF rules more generally, among others.

For 1, it's actually spelled out what appendages a monk uses. It's in the Combat section:



Etc. That's the reason a monk can wield a longspear and still attack with his unarmed strike as an light off-hand weapon.

"Light off-hand weapon" is a meaningless distinction when applied to natural weapons, which are either primary or secondary.

Hmmm. You think it's "a meaningless distinction", and I think its intent is to defuse rules lawyers who want to say, "You can't flurry! You're holding a weapon!" That gives it a meaning, so it's a meaningful distinction.

Which is called out where, exactly?

In the attack table for the monk that gives the iterative attacks. [/quote]

There are no exceptions. Unarmed strikes, even monk unarmed strikes, are not natural weapons.

Yup. We disagree.

They aren't, because the monk class description clearly points out the exception involved: even though it isn't a natural weapon, a monk's unarmed strike may benefit from spells and effects that normally affect manufactured or natural weapons. Magic Fang is one of those spells.

And Improved Natural Attack is apparently one of those effects. I'm only seeking a rationale behind. I know some people don't like that here. *shrug*

 

[Dimwhit]

They aren't, because the monk class description clearly points out the exception involved: even though it isn't a natural weapon, a monk's unarmed strike may benefit from spells and effects that normally affect manufactured or natural weapons. Magic Fang is one of those spells.

And Improved Natural Attack is apparently one of those effects. I'm only seeking a rationale behind. I know some people don't like that here. *shrug*

This right here is the crux of the disagreement. I still can't see how INA could not be considered one of those effects that can be gained. That seems the very purpose for the language used. Oh well. Probably not even worth arguing about anymore. I'll just still with the rules and allow it...

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Hmmm. You think it's "a meaningless distinction", and I think its intent is to defuse rules lawyers who want to say, "You can't flurry! You're holding a weapon!" That gives it a meaning, so it's a meaningful distinction.

[EDIT: And, besides, there's nothing that says that you can't use Flurry while you're holding a non-monk weapon. It just says that you can't use it as part of your Flurry.]

Could you explain that a bit more? It doesn't make sense. I'll explain what I'm talking about, and then hopefully we can clear this up.

A light off-hand weapon has a particular set of penalties when used via the Two-Weapon Fighting rules. Specifically, it reduces your attack penalties on both your main and off-hand attacks when you use the TWF rules to gain more attacks per round in a full attack action.

The two-weapon fighting rules do not apply to natural weapons. Natural weapons are either primary (in which case they have no AB penalty and apply the full strength bonus to damage rolls) or secondary (in which case they have a -5 AB penalty and apply half the strength bonus to damage rolls). You may attack once and only once with every natural weapon you have in a full attack action. Additionally, you may mix Manufactured Weapons and natural weapons in a full attack. If you do so, your manufactured weapons take no penalties, but all your natural weapons are treated as secondary. Whether or not they are considered light is immaterial. There is no such thing as an "off-hand" natural attack.

In the attack table for the monk that gives the iterative attacks.

Ah - you're referring to the non-weapon specific BAB table? As in, the general case which is overriden by the specific? The general rule is that when attacking, you may gain more than one attack in a full attack action when you have a high enough BAB. The specific case is that, with a specific subset of weapons (natural weapons, but also things like crossbows and slings) you cannot.