Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack? - Official answer

[TheEvil]

Nothing is so obvious that someone, somewhere won't find a point about it that they think is open to debate. I suppose that is what Rules portion of this board is about, really.

 

[Scion]

I mean come on its the monk....when's the last time you heard about a broken monk

Last time I saw one try to grapple something ;/ Broke him in half.

 

[Kobold Stew]

I mean come on its the monk....when's the last time you heard about a broken monk

Actually, a ruling like this should (though of course it won't) stop the most common broken-monk build, when people start adding other natural attacks in addition to a flurry as part of a full attack (as in a lizardfolk monk build).

I haven't read the whole text, so perhaps this is addressed.

 

[francisca]

Nothing is so obvious that someone, somewhere won't find a point about it that they think is open to debate. I suppose that is what Rules portion of this board is about, really.

Naw, it's really about who can write their name in the snow fastest, if you take my meaning.

 

[spatha]

Naw, it's really about who can write their name in the snow fastest, if you take my meaning.

Nope could you clarify?

 

[francisca]

Nope could you clarify?

no. I cannot.

 

[ForceUser]

Nope could you clarify?

As in, it's a "urinating" contest.

 

[TheEvil]

...and here I was thinking I should have gone with a shorter name.

 

[Psion]

I mean come on its the monk....when's the last time you heard about a broken monk

Well, the words "vow of poverty" were nearby.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The problem is that the rationale presented by the ruling doesn't follow.

Yes, you can apply the benefits of the feat to the monk's unarmed strike (this is an effect which improves a natural weapon, which specifically may be applied).

The real question, however, is whether or not a human monk qualifies for the feat in the first place.

I maintain that he doesn't.