Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack? - Official answer

[Infiniti2000]

Oh good lord, can't you people ever be satisfied. You get the official answer and you're still nit-picking?

How'd you get the impression that everyone actually cares about the Sage's opinion? If WotC wants to alter the rule, issue errata. It's the only way to do so. If they want to add rules, issue errata or a new source on it and define that source as the precedent. It's really that simple.

No need for errata, errata is about errors and there is none.

I agree, there's no error in the rules. The error is in the Sage's response, as has happened several times and I'm sure others are willing and able to provide evidence on that. Obviously, I was talking about issuing errata to the rules if WotC wants to actually provide RAW to support the Sage's interpretation.

 

[Tetsubo]

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.

On what grounds? Within the context of the rules a Monk's Unarmed Attack is considered a natural weapon. So that means it qualifies.

On a larger scale you have to ask the question: Can a bare human hand deliver a blow (or blows) that can kill another human being? The answer of course is yes. So it passes the "reality" test as well. Someone with exceptional training should be able to cause greater harm with an unaided hand than an lesser trained individual.

So how do you justify NOT allowing this?

The Monk isn't going to be broken by delivering slightly more damage. I think it makes the class more viable at higher levels.

 

[Infiniti2000]

It's quite simple really. Just read the prerequisite. A monk's unarmed strike is not a natural weapon. You don't get the benefit (i.e. the effect of the feat) until after you take it, so the line about spells and effects in the monk's unarmed strike description are really useless.

When deciding if a monk can take the effect, look at the relevant part:

Improved Natural Attack [General]
Prerequisite
Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4.

Is the monk's unarmed strike actually a natural weapon? No. At this point, there is no 'effect' to equate it to such, so you stop and say that the feat doesn't apply.

The defense rests.

 

[Tetsubo]

It's quite simple really. Just read the prerequisite. A monk's unarmed strike is not a natural weapon. You don't get the benefit (i.e. the effect of the feat) until after you take it, so the line about spells and effects in the monk's unarmed strike description are really useless.

When deciding if a monk can take the effect, look at the relevant part:
Is the monk's unarmed strike actually a natural weapon? No. At this point, there is no 'effect' to equate it to such, so you stop and say that the feat doesn't apply.

The defense rests.

Except for this part:

".....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"

You're 100% correct...

 

[d-pirate]

I don't usually post on here because it's been my experience that sometimes debate leads to nauseum. But that said, a lot of us who have played D&D 20 years or more look to these debates as comic relief. RAW vs SRD vs FAQ vs Errata some people will never accept any answer regardless of common sense. But I agree with those who take the route of judgement, IE when in my house I rule as such.... At least that gets the game played. Far to many people are willing to argue for hours with the DM or rules lawyer to other players.

But as a tangent I do post a question or is it more of a poll? Hmm well anyways,
In my group really only two out of 6 DM, myself and one other. The other DM is so mad at the other players munchkinizing and optimizing and "cheating" if you will that when he runs published adventures he only allows the core books. He feels that since normally when adventures are published the writers only utilize the SRD and the monsters are at a disadvantage. Has anyone else run into this? When I DM I really don't care what the players use as long as its something I can reference but that maybe just my comfortablity with the spirit of D&D. This leads to another more serious and useful question. Do the player's by virtue of paying for lots of D&D books get a "right" to utilize the material? Obviously the DM has the final say but unbalance destroy's games and thats the key thing players want, not a DM who let's them always win but a game where it's balanced.

 

[babomb]

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.

Ok, so what you're saying is this:

A human monk can't take this feat because he doesn't have a natural weapon. However, a lizardfolk monk, because he has claws that are totally unrelated to his unarmed strike, can take this feat and apply it to his unarmed strike damage. Yes?

No matter what the RAW say, that just seems illogical. I mean, I understand what you're saying, but if you concede that the unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon in the benefit portion of the feat, why shouldn't it count for the requirement part of the feat? I don't see that anywhere in the RAW.

 

[Hypersmurf]

A human monk can't take this feat because he doesn't have a natural weapon. However, a lizardfolk monk, because he has claws that are totally unrelated to his unarmed strike, can take this feat and apply it to his unarmed strike damage. Yes?

As written - yup.

No matter what the RAW say, that just seems illogical. I mean, I understand what you're saying, but if you concede that the unarmed strike counts as a natural weapon in the benefit portion of the feat, why shouldn't it count for the requirement part of the feat? I don't see that anywhere in the RAW.

The benefit is an effect that improves natural weapons. The prerequisite is not.

-Hyp.

 

[Dimwhit]

I can't believe this is actually up for debate. Seems crystal clear that a monk can take it. Not only that, but I'm seriously considering having my Druid take it for when he's wildshaped, also the Warshaper PrC offers a similar ability.

 

[Babylon Knight]

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=148122

End of discussion

 

[Caliban]

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=148122

End of discussion

You must be new here.