Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack? - Official answer

[Infiniti2000]

You just made that up!

No, he didn't. It's in the SRD.

 

[Infiniti2000]

There's a ton of people who are saying that the sage ruling fits with their interpretation of the rules.

And that's fine. Use that ruling in your game. But, if you want to claim the Sage as a method of "QED" like reveal tried in the first post, you'd be wrong.

 

[turbo]

No, he didn't. It's in the SRD.

The SRD says the effect of a feat is this so-called benefit and that the word 'effect' does not ever mean "feat"?

 

[Dimwhit]

You all have officially made my head explode. I don't think I've ever seen people so badly want something to not work when it so clearly does.

Goes to show, though, that Wizards really needs to learn how to write more clearly.

 

[reveal]

And that's fine. Use that ruling in your game. But, if you want to claim the Sage as a method of "QED" like reveal tried in the first post, you'd be wrong.

Actually, I was just pointing out that, whether you agreed with it or not, the official answer is that the monk can take it.

 

[SteveC]

I find this discussion to be a fascinating one. For those of you who do not believe that the monk's attack should be able to use improved natural attack I have two quick questions:

1. What kind of an attack does a monk have?

2. How would a monk's attack have to be worded to make it apply to Improved Natural Attack?

Just Curious,

--Steve

 

[Nail]

Say, Turbo: Where does the N. example come from?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Thing is this isn't one of those situations where the sage says something, Hyp immediately shows why he's wrong, and we all nod our heads and say the sage is blatantely wrong.

Except Hyp has said the Sage is wrong.

I, independently, agree with him.

Some people still disagree with Hyp and I. They're allowed to, of course, but that doesn't mean that I'm going to change my opinion.

 

[turbo]

Genealogy of Morals, Section 13--but the quote I used comes from a FAQ!

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

1. What kind of an attack does a monk have?

A monk uses unarmed strikes, which follow the rules for manufactured, not natural, weapons (specifically, as regards two-weapon fighting and the availability of iterative attacks).

2. How would a monk's attack have to be worded to make it apply to Improved Natural Attack?

In order for a human monk to qualify for INA, humans as a race would need to have a natural weapon - they'd need either a bite, a claw, a slam, etc., or the unarmed strike would need to be designated as a natural weapon.

If unarmed strike was a natural weapon, then humans would always threaten inside their reach, would generally not provoke AoOs when making unarmed attacks, and, among other things, wouldn't need the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. Moreover, they could freely mix their unarmed strike with manufactured weapons in a full attack action (even when using sword-n'-board, TWF, or two-handed weapons), and would not benefit from iterative attacks from high BAB with their natural weapon.

Unarmed strikes are not natural weapons, however. You mix them with other weapons using the TWF rules, you do not natively threaten with them, they do nonlethal damage as a default, and you may gain iterative attacks with them via high BAB.