Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack? - Official answer

[Infiniti2000]

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

But you also worded it such that the discussion was over, in the first post no less!

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

Most likely, you are referring to the unarmed strike.

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

It shouldn't be reworded. However, should you decide that that is the best course of action, it would have to be stated along the lines of "the monk's unarmed strike is a natural weapon, but follows the iterative attack routine for high BAB unlike all other natural weapons." But, then that would be even more confusing. So, the better idea would be to reword the feat should you choose to allow it.

 

[turbo]

Or the word 'effect' could be defined more clearly.

Or at all.

 

[Pinotage]

This is a fascinating discussion. Took me a while to figure out exactly what the issues were, but I think I understand now. I'm still a big supporter of intent in game design, and not rules-lawyering or RAW addiction. My only question is - if you interpret the core rules as Hyp and Patryn do, do you really think the game designers intended this kind of literal nitpicking? While I see both sides of the argument, I don't believe it was ever the intent. If it was, why would it be that badly worded? Surely if it was the intention, the Sage would've ruled otherwise? Yes? No? Then again, I can argue intent all I like, so I'll just scurry away and go and have my dinner...

Pinotage

 

[Pinotage]

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.

Not necessarily. Monks as a class could grant the Improved Unarmed Strike feat which would allow them to consider their unarmed strikes as natural weapons. Why change human when you can change Monk?

Pinotage

 

[Nail]

I'm still a big supporter of intent in game design, ...

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"........

 

[Dimwhit]

Unarmed strikes are not natural weapons, however.

No, they're not. But for the purposes of spell and effects that work on natural weapons (i.e. the feat we're talking about), the Monk's unarmed strike is considered a natural weapon. That's called satisfying a prerequisite. Wizards does this in many instances -- they give a class an ability that mimicks another for the purpose of satisfying a prereq. Such is the case here. In fact, this is probably one of the more clearly spelled out cases of such a prereq being granted to a class when it normally wouldn't have the requisite ability.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

My only question is - if you interpret the core rules as Hyp and Patryn do, do you really think the game designers intended this kind of literal nitpicking?

Probably. I believe the location of the feat tells you all you need to know about the designers' intent - it's found in the Monster Manual, not the PHB.

The attempts to apply it to monks are likely, if we are arguing intent, unexpected side effects.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

But for the purposes of spell and effects that work on natural weapons (i.e. the feat we're talking about), the Monk's unarmed strike is considered a natural weapon. That's called satisfying a prerequisite.

That's a nonsequitor, however.

The effect is that a natural weapon's damage dice is increased by one step. This is an effect that improves a natural weapon, and therefore may be applied to a monk's unarmed strike.

"Has a natural weapon" is not an effect.

Is "Combat Expertise" an effect? Or is "a -1 to attack rolls and a +1 Dodge bonus to AC" an effect?

 

[Dinkeldog]

I like to look at the RAW as a guide. However, the rules were written by people, and just as most of our board members might have written a post and had it been misinterpreted, perhaps sometimes the intent of the rules are difficult to understand. I'm seeing this as one of those cases. The RAW contradicts itself, apparently.

While unarmed humans do not threaten spaces within reach, an unarmed monk does. It looks to me, then, that a monk has learned to change her unarmed attack to a "natural attack", whatever that is truly intended to mean.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

While unarmed humans do not threaten spaces within reach, an unarmed monk does. It looks to me, then, that a monk has learned to change her unarmed attack to a "natural attack", whatever that is truly intended to mean.

An unarmed monk threatens because the unarmed monk has the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. Nothing more, nothing less.

And if you wish to believe that the unarmed attack has become a natural attack, there are quite a few ramifications of that decision:

Natural Weapons: Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature. A creature making a melee attack with a natural weapon is considered armed and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Likewise, it threatens any space it can reach. Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons. The number of attacks a creature can make with its natural weapons depends on the type of the attack—generally, a creature can make one bite attack, one attack per claw or tentacle, one gore attack, one sting attack, or one slam attack (although Large creatures with arms or arm-like limbs can make a slam attack with each arm). Refer to the individual monster descriptions.

Unless otherwise noted, a natural weapon threatens a critical hit on a natural attack roll of 20.

When a creature has more than one natural weapon, one of them (or sometimes a pair or set of them) is the primary weapon. All the creature’s remaining natural weapons are secondary.

The primary weapon is given in the creature’s Attack entry, and the primary weapon or weapons is given first in the creature’s Full Attack entry. A creature’s primary natural weapon is its most effective natural attack, usually by virtue of the creature’s physiology, training, or innate talent with the weapon. An attack with a primary natural weapon uses the creature’s full attack bonus. Attacks with secondary natural weapons are less effective and are made with a –5 penalty on the attack roll, no matter how many there are. (Creatures with the Multiattack feat take only a –2 penalty on secondary attacks.) This penalty applies even when the creature makes a single attack with the secondary weapon as part of the attack action or as an attack of opportunity.

Natural weapons have types just as other weapons do. The most common are summarized below.

• Bite: The creature attacks with its mouth, dealing piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning damage.
• Claw or Talon: The creature rips with a sharp appendage, dealing piercing and slashing damage.
• Gore: The creature spears the opponent with an antler, horn, or similar appendage, dealing piercing damage.
• Slap or Slam: The creature batters opponents with an appendage, dealing bludgeoning damage.
• Sting: The creature stabs with a stinger, dealing piercing damage. Sting attacks usually deal damage from poison in addition to hit point damage.
• Tentacle: The creature flails at opponents with a powerful tentacle, dealing bludgeoning (and sometimes slashing) damage.