Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack? - Official answer

[turbo]

The 'effect' of an item creation feat would not be the effect that the weapon receives (which is the effect of the item creation process), but the ability to give an effect to a weapon--and this shows even more clearly how bizarre the supposed feat/effect separation is: a spell-caster doesn't learn how to brew potions; he acquires some weird entity that provides him with the learning to brew potions?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Cool, thanks

Of course that seems to lend even more credit in my mind to ina working on monks weapons.. given the wording of each.

Welcome, though I don't see your logic behind the second statement.

 

[Artoomis]

Hey, like I posted earlier:

Originally Posted by srd
IMPROVED SPELL RESISTANCE [EPIC]
Prerequisite: Must have spell resistance from a feat, class feature, or other permanent effect.
Benefit: The character’s spell resistance increases by +2.
Special: A character can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects stack.

That does indeed seem to say that feats are an effect, albeit a permanent one.

 

[griff_goodbeard]

I've been following this thread, and just have one comment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that everyone agrees that INA is a poorly worded feat, as it relates to monks. It seems pretty obvious that the designers didn't consiter whether a monk could take the feat when they wrote it. It's no a question of intent, but a question of oversight. I thought that was the point of Sage rulings, to clear up aspects of the game that are unclear due to designer oversight. Andy Collins was on the design team that revised the MM for 3.5, so it seems that what he's saying is that if they hadn't forgoten, they'd have written the feat so that monks do qualify. I not saying that Andy (or Skip for that matter when he was Sage) is spot on with every ruling, but it seems pretty clear cut in this case. Should the feat be re-written and inserted into the errata, yes. But until then, I'll take the word of the guy who designed the book.

*flees back to the shadows*

 

[Dimwhit]

I've been following this thread, and just have one comment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that everyone agrees that INA is a poorly worded feat, as it relates to monks.

Actually, I don't think it's poorly written at all. It seems pretty clear to me. Some people just don't like the ruling and are looking for ways to discredit it.

 

[Legildur]

As an avid monk fan, I truly wish that I could just read the INA feat and see the monk class referenced in there.

I have no qualms about reading the monk's unarmed strike class ability and rationalising that it only applies to things like casting of magic fang, magic weapon, bless weapon etc or the use of certain potions. After all, it is not a bite/claw/gore etc as natural attacks are defined in the MM.

However, equally I would happily (if I were a DM) rule that INA could apply. I don't think it does, and unfortunately I can't add any rules insight to this entertaining discussion that hasn't already been put forward.

No one has mentioned the martial arts styles from Oriental Adventures. The Fists of Iron (?) style required numerous feats to qualify for and effectively (there's that word again!) gave the same benefits as INA (upped unarmed strike by one die size).

IDHMBIFOM right now, but IIRC the prerequisites were the Power Attack, Improved Sunder, Eagle Claw and one or two other feats, and a minimum strength.

It seems to me that this approach is (albeit under 3.0e) significantly more costly to attain under the styles system than through one simple feat. That suggests to me that INA should not be available to monks as a general rule.

 

[ARandomGod]

It does.

Now can we stop arguing and go back to seek various ways to empower our characters?

It doesn't.

And yes, NOW we can!

 

[Infiniti2000]

Actually, I don't think it's poorly written at all. It seems pretty clear to me. Some people just don't like the ruling and are looking for ways to discredit it.

Yup, that's our purpose. Thanks for finally realizing our hidden agenda.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

No, actually the quote I posted proves the opposite given its wording. Just read the quote I posted again.


You are not able to use the feat while in the field, so its effect is gone, you cannot use it. The effect is suppresed, that is true, but the ability remains, it is just unuseable. Just like the guy with power attack and a BAB of +0. He has it, he simply cannot use it.

Right. So he keeps the feat, but loses its effect. Again, I don't see why this is so hard.

 

[SteveC]

That does indeed seem to say that feats are an effect, albeit a permanent one.

While I don't really have a strong opinion on this one, I think the part of the sentence that says "spell resistance from a feat, class feature, or other permanent effect" pretty much indicates that a feat is an effect. I guess that's what an English Major is good for these days. Unless there is some part of the SRD that differentiates between an "effect" and a "permanent effect" I would say that pretty much settles it. Of course your mileage may vary, and likely does.