Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack? - Official answer

[Anubis]

Yeah, it has a lot of trolls, you and anyone else trying to argue against pure fact.

If you were here saying you thought it was unbalanced to allow the monk to take the feat, I could understand that. I'd disagree, but I'd leave it at that.

Unfortunately, you're here arguing that the rules don't allow the monk to take the feat, when the rules, plain as day, do. The monk's description is crystal clear. The unarmed strike is a natural weapon, and as such counts for the purposes of this feat. Just as Magic Fang is allowed, so too is this feat. The requirements are exactly the same to have both effects (Magic Fang and Improved Natural Attack), therefore it's quite obvious that they both work for that very reason.

I honestly can't understand how anyone could misunderstand it. The words speak for themselves. The Sage got this one right. This is so easy he never should have needed to say so.

 

[Hypersmurf]

As for being rude, yes, I'm rude toward complete morons.

But in your own time, please, and not around here.

A standard of courtesy is expected.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[Anubis]

Hey, stupid people make me very mad. I can't help it that's a pet peeve of mine. I simply can't push myself to be nice to people who are blatantly ignorant of things and pushing tripe.

The word of the rules is perfectly clear, there's no dispute or loophole to be seen.

1. Improved Natural Attack is a General feat, so normal PCs are allowed to take it.

2. The description of the Monk's Unarmed Strike is clear as day in saying "A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects." Feats are effects and thus feats apply in this way.

3. The prerequisites for Improved Unarmed Strike are "Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4", so through the combination of 1 and 2, Monks qualify.

This couldn't be clearer even if there was a sentence stating outright "Monks may take Improved Natural Attack." I just can't figure out how anyone could have disputed this in the first place before the Sage weighed in. On top of that, the Sage's answer is official, so unless someone puts something, anything in the FAQ or errata specifically prohibiting the Monk from taking Improved Natural Attack, they are allowed to do so.

It's befuddling how anyone can possibly misinterpret the letter of the rule when it's stated so damn clearly. As such, I can only imagine that those arguing against it are either trolls or complete morons, and I have a strong distaste for both; am I to just sit back and twiddle my thumbs while this crap is being spread around?

 

[Gez]

Hey, stupid people make me very mad.

Then you're clearly unfit to live in modern society.

I can't help it that's a pet peeve of mine. I simply can't push myself to be nice to people who are blatantly ignorant of things and pushing tripe.

You really can't help it? Is that some sort of medical condition, like Asperger's syndrome? How did you/can you hope to get a job if you can't be nice with the stupid interviewer during the job interview?

Feats are effects and thus feats apply in this way.

This was, in effect, the crux of the debate. Are feats effects?

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got a feat-slot to burn in offering to the great Feat Spirit of Improved Initiative.

 

[Shadowdweller]

Oy! How this thread exposes our various pathologies.

You guys think maybe the word 'effect' might have been used to AVOID having to list off EVERY single condition where the monk's attacks qualify as natural weapons?

After all, you CANNOT simply say something along the lines of "A monk's unarmed attacks count as natural weapons for all purposes" because that might confuse the routines and attack boni with those of natural weapons, which ARE treated differently.

 

[Anubis]

This was, in effect, the crux of the debate. Are feats effects?

Thus proving the point about people being ignorant about this. How can feats NOT be effects? They can be nothing else. Also, if feats aren't effects, what exactly are effects? The sentence says "spells and effects", so spells and effects are spoken of in different terms based on that. As such, the only real things left are the ability groups (Su, Ex, and Sp), and feats are, in effect, Extraordinary Abilities (some are Supernarual Abilities, of course), and as such, feats MUST be effects as they can be nothing else.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hey, stupid people make me very mad. I can't help it that's a pet peeve of mine.

That's a shame. Try again in three days, perhaps.

There is reasoned debate, and there is calling people morons. One of those is acceptable.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[Caliban]

Hey, stupid people make me very mad. I can't help it that's a pet peeve of mine. I simply can't push myself to be nice to people who are blatantly ignorant of things and pushing tripe.

You know, I feel the same way. But there is a line between "not being nice" and "frothing at the mouth and spewing childish attacks". So even though you make me very mad, I'm not going to attack you.

The word of the rules is perfectly clear, there's no dispute or loophole to be seen.

I've got 7 pages of posts that says your wrong.

1. Improved Natural Attack is a General feat, so normal PCs are allowed to take it.

It's not in the PHB, so it's up to the DM as to whether normal PC's have access to it or not.

2. The description of the Monk's Unarmed Strike is clear as day in saying "A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects."

Fixed that for you. "treated as...for the purpose of" does not mean "in all cases". It means "for these specific cases"

Feats are effects and thus feats apply in this way.

I can play this game to!

"The prerequisite for a feat is not an effect, and thus a monk doesn't meet any prerequisite that calls for an actual natural weapon. "

Notice how I just stated my opinion as if it were a fact, without any supporting arguements? Pretty cool, huh?

So you can see why you are completely wrong now, and I'm completely right. I stated my opinion so strongly and everything. There's no way you can disagree with me now, because I said so.

3. The prerequisites for Improved Unarmed Strike are "Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4", so through the combination of 1 and 2, Monks qualify.

Sorry, I already said they didn't, and my opinion on this was stated months and months ago. So I'm right because I said it first! And used strong statements and exclamation marks!!

This couldn't be clearer even if there was a sentence stating outright "Monks may take Improved Natural Attack."

7 pages of posts still says your wrong.

I just can't figure out how anyone could have disputed this in the first place before the Sage weighed in. On top of that, the Sage's answer is official, so unless someone puts something, anything in the FAQ or errata specifically prohibiting the Monk from taking Improved Natural Attack, they are allowed to do so.

Because the rules dont' actually support the Sages ruling, when viewed a certain way. I happen to be willing to accept the Sages ruling anyway in this particular case, but I'm smart enough to see both sides of the arguement. (I think the "No Improved Natural Attack for monks" people are technically right, but would probably allow it in my campaign anyway.)

And guess what, it's not an allowed feat (for standard races) in ANY of the "official" campaigns run or sanctioned by WOTC in the RPGA.

It's befuddling how anyone can possibly misinterpret the letter of the rule when it's stated so damn clearly.

That's cause it's not!

As such, I can only imagine that those arguing against it are either trolls or complete morons, and I have a strong distaste for both; am I to just sit back and twiddle my thumbs while this crap is being spread around?

Pot? Meet kettle. Enjoy your thumb twiddling time.

And I told myself I was just going to leave this thread alone.

 

[spatha]

To clarify this point, the argument is that having a natural weapon qualifies you to take the feat. But there's nothing in the feat that says that you have to apply it to the natural weapon that qualified you for the feat if you have something else to apply it to...for example, an unarmed attack that counts as a natural weapon for spells and effects.

Oh I understand the argument. My point is the INA feat should only apply to that races natural attacks. I don't think it should apply to a monk of said races unarmed attacks. My understanding is that a natural attack is a different attack type from an unarmed attack. INA gives a bonus to a natural attack hence this bonus can't be used on a monk of any race's unarmed attack. Much like a str bonus applied to melee and a dex bonus applies to ranged combat the INA bonus applies to a natural attack not an unamred monk attack. Hopefully I am making my point clear. I don't understand why there is any debate when as far as I understand the rules the bonus can't be used at all on monks unarmed attacks regardless of race.

 

[Scion]

I don't understand why there is any debate when as far as I understand the rules the bonus can't be used at all on monks unarmed attacks regardless of race.

Except that the rules state that monks weapons are treated as natural weapons for effects that enhance them and that feats are effects.

So, putting the two together means that they can take it.