Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack?: The Poll!

[TheEvil]

I don't think the question is phrased well. If they qualify, the benefit could be applied to their unarmed attacks; I think there is a consensus on that. But that first "if" is a big one. So there is no definite answer.

If the question is ambiguous, the results of your poll will be ambiguous too.


P.S. Patryn's Sage Advice, in post 78 of that other thread, rocks.

Don't get too too picky about the question. It means exactly what you would think it means: Do they qualify to take the feat? There are innumerable caveats I could have written, but I really don't think they are necessary. I suppose it would have been clearer if I had written "Do monks qualify for the INA feat?" but I am willing to bet someone would have found flaw with that wording too. I think the question is clear enough.

 

[Vurt]

I'm of the opinion that feats are not "effects", and thus the monk does not qualify for Improved Natural Attack on a technicality.

Mind you I don't think I'd have a problem with a feat written specifically for monks that would do the same thing as INA, so long as it included a provision that the feat's benefit doesn't stack with a monk's belt, which is where I think the "reasonably balanced" line starts to get pushed.

Cheers,
Vurt

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

I think it applies, I think it works fine, and even when I (usually) limit my games to Core Rules Only, as it's in the MM, it would be available to take and use.

Core Rules + Point Buy and Monks in my games are a bit on the puny side anyway.

--fje

 

[Borlon]

I suppose it would have been clearer if I had written "Do monks qualify for the INA feat?" but I am willing to bet someone would have found flaw with that wording too. I think the question is clear enough.

Yeah, then someone would point out that not all monks have a high enough BAB. One of the things I've learned from the rules forum is how difficult it is say exactly what you mean. I'm very impressed with folks who can simultaneously be clear, precise and not too wordy.

As far as wording goes for this poll, I think I would have gone with the following: "For the purpose of meeting prerequisites, do monks count as having natural weapons?"

 

[Particle_Man]

Sure, it just means you get to use your hands more effectively, as if you were a large creature, for damage purposes. It doesn't mean your hands and feat get bigger. That would be the "Impress Women who believe that Thing about Big Hands and Feet" feat.

 

[Scion]

IMPROVED SPELL RESISTANCE [EPIC]
Prerequisite: Must have spell resistance from a feat, class feature, or other permanent effect.

Looks like feats are considered to be effects to me

 

[3d6]

I assume feat prerequisites and spell targets are considered to be part of the "effect". If they weren't, that ability would have almost no purpose at all.

 

[Vurt]

Looks like feats are considered to be effects to me

By that logic, feats are also class features.

i.e. if A == C and B == C, then A == B.

Cheers,
Vurt

 

[Kurotowa]

I like to look at the question from a few angles. Like, should there be a feat so beneficial for an entire class that anyone NOT taking it is sacrificing significant power? Or, should there be a feat that accelerates the power curve of a level dependent class feature?

To both of those I say, no. Natural Spell is at the top of my tolerance for the first, and I can't think of any examples of the second.

 

[TheEvil]

I like to look at the question from a few angles. Like, should there be a feat so beneficial for an entire class that anyone NOT taking it is sacrificing significant power? Or, should there be a feat that accelerates the power curve of a level dependent class feature?

To both of those I say, no. Natural Spell is at the top of my tolerance for the first, and I can't think of any examples of the second.

I can't think of any since 2nd Edition with weapon specialization.