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

[apesamongus]

Accepted. Oh, and given that this poll, despite the vague wording, is less than 70% in favor, you lose. I'll accept a donation in the sum of US$50 (or 2-3 hours of volunteer work) to the American Red Cross or your charity of choice.

That's not what he said he would bet.

 

[darthkilmor]

I voted yes, mainly because of the "monks unarmed strike count as manf and natural weapons" blurb. Every argument against it so far has been a semantic nit-picky "feats arent effects!" argument or seomthing along those lines , which IMHO isnt an argument since "effect" isnt really defined anyway. Although it will probably be errata's to say you Can't take it since that started to make it a "OMG I MUST HAVE IT!" feat for any monk, which seems to always be the right way to get nerfed.

 

[Algolei]

I voted no.

I agree with CGoat's rules lawyer DM: the Improved Natural attack as a critter with larger teeth or bigger claws. As far as I understand it, a monk's attacks are with any part of his body, which would imply his entire form is the next size category larger.

I also don't think a Feat is its effect. That would imply that its effect is also the Feat, and thus anyone with the equivalent effect would meet the prerequisite of having that Feat--for instance, you wouldn't need Great Fortitude (which grants +2 bonus on Fortitude saving throws) to become a Blood Magus if you satisfy that prerequisite by having a +2 bonus to Fortitude saves in another way, such as with a Con bonus or through gaining levels in other character classes.

 

[Gez]

I allow it because I'm crazy that way.

And because in the campaign I DM, none of the players play monks anyway.

So I don't care either way.

But that's just me doing things my way.

Now, if this was actually overpowering, I'd say "no way."

But it isn't, by a long way.

 

[IanB]

The RAW and the official ruling do not seem to be in disagreement with each other as far as this rule goes, so I would probably allow it.

I do think there is an argument to be made about designer intent given that the feat is found in the Monster Manual instead of the Player's Handbook, but in my opinion that's the only really swaying argument the 'don't allow it' crowd has. I think this argument in general, on both sides, is a cautionary tale for excessive literalism run amok.

 

[burnrate]

Of course they can.

 

[Dinkeldog]

I'm closing this thread only because we have essentially a duplicate. Feel free to quote text from this thread and continue the discussion over there. This should make it easier on all involved to carry on without having to say the same thing in two different places. If there are any questions, feel free to PM or e-mail me.

http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=149266