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

[TheEvil]

Once again, a rules debate has entered the unproductive stage, and once again I find myself wondering what the opinion of the board in general is. This thread is not an invitiation to move the discussion, feel free to say why you feel that way, but

PLEASE DO NOT ATTEMPT TO REBUTT OTHERS OPINIONS.

Thank you for your participation.

 

[CGoat]

I've discussed with my rules lawyer DM and he describes the improved Natural attack as a critter with larger teeth or bigger claws... hence the larger damage.

Now that just doen't fit with a monk... They don't have larger hands so why the larger damage. Its just a munckin way of doing things.

 

[apesamongus]

What should I put if I think the answer is "yes, technically, but the writers didn't intend it that way."

 

[Crothian]

I've discussed with my rules lawyer DM and he describes the improved Natural attack as a critter with larger teeth or bigger claws... hence the larger damage.

Now that just doen't fit with a monk... They don't have larger hands so why the larger damage. Its just a munckin way of doing things.

Ever occur to you he's describing it wrong??

And its not munchkin in the least. Its a small boost in damage. Seriously, if this feat alone takes a character over the edge and disrupts the balance in someones game; then I think that game had some serious issues to begin with.

 

[Crothian]

What should I put if I think the answer is "yes, technically, but the writers didn't intend it that way."

Have the writers said what they intended when they created the feat? I must have missed that can you link that please.

 

[TheEvil]

What should I put if I think the answer is "yes, technically, but the writers didn't intend it that way."

If that is your opinion then I would put that. As far as voting, use your best judgement.

 

[TheEvil]

Ever occur to you he's describing it wrong??

And its not munchkin in the least. Its a small boost in damage. Seriously, if this feat alone takes a character over the edge and disrupts the balance in someones game; then I think that game had some serious issues to begin with.

I believe I was quite explicit about my wishes for this thread. Maybe my english wasn't clear enought.

DON'T ARGUE WITH OTHERS ABOUT THEIR OPINION ON THIS THREAD

There is another thread that has gone on for 8 pages, argue there if you still feel the need.

 

[Storyteller01]

My reasoning: if a giant can take the feat for their slam, a monk can do the same for their own fists. The attacks are the same, if not proportional (bare hand to target). It's not game breaking, since fighters with the right builds can do far more damage than a monk with or without this feat.

I voted yes.

 

[Borlon]

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.

 

[the Jester]

Yes they can.