D&D 3E/3.5 Can a Monk use the Improved Natural Attack feat (from the MM 3.5)

[Sejs]

I actually see the opposite to Patryn and the others because a human has a vriety of natural weapons, just we aren't really trained to use then.

No, we don't. Natural weapons are generally things like teeth, claws, and horns - a body part whose primary role is to inflict damage. In D&D terms, a natural weapon is something you can use against an armed opponent and not be at a severe disadvantage with, even if you've had no training in their use whatsoever. The part of your body that's designed for use in the kicking of asses.

A human being's fists, teeth, fingers, elbows, knees, forehead, and feet arn't any of those. Sure we can do a certain ammount of ass-kickery with them, but it's not what they're designed for. Hence the distinction between an Unarmed Strike and a Natural Weapon. A Natural Weapon is always a specified attack form or body part, whereas an Unarmed Strike isn't - it's just battering the other guy with whatever's convienant at the time.

 

[pbd]

Regardless of training you are never going to be able to use tooth and nail as well as a cat or bear. humans just aren't equipped with natural weapons worth speaking about.

Maybe, but aren't most slam natural weapons, just hitting with a fist (or other such appendage)? If the fist of a zombie is a natural weapon than the fist of the human that turned into the zombie should also bee a natural weapon.

from the SRD:
Slap or Slam

The creature batters opponents with an appendage, dealing bludgeoning damage.

This is not to say that it wouldn't be a bit unbalancing to allow monks to spend a feat to get improved natural attack, but by the rules it seems allowable.

 

[reveal]

There's a difference between natural weapons and manufactured weapons. Unarmed Strike - which all humans have - is treated by the game as a manufactured weapon.

Not necessarily. From the SRD on a monks Unarmed Attack:

A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

So, in this case, the monks unarmed attack are considered both manufactured and natural. So can a feat that enhances the damage of a natural weapon affect a monks unarmed attack? Sure. Why? Because it is an effect that enhances a nautral weapon.

 

[Viashimo]

Ah... the smell of controversy!

I guess most of my different viewpointi on this issue comes in because I've actually played a monk that took this feat and I've tryed this. It was not an attempt to power game the monk or anything like that, which it could very well appear to be. So, yes, it didn't exactly break the game or the monk in any - he still didn't do very much damage, took way too much damage, and didn't do anything else special. Pretty much, his job was to grapple spellcasters, I was also getting sacked in grapples by fighters and whatnot, so it wasn't very impressive in any way.

As pbd pointed out the zombie is no different, 'cept it doesn't feel pain in the same way - many zombies are human bases, same with a lot of other undead who get natural attacks.

I consider it acceptable to take the feat, but that's me.

 

[The Thayan Menace]

Thayan Monk Gladiators

So, in this case, the monks unarmed attack are considered both manufactured and natural. So can a feat that enhances the damage of a natural weapon affect a monks unarmed attack? Sure. Why? Because it is an effect that enhances a nautral weapon.

Agreed. This issue has actually made me and my friends curious about how a monk might fare with the Thayan Gladiator prestige class from Champions of Ruin and the right combination of feats.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Not necessarily.

Uh, yes, necessarily. The monk's unarmed attack is a specific exception to the rule and it doesn't address the point I was making. Chiefly, humans don't have natural weapons.

Monks have an exception whereby their unarmed strikes can be affected as if it were a natural weapon, but that doesn't make unarmed strikes natural weapons.

So, in this case, the monks unarmed attack are considered both manufactured and natural. So can a feat that enhances the damage of a natural weapon affect a monks unarmed attack? Sure. Why? Because it is an effect that enhances a nautral weapon.

But can a human take the feat to begin with? No, they can't.

 

[reveal]

Uh, yes, necessarily. The monk's unarmed attack is a specific exception to the rule and it doesn't address the point I was making. Chiefly, humans don't have natural weapons.

Monks have an exception whereby their unarmed strikes can be affected as if it were a natural weapon, but that doesn't make unarmed strikes natural weapons.



But can a human take the feat to begin with? No, they can't.

No, they can't. You're right about that. Because it doesn't specify that humans, or any core race for that matter, has a natural weapon. Unlike Warforged, for example, where it explicity states that they have a slam attack, which is a natural attack.

However, in the monks case, I think that the feat enhances natural attacks. And since it enhances natural attacks and the monks unarmed attacks are considered natural weapons for things that enhance natural weapons then the feat would work.

Has there ever been an "official" ruling on this? I know this has been argued to death.

 

[Scion]

I definately allow monks to take it, and I feel that it follows what the raw says as well.

Really though, it strikes me as being the monks equivalent of taking 'exotic weapon proficiency' since generally the exotic weapons have some benefit over regular weapons (like a step up in damage die).

I have never seen it be unbalanced.

 

[reveal]

Well, I know that the D&D FAQ is not looked upon very fondly here, but this passage is interesting:

The monk can’t use his natural weapon attacks as part of a flurry of blows, but he may make natural weapon attacks in addition to his flurry.

It's making a distinction between a monks attacks with feet/hands/elbows/etc and a monks natural weapons. Makes me think maybe the feat shouldn't affect the monks regular attacks. Hmmmmm...

 

[Scion]

It's making a distinction between a monks attacks with feet/hands/elbows/etc and a monks natural weapons. Makes me think maybe the feat shouldn't affect the monks regular attacks.

Why would it make you think that?

It merely says that flurry only works with monk weapons and a creatures normal natural attacks (not monk class based in this case) are not. So if your monk has natural claws which deal d100 damage you cannot make 5 monk flurry attacks at d100 each, it has to be at the normal damage for that weapon.

In any event, the monks weapons are 'treated' as natural weapons for effects that would improve it. Would improved natural attack improve the monk weapons? yep, then they count as natural weapons for it.