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

[Cam Banks]

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.

One of the big differences between an unarmed strike and a natural weapon (like a slam) is that you get iterative attacks with an unarmed strike. A claw, bite, tail slap, etc provides only one attack even if the creature's BAB is +20. The monk gets to not only benefit from multiple iterative attacks when they have a BAB of +6 or higher, but also additional attacks with a flurry of blows.

With this in mind, I'd be inclined to state that while it acts as a natural weapon for some situations, it isn't really one, both in practice and in meeting feat requirements.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[isoChron]

Improved Natural Attack [General]

Prerequisite

Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4.

Benefit

Choose one of the creature’s natural attack forms. The damage for this natural weapon increases by one step, as if the creature’s size had increased by one category: 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6.

A weapon or attack that deals 1d10 points of damage increases as follows: 1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8.

This feat may be taken multiple times, but each time it applies to a different natural attack.

So which natural attack form do you choose as a human monk ? Unarmed Strike is not defined enough to qualify in my point of view. It can be fist, elbow, head, knee, foot, whatever.
A creature has a well defined natural weapon like butt, slam, claw, etc.

If it would be useable for a human monk WotC wouldn't list this feat as a monster feat but under the regular feat list. Every human with improved unarmed strike could then take it, so it would not even be limited to monks. But they put it in the monsters list and as such it should be used. Even if there is no sentence like "Only Creature defined as monsters can take these feats."

And monks are definetly no damage dealers. They are survivors and special operation guys. If you want more damage take a fighter.

But that just my little world, every one has it's own point of view. I don't think there is a solution to this question short of an errata (not FAQ ) from Wizards.

Greetings

 

[reveal]

So which natural attack form do you choose as a human monk ? Unarmed Strike is not defined enough to qualify in my point of view. It can be fist, elbow, head, knee, foot, whatever.
A creature has a well defined natural weapon like butt, slam, claw, etc.

A monk does not have a natural weapon. However, the description of the Unarmed Strike for the monk specifies it is "treated as" a natural weapon for certain purposes. Tomato/Tomahto. It's very much open to interpretation as to what "treated as" means.

 

[pbd]

A monk does not have a natural weapon. However, the description of the Unarmed Strike for the monk specifies it is "treated as" a natural weapon for certain purposes. Tomato/Tomahto. It's very much open to interpretation as to what "treated as" means.

I agree, this is one of those issues that gets deeply into sematics; it will end up being decided by the individual DM.

From what is written arguements can be made either way, it depends on how you "want" to interprete it; unless an errata is given, which is probably unneccessary.

 

[dagger]

I wonder if anyone has tried Wizards Cust Serv, which is usually not reliable?

 

[Krug]

Sorry this is off-topic. I can't PM him. Diirk? You there? We've restarted Koboldquest.

 

[ARandomGod]

So which natural attack form do you choose as a human monk ? Unarmed Strike is not defined enough to qualify in my point of view. It can be fist, elbow, head, knee, foot, whatever.
A creature has a well defined natural weapon like butt, slam, claw, etc.

I would choose "slam". A close look at the description of slam attack will reveal that it's a bludgeoning attack with a part of the body. It does go on to say 'usually' a limb. But that implies that it could be anything. Slam attacks are pretty much monk attacks, only "natural" instead of marital.

One of the big differences between an unarmed strike and a natural weapon (like a slam) is that you get iterative attacks with an unarmed strike. A claw, bite, tail slap, etc provides only one attack even if the creature's BAB is +20. The monk gets to not only benefit from multiple iterative attacks when they have a BAB of +6 or higher, but also additional attacks with a flurry of blows.

With this in mind, I'd be inclined to state that while it acts as a natural weapon for some situations, it isn't really one, both in practice and in meeting feat requirements.

Cheers,
Cam

This is completely true. Slam attacks and natural attacks are completely different things. Aren't treated in the same way at all, and slam attacks can be made, practically for free, in addition to BAB based attacks. (You add them on with no penalty to your BAB based attacks, but you treat them as secondary weapons for this purpose, -5 to hit (From full BAB!) and 0.5x strength).

But I digress. I was going to make a slightly different comment, based along these lines.

And monks are definetly no damage dealers. They are survivors and special operation guys. If you want more damage take a fighter.

The monk, to put it bluntly, sucks (IMO). There is also that the description of the Unarmed Strike for the monk specifies it is "treated as" a natural weapon for certain purposes. ...

I personally allow it. And I'll point out that it's reprinted not as a monster feat in the Ebberon book. There are other precedents in Ebberon that suggest the writers of that book felt the feat would improve a monk. In fact, they went so far as to create the item "Battlefist", which essentially grants the feat completely free to any warforged monk who's player managed to read that item!

To clarify, MY main answer is to the question "Would it be balanced to allow the feat". I say it most certainly would, and in fact the feat goes a long way towards making the monk class viable. (Once again, IMO, an opinion that starts out with the base monk not being a truely effective class).

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I would choose "slam". A close look at the description of slam attack will reveal that it's a bludgeoning attack with a part of the body. It does go on to say 'usually' a limb. But that implies that it could be anything. Slam attacks are pretty much monk attacks, only "natural" instead of marital.

Marital? Hah.

A human monk does not have a slam attack. Therefore, it is not a possible choice for a human monk.

An unarmed strike is not a slam attack.

 

[ARandomGod]

Marital? Hah.

Yes, the most "deadly" of all attacks.

A human monk does not have a slam attack. Therefore, it is not a possible choice for a human monk.

An unarmed strike is not a slam attack.

Completely! I wasn't in the least trying to say that an unarmed strike is a slam attack, I was pointing out the similiarities... A slam attack is, other than being handled completely different mechanically, identical to a monk's unarmed attack.

 

[Artoomis]

I think Eberron has a feat that is essentialy the same. If you allow that, the whole point becomes moot.

Otherwise, I agree that this feat falls within the category of times when the monk's attack is treated as a natural weapon.