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

[daquiel]

Now I don't know if this has been mentioned before in this debate but the Kensai class in Complete Warrior has an ability called Signature Weapon that contains the following:

The process for imbuing a kensai's natural weapons (such as his fists)...

Based on this it would seem as though monks can take the feat and gain its benefits.

 

[Lord Pendragon]

Based on this it would seem as though monks can take the feat and gain its benefits.

I'm not sure this text is definitive. The writer of the class may have been contemplating a monk/kensai. But it is an interesting tidbit to support your position.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

I'm not sure this text is definitive.

I'm absolutely sure it isn't.

Can you gain multiple attacks per round based on your BAB with your unarmed strike?

Then unarmed strike is not a natural weapon.

 

[CronoDekar]

Personally, I'd say the monk can't take INA. Of course there's nothing RAW afaik to back this up, but I believe the "effects" part refers simply to other things that can change natural weapons, such as spell-like abilities and any hypothetical supernatural abilities. I'd imagine if they meant feats to be included, it'd specifically say "feats" (or prestige class abilities or whatnot). I just can't really see a feat like INA as an "effect", anymore than Weapon Specialization would be "an effect that adds 2 to damage when you use X weapon."

Plus it seems like INA would be too good of a feat to leave out of the PHB if it was intended that monks could be able to take it.

 

[moritheil]

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.

You have advanced two arguments for this. The first is a rationale argument; the second is a gameplay balance argument. Personally, I'll buy the gameplay balance argument (not having any experience to the contrary, and knowing that monks sometimes suffer for damage,) but the rationale argument doesn't seem very good. There is a clear and deliberate distinction between most demihumans and monsters in terms of the former not having natural attacks and the latter relying upon natural attacks.

"Natural Attack" in DnD terms does not mean "natural attack" in regular English terms. I think this is where the issue got confused.

While I'm on the soapbox, let me comment on something else. There is a dangerous tendency to think that just because the mechanics of two different things are similar, they are closely related, and vice versa. The descriptive text is often ignored by this approach. While I don't say that we should look at the descriptive text above all else, neither should we look solely at the mechanics - which are just the nitty-gritty means of trying to make the world replicate the concept the author had.

 

[Vurt]

While I'm on the soapbox, let me comment on something else. There is a dangerous tendency to think that just because the mechanics of two different things are similar, they are closely related, and vice versa. The descriptive text is often ignored by this approach. While I don't say that we should look at the descriptive text above all else, neither should we look solely at the mechanics - which are just the nitty-gritty means of trying to make the world replicate the concept the author had.

I think when most people use something with a similar mechanic as justification for something, they're not really concerned with the descriptive text as to whether it makes sense, but rather that the mechanic itself is balanced. For example, the mechanic of adding an extra attack, but all attacks for the round suffering a -2 penalty is considered "balanced", seeing as Rapid Shot, Two-weapon Fighting, Flurry of Blows, etc., all use it. So to introduce another feat which does essentially the same thing for some other reason is usually considered OK.

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

I believe the feat in Eberron specifically applies to natural attacks. So if you had a shifter monk with a bite attack, he could up the damage on the bite attack, but not his unarmed strikes.

I'm of the personal opinion that the bit in the monk's unarmed strike description being considered either a natural or manufactured weapon is primarily there for spells and powers affecting a target weapon, and not for feats. If you want to up the damage die, get a monk's belt, it's relatively cheap and it does more for you. In my experience, people who want the Improved Natural Attack feat want to benefit from both it AND a monk's belt, since the effects would stack, and I feel that that's just a little too much.

But perhaps it would be perfect for your own campaign, who knows best but your DM?

Cheers,
Vurt

 

[moritheil]

I think when most people use something with a similar mechanic as justification for something, they're not really concerned with the descriptive text as to whether it makes sense, but rather that the mechanic itself is balanced. For example, the mechanic of adding an extra attack, but all attacks for the round suffering a -2 penalty is considered "balanced", seeing as Rapid Shot, Two-weapon Fighting, Flurry of Blows, etc., all use it. So to introduce another feat which does essentially the same thing for some other reason is usually considered OK.

Cheers,
Vurt

I see. Then I, in turn, think that they are missing half of the problem by ignoring it. DnD does not have to make sense, but thematic coherence makes it much more enjoyable. Of course, this is my aesthetic sense, and by way of contrast, there are players who think that, say, arguing with a DM is part of the fun of the game.

I guess thematic incoherence really doesn't bother some people.

More to the point, I'm not sure that "this does something like something that already exists," which seems to be the rationale for mechanics arguments, is a good way to think of balance. I think one should be able to take a more holistic approach.

To give an obvious example where "this does something like something that already exists" fails, you could consider item creation, and the infamous True Strike Bracers. If you price them for a level 1 spell, continuous effect, you get something that ruins the balance of the AC system. Now, having said that, you might reply that the consideration of True Strike as something like something that already exists (1st level spell, 1st level spell) is flawed in that case. I don't disagree. Where I see the danger is in the idea that "as long as we can find something similar that exists it must be balanced."

 

[Kesh]

There was a long discussion about this on the Eberron boards, regarding shifter natural weapons and monk attacks. Sure, you could use INA on the shifter natural weapons, but the natural weapons couldn't be used with your monk attack bonus since they weren't monk weapons.

And that's the real distinction to me. By default, a natural weapons is not a monk weapon. An Unarmed Attack is a monk weapon and is treated as a natural weapon for some purposes... but isn't one.

By that reasoning, I'd say a monk's Unarmed attack is not a natural weapon for the purposes of INA.

As a side note, I came up with a new monk feat for use in Eberron, similar to the ones for swords, that allows a monk to use a natural weapon as a monk weapon. Beware shifters with claws or teeth...

 

[ARandomGod]

As a side note, I came up with a new monk feat for use in Eberron, similar to the ones for swords, that allows a monk to use a natural weapon as a monk weapon. Beware shifters with claws or teeth...

At that point I'd personally prefer to be an Eberron WarForged monk. Get the Battlefist. It counts as a +1 weapon, it enhances the monk's natural attack AND his monk attack, and gives the benifit of the Improved Natural Attack feat to the monk's natural attacks and his monk attacks as well (specifically stating that it does do this). And all for a little over 2,000.

If you want to be a monk, it looks like Warforged is the way to go. Plus their natural composite armor doesn't negate any of their monk special abilities. Now THERE's a monk.

Of course, a lot of monk abilities overlap with warforged racial abilities. But still.