Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ARandomGod" data-source="post: 2468820" data-attributes="member: 17296">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.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.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).</blockquote>

Verification