Captain Howdy said:Quick question:
Can a monk's unarmed attack be affected by the improved natural attack feat (MM page 304), and does a monk's unarmed attack qualify for the natural weapon prerequisite of the feat?
Okay, we now have three threads kicking around the INA for monks idea.Cedric said:However, if you allow precident from WotC (in this case with precident being established by the FAQ and PHB2), then WotC has clearly established that INA is allowed for Monks.
Legildur said:... There are other errors in the FAQ which undermines it's credibility as a rules source - I still use it as a reference, and I don't attach a great deal of weight to the clarification it is meant to provide. But, once again, I'm not sure that this is a necessarily fatal error.
atomn said:This is slightly off topic, but does a non-monk character with Improved Unarmed Strike count as a natural weapon or manufactured weapon? Logic says it'll be a natural weapon but D&D rules don't always stick with logic.
Slaved said:Sure, why not? If a ranger could only use his favored enemy with manufactured weapons I would certainly allow a monk/ranger to use his unarmed strikes in place of a manufactured weapon.
KarinsDad said:So, if class features are effects, the ability to cast a spell is an effect. Not just the results of the spell itself, but the ability to do so.
Weapon proficiency is an effect.
Armor proficiency is an effect.
Illiteracy is an effect (well, maybe sometimes here on the message boards ).
Bonus Languages are an effect.
This is a very unusual interpretation of the word effect.