Can monks get improved natural attack?

[RigaMortus2]

Oh yeah, and FWIW... I would allow it as a DM, and I beleive my current DM allows it, I would take it as a player. I am just of the opinion that according to Core RAW it doesn't work, but the FAQ RAW is either (a) clarifying (specifically that feats are effects) or (b) creating a new rule (which should be a no-no for the FAQ, only errata should be doing that).

 

[Infiniti2000]

It's not that this feat in itself makes a monk overpowered. It's that this feat as applied to a monk is way overpowered for a feat, a non-tier feat at that. There's no other feat of equivalent power anywhere, it is that strong. What this feat proves is that there will never be a monk that does not have INA and a monk's belt (within reasonable character development time). Maybe that's okay for you, but I personally find such things as "never" a little suspect.

It is bad game design to use this feat as the "equalizer" should you think monks are underpowered.

 

[Thurbane]

Apparently PHB II has an example Monk with the Improved Natural Attack feat listed...that would seem to make it official (barring they fact they forgot about the BAB prerequisite)...

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Apparently PHB II has an example Monk with the Improved Natural Attack feat listed...that would seem to make it official (barring they fact they forgot about the BAB prerequisite)...

If they forgot about one prereq, what's to say they didn't forget the other?

I'm in the "No, because prereqs are not effects" camp, a la Deset Gled's post.

I'd likely allow a monk to do it anyway, in any game I ran, as a house rule, because the effects have never seemed terribly overpowering.

 

[pawsplay]

Does anyone seriously have a problem with the concept that the benefits of a feat are an effect, or that the prerequsites of INA are intended to restrict it to characters who can reasonably benefit from an improved natural attack?

Since a feat is an effect, it seems reasonable that treating a monk's attack as a natural weapon fulfills the prerequisite, just as a treating it as a manufactured one allows you to cast magic weapon. The counter-argument would be, "Oh, sure, a monk's strike could benefit from magic weapon, but since the target is 'weapon touched,' you can't actually cast it on him. The last line only says his attack can be enhanced by this spell, not that the spell can be cast on him."

 

[Artoomis]

I'm going to summarize all the positions I can on Monks and INA:

1. Core RAW only (no FAQ or other material)): Maybe allowed, maybe not. Hinges on such things as whether feats (or maybe feat prerequisites) are "effects." Really comes down to how precisely one reads the rule, how picky one is over ill-defined game terms, how precisely one assumes the class description was written and what one thinks was the original intent of the class allowing the monks's attacks to be manufactured or natural weapons for "spells and effects."

2. RAW plus other WotC published matirial (notably FAQ and PHBII). Definately allowed. There is no serious alternative argument here. The only counter-argument is very, very thin and is based upon WotC not knowing what they are doing at all. This is not a completely baseless argument as WotC has made some pretty big errors in the FAQ and in published material before, and continues to do so from time to time.

3. Game balance. Again, two views here. Whether one prohibits this on game balance grounds depends on things like whether one thinks it too strong to allow monks to boost up their attacks like this at the cost of only one feat. Note that a "splat book" feat (Superior Unarmed Strike from Tome of Battle: The Book of Nine Swords ) has a very similar effect for a monk and if one allows that feat, and, assuming no stacking of the two feats, then this becomes moot since one would simply take that feat instead of INA. So far I have not heard anyone think that these two feats should stack together to advance the monk TWO size categories for damage.

So there you have it. At this point one should allow it, officially, unless one feels it is too strong and simply prohibits it based upon those grounds.

 

[moritheil]

Ten thousand years from now, in whatever afterlife may await all of us, Artoomis will still be laboring to explain the error of our ways to those of us who deny monks INA - and people will probably still be just as confused as to the actual truth of the matter, whatever it may be.

Is this the seventh monk INA thread, or what?

And, since people have meticulously categorized the arguments and I have not, let me ask something - was the argument that "spells and effects" generally means supernatural effects, such as psionics, or the effects of spells, ever addressed?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

3. Game balance. Again, two views here. Whether one prohibits this on game balance grounds depends on things like whether one thinks it too strong to allow monks to boost up their attacks like this at the cost of only one feat. Note that a "splat book" feat somewhere (sorry, I have forgotten which one, I'll edit this when I get reminded of it) has a very similar effect for a monk and if one allows that feat, and, assuming no stacking of the two feats, then this becomes moot since one would simply take that feat instead of INA. So far I have not heard anyone think that these two feats should stack together to advance the monk TWO size categories for damage.

Superior Unarmed Strike from Tome of Battle is the feat you might be thinking of.

Maybe WotC should learn to design a light fighter class for DnD*, and then people can then ban INA. Right now, monks are so weak people throw desperate things at them in an effort to make them not suck. I've yet to see WotC design a good light fighter class for DnD. Tome of Battle didn't do the Swordsage right either, the Swashbukler has weaknesses (I think both versions), and so forth.

* Funny thing is, D20 Modern doesn't have this problem. DnD needs some cross-pollination, and quickly!

 

[Artoomis]

Ten thousand years from now, in whatever afterlife may await all of us, Artoomis will still be laboring to explain the error of our ways to those of us who deny monks INA - and people will probably still be just as confused as to the actual truth of the matter, whatever it may be. ...

In truth, I present two things:

1. Why I allow it.

2. Why other folks may or may not allow it.

Did I not just now summarize all the pro and con arguments in as little space as possible? Did I only present my pont of view?

Do I not often talk about how there are two (or more) ways to view the rules, all correct.

And, since people have meticulously categorized the arguments and I have not, let me ask something - was the argument that "spells and effects" generally means supernatural effects, such as psionics, or the effects of spells, ever addressed?

I think so.

 

[pawsplay]

Well, the issue, I think, is that your defenses are supposed to go up mainly based on equipment. BAB goes up, and hit points go up, but the classic D&D paradigm, your defense bonus does not. D&D 3e has changed that to some extent, but there are still remnants of the old model. Thus, lightly armored fighters who are viable are bucking the trend.

For comparison, fencers under AD&D 2e who took the correct kits could expect a -1 AC. One point. They could garner another point by taking an appropriate style proficiency. That was basically as good as it got. Monks? Started at AC 8 or so, the same as Joe Average in leather armor, or most dangerous animals, and slowly improved if you managed to survive to mid levels, and bracers did not stack with their AC improvement. IIRC, the original version didn't even get their Dex bonus to their monk AC, despite a respectable Dex requirement just to take the class in the first place.

Under basic D&D, your defense was your armor, and your Dex bonus, and that's it. And improving your Dex beyond 15 (+1 bonus) took an insane number of wishes.