Does unarmed strike qualify for the Improved Natural Attack feat?

[ARandomGod]

CustServ said that, yes, the monk does qualify for it. Some on this board would cynically say that nothing coming from CustServ is worth anything at all, but consider that even coupled with a monk's belt, it doesn't unbalance a monk character, it only brings it a bit closer to a valuable melee combatant.

And, frankly, I want my players to have fun when they play a monk, not feel like they're useless.

Yea.

I'd say that whether it works or not is highly dependant on whether or not your GM likes monks. If he don't, then it don't. If he do, it do.

The monk isn't really very powerful, and this does a decent job of ramping him up.
Alternatively, you can look at it as similiar to the Monkey Grip feat. Fighters get more BAB, and so that feat penalizes you by -2 on your to hit. Monks are autopenalized by mid-level BAB, and so the feat is relatively balanced on that front.

 

[azmodean]

To address the vampiric slam attack as prerequisite for stunning fist:

STUNNING FIST [GENERAL]
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Wis 13, Improved Unarmed Strike, base attack bonus +8

Clearly, the lvl 10 vampire fighter without Improved Unarmed Strike wouldn't qualify.

Similarly, IMO, a monk (or other Unarmed Strike character) would not qualify for Improved Natural Attack.

To the "the monk needs all the help he can get" posters. This is not a balance issue IMO, I would have no problem with allowing a feat in my game that would increase damage dice for a monk (or other Unarmed Strike character), but INA is not a valid feat for a human to take, due to lack of a natural attack.

 

[Trainz]

To the "the monk needs all the help he can get" posters. This is not a balance issue IMO, I would have no problem with allowing a feat in my game that would increase damage dice for a monk (or other Unarmed Strike character), but INA is not a valid feat for a human to take, due to lack of a natural attack.

You can interpret it as such, but it doesn't say it in the RAW:

A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

So, with that in mind, and your stated desire to allow "a feat in you game that would increase damage dice for a monk", why the strong stance ?

 

[Trainz]

I just CALLED Wizards of the Coast, and they have someone actually waiting by the phone to answer rules questions.

Fascinating.

Well, according to the phone cust-serv, the nay sayers in this thread were right. A monk wanting to pick that feat has to actually have physical natural attacks i.e. he must be a monster of some kind. The monk's unarmed strikes isn't considered a Natural Attack for the Improved Natural Attack feat.

So there you have it.

Personally, I will still allow it IMC, but officially a monk can't take it.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Guys:

A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

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.

The fact is that the rules expressly state that the monk's unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for the purpose of "effects that enhance or improve... natural weapons." The INA feat clearly is an effect that improves a creature's natural weapons. It requires a "natural weapon" as a prerequisite. Given that the monk's unarmed strike is expressly treated, according to the rules, as a natural weapon for the purpose of effects like INA, the monk's unarmed strike is a natural weapon that fulfills the feat's prereqs. QED. All this analogizing is irrelevant. If there were an analogy, it would be a provision in the rules that stated "for purposes of all effects that are based on the ability to make unarmed strikes, any creature with a natural attack or attacks is treated as having the Improved Unarmed Strike feat." In that case, would you not agree that a lion, say, could take Stunning Fist?

 

[Trainz]

I appreciate your intent ruleslawyer, but all the things you mention have already been mentioned (some of them, by me actually).

Someone emailed cust-serv, they said yes.

I PHONED cust-serv, they said no.

Frankly, whatever decision you take at this point is a house rule one way or another.

Weird.