How does "Improved Natural Attack" work with a Monk

[Derulbaskul]

BoVD has two feats: Vile Ki Strike and Vile Natural Attack. Both allow 1 point of vile damage to be added. BoED, a 3.5 product, has the "good" version of these.

If it were the designers intent that the monk's attacks would be treated as natural attacks in all situations, why would there be two feats in these books? *

Anyway, I can see both sides of this argument. I'm just not in favour of the monk being able to get Weapon Specialisation: unarmed attack (because that's the effect, on average at medium to high levels) so cheaply.

* Yes, I realise that the "designer's intent" argument is not the strongest of arguments when you consider some of the things that the designers have done....

 

[Artoomis]

BoVD has two feats: Vile Ki Strike and Vile Natural Attack. Both allow 1 point of vile damage to be added. BoED, a 3.5 product, has the "good" version of these.

If it were the designers intent that the monk's attacks would be treated as natural attacks in all situations, why would there be two feats in these books? *

Anyway, I can see both sides of this argument. I'm just not in favour of the monk being able to get Weapon Specialisation: unarmed attack (because that's the effect, on average at medium to high levels) so cheaply.

* Yes, I realise that the "designer's intent" argument is not the strongest of arguments when you consider some of the things that the designers have done....

In the BoVD or BoED cases, I'd call them the same type of bonus (not quote accurate, but they sure look the same) and not allow them to stack. Problem solved.

The Improved Natural Attack would certainly benefit a druid when in Wild Shape, so why not a monk? The core of the argument against it seem to be the desire to not allow a PC to have this feat - but that's clearly alowed as it is a General feat, not a Monster feat.

 

[Artoomis]

In the BoVD or BoED cases, I'd call them the same type of bonus (not quote accurate, but they sure look the same) and not allow them to stack. Problem solved.

The Improved Natural Attack would certainly benefit a druid when in Wild Shape, so why not a monk? The core of the argument against it seem to be the desire to not allow a PC to have this feat - but that's clearly alowed as it is a General feat, not a Monster feat.

In thinking about this further, the more general issue is when can a monk get the benefits of BOTH weapon enhancements of one kind or another AND natural attack benefits of a similar type. I'd use the stacking rules and apply them liberally to prevent abuse.

The potential abuse I can see is getting his natural attacks and weapon attacks both boosted and adding it all together in a way that could not happen for a weapon or natural attack alone. Thus when I see two similar effects where one is for weapons and the other for natural attacks, I'd not allow them stack together.

 

[Legildur]

A couple of posters asked about damage. After looking at the numbers, I've planned for my 3rd level dwarven monk to take Improved Natural Attack at 6th level. Currently, the party wizard is kind enough to memorise Enlarge Person for. So of course, the question begged to be asked, 'what would combining the 2 look like?'.

(sorry about formatting, but I can't get the table to work)

Level, Unarmed Damage, Enlarge Person, Enlarge Person AND Imp Nat Atk
(average damage, but no Str modifier, in brackets)

1st-3rd, 1d6 (3.5), 1d8 (4.5), NA
4th-5th, 1d8 (4.5), 2d6 (7), NA
6th-7th, 1d8 (4.5), 2d6 (7), 3d6 (10.5)
8th-11th, 1d10 (5.5), 2d8 (9), 3d8 (13.5)
12th-15th, 2d6 (7), 3d6 (10.5), 4d6 (14)
16th-19th, 2d8 (9), 3d8 (13.5), 4d8 (18)
20th, 2d10 (11), 4d8 (18), 6d8 (27)

 

[Diirk]

The feat is improved natural attack, not improved unarmed strike.

If you had a monstrous monk that had d8 claw attacks, how would you figure his damage? d8 at first monk level, then raise it another damage category each time he progressed that far? I'd tend to give him d8 or his monk damage, whichever was higher at the time.

In the same way for improved natural attack, I'd possibly allow the "I have a natural attack, its 1d3 subdual damage" argument, and I'd increase that to 1d4 (large sized unarmed damage), and allow the monk to use that, or his monk damage, whichever was higher..

If it was a monk feat, it would be in the players handbook.

 

[jarlaxlecq]

The feat is improved natural attack, not improved unarmed strike.

But a monks fists are considered both manufactured and natural weapons for bonuses....

 

[jarlaxlecq]

The feat is improved natural attack, not improved unarmed strike.

But a monks fists are considered both manufactured and natural weapons for bonuses....

 

[Scion]

If you had a monstrous monk that had d8 claw attacks, how would you figure his damage?

Easy, he would choose one of his natural attacks (as per the feat), if he chose his natural claws they would do a d10 whenever he chose to use them. If he chose 'unarmed strike' as his natural attack (as per the description in the monks unarmed strike ability, it allows this for the same reasons magic fang works) and they would work as though he was one size category larger.

Easy, and by the rules in the books

 

[Artoomis]

If it was a monk feat, it would be in the players handbook.

If there was such a thing as a "monk feat" it would be in the monk class description only. There is, however, no such thing. I'll now point out that the Ability Focus feat specifically is noted as applying to the monk class in the FAQ, showing that feats not in the PHB do apply to PCs.

There are GENERAL, ITEM CREATION and METMAGIC feats, though. There are even EXALTED feats, and maybe a few others.

The feat in question is a GENERAL feat, meaning one qualifies by simply meeting the prerequisites.

The monk qualifies because it improves his natural attack. Simple as that.

 

[Diirk]

Easy, he would choose one of his natural attacks (as per the feat), if he chose his natural claws they would do a d10 whenever he chose to use them. If he chose 'unarmed strike' as his natural attack (as per the description in the monks unarmed strike ability, it allows this for the same reasons magic fang works) and they would work as though he was one size category larger.

Easy, and by the rules in the books

Actually I meant if he had d8 claw attacks and didn't have the natural attack feat, as a useful comparison.

Regardless, comparing it to weapon specialization is a good idea. Fighters can spend a feat to get +2 damage on their weapon of choice. Later on (12ish) pend a 2nd feat to get a total of +4.

If you allow this, monks can spend a feat to initially get 2.5 extra damage (average rolls) at 6th. This is already better than weapon specialisation. At 8th it increases to 3.5 extra, (almost a free greater weapon specialisation), at 16h it becomes 4.5 extra (better that greater weapon specialisation and still no extra feat cost!) and at 20th its a whopping 7 extra damage per hit. Take that fighters ! All for one measly feat.

When you put it in that light, yes, it is overpowered to allow access of this feat to monks.