How does "Improved Natural Attack" work with a Monk

[Caliban]

That's like saying the Magic Fang spell won't work on a monk because he fails to meet the spell's requirement of having a natural weapon. It should be obvious that this would be looking at it the wrong way.

Not at all the same thing. The monks class specifically says that they count as natural weapons for the purpose of spells.

It also says that they count as natural weapons for the purpose of effects that enhance them.

It does does not say that they count as natural weapons for the purpose of qualifying for feats, and I'm pretty sure that's not the intent in this case.

If you want to change my mind, ask one of the game designers, even The Sage. I'll accept it from an official source. Until then, I really don't think it's intended to be normally available for monks, and I will stand by my interpretation of the rules.

In this case you must first look to see the effect being generated - if it is to enhance or improve a natural weapon, than the monk's unarmed attack counts as a natural weapon.

But you can't get the effect from the feat unless you have the feat in the first place, and normal monks don't meet the prerequisites. You are trying to put the cart before the horse.

 

[Caliban]

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.

Actually it's worse than that, when you look at the easy availability of "Enlarge Person" (via spell or potion). Now the monk can do damage as if he were a Huge monk!

In the case of a monstrous monk, they could get the feat but not the "Enlarge Person", so it's not so overpowered.

 

[Gort]

Artoomis, your argument that it's legal by the rules does seem legitimate...

However, there's no way that it's balanced (+7 damage for one feat?), and the fact that it's in the monstrous manual should give a hint as to who's meant to have it.

If it's an allowed feat, it's one that no monk would be without - hell, I wouldn't let the druid take it IMC.

 

[jarlaxlecq]

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.
.

I thought it was +2 with Weapon Specialization and then another +4 on top of that with greater specialization for a total of +6

 

[Flyspeck23]

I thought it was +2 with Weapon Specialization and then another +4 on top of that with greater specialization for a total of +6

Actually it's +2 and +2, for a total of +4.

 

[Ahrimon]

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....

I could be wrong here, but doesn't vile and ...(the good version) count as seperate damage from physical damage? Like an energy type. If so then it would completely bypass DR. That makes these feats better than Improved Natural Attack IMO.

I say a monk should be able to take it.

And anyone who disagrees is a fighter fanboy who is worried that thier Ub3r fighter will have some competition. /Joke


Ahrimon

 

[Scion]

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.

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

You are looking at it in the wrong light. Compare it to exotic weapon prof, not to specialization. They are directly compareable and, at least mostly, do the exact same upgrade of damage (some increase damage, others crits, but overall it is the same difference). For this comparison there is no difference really.

 

[Artoomis]

Artoomis, your argument that it's legal by the rules does seem legitimate...

However, there's no way that it's balanced (+7 damage for one feat?), and the fact that it's in the monstrous manual should give a hint as to who's meant to have it.

If it's an allowed feat, it's one that no monk would be without - hell, I wouldn't let the druid take it IMC.

Whether or not you should allow it is a different deal than whether or not it is "legal" by the rules.

It seems pretty clear to me, Caliban's argument not withstanding, that it's legal.

Whether or not it's a good idea is what some are focusing on, which is a fine place for this argument to land.

1. It's in the MM, not PHB. That makes it clear that this was designed with monsters in mind, not PCs. But, then , Ability Focus is in the same category, right, and it's clear from the FAQ that it's okay for PCs. If I am right, some feats in the MM are designated for monsters only, right? This is not one of those. (I could be wrong on this last point, not owning the 3.5 MM)

2. It's stronger than Weapon Specialization. True.

3. It's about the same as using an exotic weapon to up your damage one category. True.

I say allow it. Give the monk a fighting chance. Worrying about Enlarge is silly - everyone can use that to up damage anyway. Monk's tend to be weak in combat, this only helps a bit. At lower levels it's not a big deal anyway, and at higher levels it only helps close the gap with those who own the battlefield.

Even with this feat, every fighter, barabarian and paladin should be leaving the monk well behind in damage done per round.

Finally, it's hardly a no-brainer to take as a monk. Many other feats work well for the monk this is just one of the bunch. Optimizing a monk for direct melee combat damage is sub-optimal. They have other things to focus on.

 

[Korak]

I think the thing to remember here is stacking. A monk has Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat at 1st level. The combination of this feat and his class abilities give the monk his "natural attack." This attack form scales up in damage as the monk levels. The monk's unarmed strike is already under the effect of a feat that improves base damage and, in my opinion, should not be allowed to benefit from Improved Natural Attack. I see it as a stacking issue; trying to apply the same bonus to the same weapon twice. While I don't think that the rules as written strictly and exclusively support my viewpoint, I think my viewpoint is firmly in line with designer intent. I would never try to "get this by" one of my DMs, nor would I allow it in my campaign.

 

[Artoomis]

Korak:

I left you point out of my earlier post, and it's certainly one way of viewing this issue. Not unreasonable.

Still, I'd allow it. It's a pretty good high level bonus for a feat, true, but monk damage is not all that high (2d10 at 20th level is far less than most of his non-monk peers are doing) and is tough to improve - you cannot normally enchant them permanently like weapons.

Sure, you can get Ki Straps. But they are not core 3.5 by a long shot.

Feats like this only really get out of whack when combined with a number of non-core books - that's when you really need to watch out for things getting out of control. Generally, the non-core books don't mix and match all that well from a balance perspective.