How does "Improved Natural Attack" work with a Monk

[Caliban]

Well now - before The Complete Warrior I would have agreed with you. But now we have the Kensai PrC. This class specifically allows monks to enchant their fists exactly like manufactured weapons. XP is used instead of GP value to determine the cost of each enchantment value. If you are familiar with the Ancestral Item feat from BoED it is almost exactly like that only it uses XP instead of GP.

Yes, that is a special ability of that class. It doesn't have anything to do with the monk's class abilities.

My thanks to so many of you who have championed my original line of reasoning I don't think you will ever satisfy everyone on this issue short of a Sage ruling or errata on the feat. For those of you who do like the feat - remember it stacks on itself

Where do you get that from? A feat doesn't stack with itself unless the feat specifically says that it does (like the Toughness feat does).

 

[Lord_Fergus]

Yes, that is a special ability of that class. It doesn't have anything to do with the monk's class abilities.

I was pointing out an example of an instance where a monk would apply an effect which would treat their fists like a created item.

Where do you get that from? A feat doesn't stack with itself unless the feat specifically says that it does (like the Toughness feat does).

Yep, You are right on that one - I had remembered it incorrectly. It is Improved Natural Armor that stacks. My apologies and good catch on that one.

 

[Impeesa]

Splitting hairs over game terms is fine and dandy, but "effect" is not defined anywhere in the game. Thus, we are forced to revert to common English useage (shock!) - in this case, the intent seems to be that "effect" be read as a catch-all term to prevent debates like this.

--Impeesa--

 

[Caliban]

I was pointing out an example of an instance where a monk would apply an effect which would treat their fists like a created item.

Except that has nothing to do with monks. You don't have to be a monk to join the kensai class and enhance your fists (although it is true that it only makes sense for monks to do so).

Besides the Kensai class makes a mistake in terminology: it calls a fist a natural weapon, when it doesn't meat the definition of a natural weapon in the MM. It obvious what the class means, but they should have worded it properly.

 

[Artoomis]

Splitting hairs over game terms is fine and dandy, but "effect" is not defined anywhere in the game. Thus, we are forced to revert to common English useage (shock!) - in this case, the intent seems to be that "effect" be read as a catch-all term to prevent debates like this.

--Impeesa--

I think you're right, but the bottom line is that any DM reading this thread should be able to have an educated opinion on which way to go with this one.

 

[The Hanged Man]

Coming in late to this debate - but isn't there a different between a natural weapon and a natural attack form? Improved Natural Attack requires a "natural attack form." IMO, this refers to the non-iterative natural weapon attacks that monsters w/o weapons can make, not to a "natural weapon." If it was meant to refer simply to "natural weapons," that term would have been used. Instead, this different term - which refers to the "form" of the attack, not the weapon used.

A monk's unarmed strike is treated as a "natural weapon" for certain purposes. But everything has a natural weapon - every medium creature, for example, can make an unarmed strike for 1d3, IIRC. This is different from teh non-iterative natural attack form that monsters use. Monk's "natural weapon" attacks are iterative - and then some!

 

[The Hanged Man]

double post

 

[Caliban]

Splitting hairs over game terms is fine and dandy, but "effect" is not defined anywhere in the game. Thus, we are forced to revert to common English useage (shock!) - in this case, the intent seems to be that "effect" be read as a catch-all term to prevent debates like this.

--Impeesa--

Hmm.. I thought I was using the "common english usage" - that an effect is something that is created by something else.

In this case the effected is created by the feat, and (most) monks don't qualify for the feat (although they would qualify for the effect if they had the feat).

*shrug* I guess "common" English isn't.

 

[reapersaurus]

[wistfully pondering] ahhh... all this lovely discussion could be saved if WotC just supported their product. [/wist]

 

[Artoomis]

Okay, the crux of the thing is whether or not a Feat is is an "effect" such that a monk's unarmed strike would count as a natural weapon, right?

That's the same question as whether or not a Feat is is an "effect" such that a monk's unarmed strike would count as a manufactured weapon, right?

Improved Natural Attack:

Prerequisite: Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4

Improved Critical

Prerequisite: Proficient with weapon, base attack bonus +8.

If you can take Improved Critical with the monk's unarmed attack, then you must be able to take Improved Natural Attack, right? For if Improved Critical counts the same as an "effect" for the purposes of a monk's unarmed attack, then so must Improved Natural Attack.

Okay, now we look at the DMG, page 118, column 2, where find find that the sample monk has Improved Critical (Unarmed Strike).

The Improved Critical example is very strong evidence indeed that feats that produce an enhancing effect make the monks unarmed strike count as an a manufactured or natural weapon, as appropriate.
That said, it's been disallowed in my game for two reasons:

1. The monk already has this feat, more or less. His natural attack has been improved through training, etc. This is not the strongest argument, because then, by extension, Weapon Focus or other possible weapon improving feats could not be taken.

2. The feat Fists of Iron from CW gives +1d6 for the monk, a very similar, but not quite so subject to abuse, feat. Allowing both simply does not feel right, and the one in the Monster Manual was designed for monsters, really, and is subject to abuse by PCs.

Frankly, both (1) and (2) are not very strong argument for why to disallow it, but we decided that was strong enough for our game and so, for us, it's available for MM creatures only.

I submit, however, that we are using a house rule (or Rule 0, if you like) to disallow all PCs the use of this feat.