Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Yep, you're right.

At least I finally know where the exact conflict is. I could never figure it out before.

Well then, at least we know where we [don't] stand, then, eh?

I'm sorry I didn't make that clearer before.

EDIT:

Well summarized, Borlon.

 

[Legildur]

Once again that's like saying a wizard doesn't qualify for Craft Construct just because of the book it's in (a monster manual) and that's just dam TFU if you ask me.

<shrug> I still stand by it. I was actually waiting for someone to raise the Leadership feat, but that is essentially an optional rule.

Honestly, I think INA wasn't in the PHB because it wasn't ready when the PHB went to print.

And that may well be true, and therefore a good point. But if it came AFTER the PHB then there are two possibilities as to why there is no mention of monks in the feat description:

1. They thought it was so obvious that Monks could take INA as to not require mention; or

2. They thought it was so obvious that Monks could NOT take INA as to not require mention.

Unfortunately, except for very much belated Sage advice (which, as already pointed out by others, isn't always correct), I don't believe that the intention is clear. Therefore individuals will have to make up their own minds.

 

[Artoomis]

As Borlon explained, the two are not necessarily inextricably linked.

If the benefit of the INA feat is an effect that improves a natural weapon, the prerequisite is not met.
If the INA feat is an effect that improves a natural weapon, the prerequisite is met.

-Hyp.

...In short, I think that if the INA has an effect that enhances a natural weapon, it does not seem that a human monk is eligible to take it. But if INA is an effect that enhances a natural weapon, a human monk would be eligible to take it.

I think I see the problem. If INA gave several effects, some of which were unrelated to having a natural weapon, then this might be an entirely different discussion. However, as INA's SOLE EFFECT is to give a boost to the damage for a natural weapon, the monk qualfies. Simple as that.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

However, as INA's SOLE EFFECT is to give a boost to the damage for a natural weapon, the monk qualfies. Simple as that.

No, I don't think it's as simple as that. Consider the following [changes from INA called out]:

REALLY IMPROVED NATURAL ABILITY [GENERAL]
Prerequisite: Natural weapon, [Improved Natural Attack,] base attack bonus +[6].

Benefit: Choose one of the creature’s natural attack forms [that has benefitted from the Improved Natural Attack feat]. The damage for this natural weapon increases by one [additional step], as if the creature’s size had increased by one [additional] category: 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6.

A weapon or attack that deals 1d10 points of damage increases as follows: 1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8.

[In addition, the creature gains a +2 increase to Natural Armor.]

For those of you who say a human monk qualifies to take INA, why doesn't a human monk qualify to take this feat?

 

[Zandel]

If your thinking because of the natural armour increase then your wrong as all humans have a +0 natural armour modifier.

 

[FireLance]

For those of you who say a human monk qualifies to take INA, why doesn't a human monk qualify to take this feat?

There might be something I missed, but I don't see why a human monk could not qualify for this feat. Whether or not the feat is balanced is another issue, but that's not being discussed here.

 

[RigaMortus2]

Whatever a prerequisite is, it does not seem to be an effect that enhances or improves a natural weapon.

I think this is the best quote so far, as to why a (Human) Monk does NOT qualify for INA.

Let's forget the prereq part for a second. How did we even come to the conclusion that a feat (or the Benefit portion of the feat) is considered an "effect" anyway? Since "effect" is not a well defined term, are we just assuming (a feat's) benefit = effect?

Let's look at the "Benefit" portion of INA, and the "Prereq" portion of INA, and ask ourselves (as per described under Monk) "Does this enhance or improve a natural weapon?" Well, the Benefit of INA is that it bumps up the damage die of a Natural Weapon, so I would qualify this as an enhancement or improvement. Ok, no problem here...

The Prerequisite of INA is that you must have a Natural Weapon to begin with as well as have a +4 Base Attack Bonus. So does "having" a natural weapon or "having" a +4 Base Attack Bonus enhance or improve natural attacks? I don't see how.

And finally, to open another can of worms... If someone were to cast a spell on a Monk that reduced the damage of Natural Weapons by 1 damage die, would it affect the Monk?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Well, I was really attempting to get more at Artoomis's point, that a human monk can qualify for the INA feat because it is a feat that only improves natural attacks, and therefore the monk meets the prereqs.

According to you, FL, the human monk would qualify for any feat that in any way improved natural weapons, so long as he was capable of meeting its other prereqs.

There is dissension in the camp, I guess.

 

[RigaMortus2]

For those of you who say a human monk qualifies to take INA, why doesn't a human monk qualify to take this feat?

I'll take a stab at this (but I am on your side BTW )... Is it because you have to specify a natural attack form? Monk's (at least human ones) don't have a "natural attack form". Even though their unarmed attacks are considered natural weapons for spells and effects.

Am I right? I have no idea... Just looked like a fun game to play

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

And finally, to open another can of worms... If someone were to cast a spell on a Monk that reduced the damage of Natural Weapons by 1 damage die, would it affect the Monk?

Of course not. A monk's unarmed strike is only considered a natural weapon for purposes of spells or effects that improve natural weapons.