Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[glass]

A repeat question, but here goes:

Can a Giant, Doppelganger, or othe creature that can use an unarmed attack (slam) to deal damage take this feat?

That'd be an unarmed attack or a slam, right?

He can take the feat, because he has a natural weapon. He can apply it to his slam. He cannot apply it to his unarmed strike, unless he is a monk.

FWIW, I voted No RAW No, IMC Yes.


glass.

 

[glass]

Okay, what may seem like a side question, but trust me that it is applicable to the discussion. Do you consider Mithral armor to be a catagory lighter? e.g.- is Mithral Full Plate medium armor for ALL purposes, including proficiency?

Not sure. I'd have to do a little reading and thinking before I come to a conclusion.

If I did conclude that it counted as medium for proficiencies, I'd probably houserule it so that it didn't!

EDIT: So why is this relevant?


glass.

 

[TheEvil]

Not sure. I'd have to do a little reading and thinking before I come to a conclusion.

If I did conclude that it counted as medium for proficiencies, I'd probably houserule it so that it didn't!

EDIT: So why is this relevant?


glass.

Sorry for the delay, went to bed after posting.

Here is the relavent text for Mithral in the materials section of the DMG:

"Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations (for example, whether a barbarian can use her fast movement ability while wearing the armor or not). Heavy armors are treated as medium, and medium armors are treated as light, but light armors are still treated as light."

Many of you probably remember the many debates that raged about whether barbarians were proficient with mithral full plate or not. Here was a situation where WOTC choose to use the word 'treated' and I, along with many others felt that mithral full plate still required the heavy armor proficiency. Time and additional printings have proved us wrong. I still don't agree, but also would not houserule otherwise.

Basically, it seems that where WOTC says 'treated', they mean 'is'.

If anyone can find more examples of of 'treated' or 'treat' used in WOTC text, feel free to point it out, especially if it disagrees with what I have postulated.

 

[TheEvil]

Races of the Wild lists it as medium armor, so it is medium armor by the RAW even if it is not explicitly stated in the Core Rules. The Sage also clarifies that it is treated as medium armor for the purpose of proficiency in Dragon #335 (it will probably make it into the FAQ soon if it hasn't already), so it's also the official stand.
QUOTE]

You do realize the irony of saying that on this thread, don't you?

 

[Infiniti2000]

Do you consider Mithral armor to be a catagory lighter? e.g.- is Mithral Full Plate medium armor for ALL purposes, including proficiency?

No, because that's clearly not what the description of mithral states. "Movement and other limitations" != proficiency. Moreover, you'd be perfectly within the RAW to say that full plate mail (e.g.) is not treated as one category lighter.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Another comment about allowing INA for human monks (or any monk really). It's not clear what progression you use for the damage, if any at all. The first question you need to answer is whether the INA improves the monk's unarmed strike progression or whether it's a one-time deal. If he takes INA and then gains levels as a monk, improving his damage again later, is that a corresponding advancement based on INA or an absolute advancement? I think there's an excellent argument for an absolute advancement, because none of the PC tables are used as relative values. For example, when you gain a monk level, you don't add in the value for the base save bonuses or BAB, you use the new value. So, if you take INA at 6th level, then at 8th level it should become 1d10 regardless of the previous value.

Also, which progression do you use? For example, at 5th level he does 1d8 damage. At 6th level he takes INA and does one of the following:

1d10 - improved progression on the monk table (as 8th level)
2d8 - due to the wording "as if the creature’s size had increased by one category" you look up the Large monk's table
2d6 - use the advancement rules in INA, but this has serious problems when you reach 8th level because you either use the monk table or INA, but not both

I think the correct choice is 2d8 because that's what the rule's text supports. So, for one feat, he basically does double the damage. Do you still think it's a balanced feat to allow double damage on all attacks?

 

[Artoomis]

...I think the correct choice is 2d8 because that's what the rule's text supports. So, for one feat, he basically does double the damage. Do you still think it's a balanced feat to allow double damage on all attacks?

Maybe, maybe not, but it does not double the damage. Here's what it actually does:

d6 => d8 average 3.5 => 4.5
d8 => 2d6 average 4.5 => 7
d10 =>2d8 average 5.5 => 9
2d6 => 3d6 average 7 => 10.5
2d8 => 3d8 average 9 => 13.5
2d10 => 4d8 average 11 => 18

The increase is about 50%, not 100%, and that's in base[/i] damage only. He'll still be behind fighters in damage dealt, and it does not apply to any weapons he might use, which he will need more and more often at high levels for types of DR that he cannot penetrate.

Of course, whether it is balanced matters for whether or not you'd allow it, not whether or not it is allowed by the rules.

 

[apesamongus]

Another comment about allowing INA for human monks (or any monk really). It's not clear what progression you use for the damage, if any at all. The first question you need to answer is whether the INA improves the monk's unarmed strike progression or whether it's a one-time deal. If he takes INA and then gains levels as a monk, improving his damage again later, is that a corresponding advancement based on INA or an absolute advancement? I think there's an excellent argument for an absolute advancement, because none of the PC tables are used as relative values. For example, when you gain a monk level, you don't add in the value for the base save bonuses or BAB, you use the new value. So, if you take INA at 6th level, then at 8th level it should become 1d10 regardless of the previous value.

Would you try to screw a creature over in the same way - for instance, if you were advancing a Treant (say using SS) and took INA, but then advanced enough to increase actual size, would the feat now be useless?

I think the correct choice is 2d8 because that's what the rule's text supports. So, for one feat, he basically does double the damage. Do you still think it's a balanced feat to allow double damage on all attacks?

Well, I think the damage for larger monks is already screwed, so it's a problem with that chart, not with the feat.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Maybe, maybe not, but it does not double the damage.

Sure it does. Going from 1d8 to 2d8 is exactly double the damage.

Here's what it actually does...

That's one of the options, but you have not responded to why you chose that option and, more importantly, why it's the correct option versus the one I used. Using the Large monk progression seems to be the correct choice based on INA's text (not table) and therefore there's a descrepancy.

d6 => d8 average 3.5 => 4.5

Note that this line is impossible with a human single-classed monk.

The increase is about 50%, not 100%, and that's in base[/i] damage only. He'll still be behind fighters in damage dealt, and it does not apply to any weapons he might use, which he will need more and more often at high levels for types of DR that he cannot penetrate.

Is there any feat a fighter can take that increases his base damage by 50%? No, so your statement that he'll be behind fighters in damage dealt is obviously wrong without a boatload of assumptions along the lines of "fighter has a higher strength", etc., none of which are necessarily true and might be wrong. Allowing +50% damage (assuming you use your progression table) is clearly far better than the fighter-only feat of weapon specialization. There's no feat that a fighter can take that equals that except, arguably greater weapon specialization, but that's at 12th level, not 6th.

Would you try to screw a creature over in the same way - for instance, if you were advancing a Treant (say using SS) and took INA, but then advanced enough to increase actual size, would the feat now be useless?

No because the rules on advancing creature's attacks is clear. It's not an absolute table.

 

[Scion]

The first question you need to answer is whether the INA improves the monk's unarmed strike progression or whether it's a one-time deal. If he takes INA and then gains levels as a monk, improving his damage again later, is that a corresponding advancement based on INA or an absolute advancement? I think there's an excellent argument for an absolute advancement, because none of the PC tables are used as relative values. For example, when you gain a monk level, you don't add in the value for the base save bonuses or BAB, you use the new value. So, if you take INA at 6th level, then at 8th level it should become 1d10 regardless of the previous value.

What are you talking about? The feat makes you treat the damage as if you were one size category larger.

The monk is of level X and so qualifies for a certain level of unarmed strike, and if he was medium before he now does damage as if he was large.

There is no 'one time deal' or 'advancement along the monks unarmed strike lines' it is only making him do damage as if he was one size category larger.

Some of the advancements from this may parallel the monks advancement, but that is unimportant.