Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Borlon]

The iterative attacks for Living Holocaust are a mistake, aren't they? Unless they have a listed ability that explicitly overrules the normal rules for iterative attacks, they should not be making iterative attacks.

the FAQ and the errata are different, and although it's intended for errata to only be found in the errata file, well, that's not how things went.

Anubis seems to be saying that the INA ruling should have been in the errata. In other words, that it *was* a change in the rules, and not merely a clarification. If the rules had to be changed to allow the monk to take INA, then by the rules as written (pre-FAQ) the monk could not take INA, but now he can.

Funny. I had thought that Anubis was on the Yes side, the side that said that the Sage was merely restating the current rules in a clearer way, not changing them.

 

[Borlon]

Power attack is also taken not just because it is powerful, but because it is a prerequisite to other feats (like cleave and sunder) and prestige classes. If it wasn't a prerequisite for other things, many fewer people would take it.

INA is being taken just for the benefit it provides, and provides twice the benefits of two hard to get fighter feats. It's hard to argue that it is not overpowered; the only justification for allowing it might be if the monk needs a power up, but that merely underscores the fact that yes, INA is overpowered for a monk.

 

[Artoomis]

...Now, the question then becomes: now that we know INA (or PA or whatever) is overpowered is that a good or bad thing?

You logic is flawed as we most certainly do NOT know that INA (or power attack) is over-powered. What we do know (or can reasonably surmise) is that the flavor of these feats (increasing damage) is something that players of combat-oriented characters will like and tend to choose.

Well, duh!!

...Does the monk need INA to compete or is +7 damage by 20th level too good (it's way above the best +damage anyone else could ever possibly get)?

On the other hand, their hands cannot be enchanted and get the same bonuses that a weapon can get that way.

...The easiest/best way to find out if an option is overpowered is to count the number of people selecting that option versus the alternatives. The secondary question becomes whether that overpoweredness is an issue that requires a remedy.

This has been an official response by I2K.

No, that's not the best way. That's a popularity contest. The best way is through anaylsis that carefully considers ALL other balancing factors. That's not yet be attempted here. It would have to include factors like the opportunity cost of taking a feat for the monk (smaller number of feats that fighters), the fact that monks unarmed strikes cannot be permanently enchanted, the various ways that other character get damage multipliers that to which a monk does not normally have access, the bonuses at each level compared to other melee-type characters, etc., etc.

 

[Borlon]

2. You'll not (ever) see any errata on this because only a clarification was required, thus only a FAQ entry would be needed.

(869 - 131 to go!)

You could see an errata. If they ever get around to updating it. Errata are not prohibited from making things clearer.

And if the argument is that it is a mistake that natural weapons were referred to in the prerequisites line, well, that seems to be something that can be addressed in the errata. Errata is supposed to fix mistakes, right?

I agree with you that polling is not the best way to get to the right answer. Whether or not the polls agree with me. Although if you don't believe in the relevance of polls, why do all these threads you start have them?

 

[Artoomis]

...I agree with you that polling is not the best way to get to the right answer. Whether or not the polls agree with me. Although if you don't believe in the relevance of polls, why do all these threads you start have them?

Because it's fun and, while not irrelevant, you do have to be very careful in drawing conclusions from them. The answers are always influenced (intentionally or not) by the way the questions are perceived.

It is interesting to see how the folks on this board see an issue and to get a numerical summary of that information. How much value that really has is anybody's guess, but it's still interesting to do.

In one case (not this one) I have been quite surprised at how my position turned out to be very much in the minority. As I said, interesting.

In the case of FAQ as Errata the results were a majority both for and against, depending upon phrasing of the question and options.

 

[Artoomis]

You could see an errata. If they ever get around to updating it. Errata are not prohibited from making things clearer. ..

You're right - I think there is an example or two in there of that. Still, I very much doubt it.

 

[Infiniti2000]

You logic is flawed as we most certainly do NOT know that INA (or power attack) is over-powered.

How is my logic flawed? INA is 4-1 a 'no brainer' which makes it overwhelmingly popular. I think, a vast majority agree, that INA is overpowered compared with all other feats that the monk could take.

On the other hand, their hands cannot be enchanted and get the same bonuses that a weapon can get that way.

Of course they can be enhanced (I'd not like my unarmed strikes to be enchanted quite honestly). Why would you say they can't?

No, that's not the best way. That's a popularity contest.

It's not a mere popularity contest. Don't try to mischaracterize the poll to fit your opinion.

The best way is through anaylsis that carefully considers ALL other balancing factors. That's not yet be attempted here. It would have to include factors like the opportunity cost of taking a feat for the monk (smaller number of feats that fighters), the fact that monks unarmed strikes cannot be permanently enchanted, the various ways that other character get damage multipliers that to which a monk does not normally have access, the bonuses at each level compared to other melee-type characters, etc., etc.

Whoever would do such a thing would first need to get the facts straight. The rest of your 'factors' you allude to are fluff. You are not listing out any facts at all and trying to appeal to a concern that doesn't exist. How in the world can you defend the position that INA is not overpowered when you can't even get your facts straight? Do your analysis and then we'll talk. For me, the poll and comparison to any other class's feats is more than enough.

 

[Scion]

Just stopping by to drop a little comment

Improved natural attack is very much like the monks (or other creatures with natural attacks) version of exotic weapon proficiency.

Both can increase the damage of a single weapon by 1 step (some are exotic because they are weird, but a good amount do provide some extra benefit)

Exotic weapon proficiency can sometimes get other benefits instead, and its prereqs are much easier to meet. So, even if some view exotic weapon prof to be a little weaker in the damage dealing area for whatever reason it makes up for it by having a greater selection of options and being much easier to get.

Not every fighter type gets exotic weapon prof, even though it can give the same benefit as INA. This could be primarily because of the number of feat choices out there for different builds while the monk is a bit more limited in some ways for feats that would really help.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Both can increase the damage of a single weapon by 1 step (some are exotic because they are weird, but a good amount do provide some extra benefit)

Except that INA is much, much more powerful than EWP. The increase is, generally speaking, much more than a single step.

 

[Scion]

Except that INA is much, much more powerful than EWP. The increase is, generally speaking, much more than a single step.

Since the increase that INA gives is pretty much the definition of a single step I would have to say that your statement is rather incorrect.

IMPROVED NATURAL ATTACK [GENERAL]
Prerequisite: Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4.
Benefit: Choose one of the creature’s natural attack forms. The damage for this natural weapon increases by one step, as if the creature’s size had increased by one 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.

Emphasis mine.