Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Artoomis]

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

EWP often grants other benefits. Such as EWP: Spiked Chain.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

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.

Keep reading.

"... increases one step, as if the creature’s size had increased by one category."

 

[Scion]

Keep reading.

"... increases one step, as if the creature’s size had increased by one category."

So you are saying that it increases by more than one step.. even though it says it increases by one step? With the part I did not bold, but I did quote, the statement I made still does not change. It is still a single step of increase.

Also, as I said before, one could make a case for the damage increase being slightly less (still one step but not always dont according to the same table), but ewp is also much easier to get and can be used for a whole host of other very good options which are harder to compare directly to damage.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

So you are saying that it increases by more than one step.. even though it says it increases by one step?

No, it says it increases your damage by one step, as if you had increased in size by one category.

We know what that means for a monk, because it's already given to us in the Monk table. That being said ...

1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6
...
1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8

Monk 6: 1d8 -> 2d6 = +2.5 damage
Monk 8: 1d10 -> 2d8 = +2.5 damage
Monk 12: 2d6 -> 3d6 = +3.5 damage
Monk 16: 2d8 -> 3d8 = +4.5 damage
Monk 20: 2d10 -> 4d8 = +7 damage

Are you trying to tell me that any of these steps are less powerful than EWP (Bastard Sword or Dwarven Waraxe) (+1 damage) or Weapon Specialization (+2 damage)? Comparing it to, say, EWP (Spiked Chain) is a flawed comparison, because the only possible use of INA is to increase damage dealt. Accordingly, you should compare it against an EWP taken to improve damage dealt (as I have done).

So, no, INA does not give the same or similar benefit to EWP.

 

[Scion]

No, it says it increases your damage by one step, as if you had increased in size by one category.

Which means that it increases by one step.

When it says, 'increases by one step' I think that I am perfectly justified in saying, 'increases by one step'.

If you feel that stating exactly what the rules state is incorrect then I dont know what to say other than I disagree and feel that you are incorrect.

Just because the monks damage changes later is irrelevant, both effects can do the same thing. Increase the damage die of the base weapon by one step.

So yes, they have an effect which is essentially the same.

Monks have a weapon which goes from X damage to Y damage, one step increase.
EWP, as compared with the weapon it was derived from, can be going from A damage to B damage, one step increase.

Much like enlarge increases the damage by one step as well. Unless you wish to argue that enlarge doesnt do what it says either?

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Which means that it increases by one step.

I'm saying that you're being disingenuous when you say "one step."

Yeah, it's "one step." However, that "one step" for a monk means an awful lot more than "one step" does for a fighter.

For a fighter, "one step" is, generally speaking, +1 to damage. That's it. Finis. For a monk, it's more - and, generally speaking, a lot more.

 

[Scion]

I'm saying that you're being disingenuous when you say "one step."

No, it literally 'is' one step.

The difference in base weapon damage has no bearing on my comparison. They each do effectively the same thing in that area, one step of increase.

The monk gets a higher base damage for other balance reasons (more difficult to get weapon bonuses, less BAB, etc) but those do not change what I have said.


If you wish to redifine terms feel free, but this is the rules forum, I am going with the rules.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

The difference in base weapon damage has no bearing on my comparison.

But it should, because you want us to compare it to Exotic Weapon Proficiency and, thereby, realize that it's no big deal.

INA, from a strictly damage-dealing standpoint, is far superior to EWP specifically because the weapons involved have wildly varying base damage.

The move from 1d8 to 1d10 - MWP (Longsword) to EWP (Bastard Sword) is smaller - and will always be smaller. The minimum move associated with INA is just as good as EWP and Weapon Specialization (+2.5 vs. +3) - and, later, it will be better than both. Eventually, this single feat outpaces Greater Weapon Specialization, which has three other feats and a class level requirement as prerequisites.

This feat is much, much more powerful than EWP. To compare the two and say they are "on par" is laughable.

 

[Artoomis]

....

This feat is much, much more powerful than EWP. To compare the two and say they are "on par" is laughable.

Hmmm.....

A few points of extra damage (7 at 20th level is a red herring - it's ONLY at 20th level) for INA.

Compared to EWP:

What can EWP get you?

Reach weapon that also lets you strike adjacent foes AND use trip attacks AND get +2 on disarm attempts AND use Weapon Finesse. (Spiked Chain)

This seems in line with that, certainly.

In any case, a true analysis of the "power" of INA for a monk needs to be much more in-depth.

P.S.: Isn't there a feat that lets you use a weapon one size category larger than normal? That would add 3.5 pts of damage for a greatsword - not beaten by INA until 16th level.

 

[Scion]

But it should

No, because of the reasons I have already outlined.

In addition, there are other factors involved, as I and atroomis have both mentioned before.

Just because the base damage die of the weapons happen to be different isnt what is important in the comparison, merely that the effects that they generate can effectively be the same is.