Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Scion]

It might be important to make a special note that you cannot take INA multiple times and if you do somehow have it multiple times the effects do not stack. This is primarily because the feat itself does not say you can take it multiple times nor does it say that it stacks with itself (unless of course my srd is incorrect ).

 

[Infiniti2000]

I dont know how to be more clear than when the rules literally state something explicitly.

They literally do increase by one step. If you wish to say that one weapon does too much base damage vs another go right ahead, but that is a completely seperate arguement. Or even if a certain weapon does not increase properly according to other parts of the RAW, which is again a seperate arguement.

I'm not arguing the weapon's base damage, but challenging your comparison. The first issue you need to overcome is your attempt at referencing the rules explicitly. Give me the explicit rules reference on "one step" or EWP (the one for INA has already been provided). The second issue you need to overcome once you somehow manage to do the first is show that they both increase one step of the same thing. They do not, as I have shown. One increases damage die (arguable, for EWP) and one increases size (for INA). Comparing them is like comparing +1 on skill checks to +1 on caster level -- it is bogus.

 

[Infiniti2000]

It might be important to make a special note that you cannot take INA multiple times and if you do somehow have it multiple times the effects do not stack. This is primarily because the feat itself does not say you can take it multiple times nor does it say that it stacks with itself (unless of course my srd is incorrect ).

You can take it multiple times, but each time it applies to a different weapon. Now, how that interacts with the monk's unarmed strike, which some people argue is not a single weapon, is beyond me. I think those people need to step forward.

 

[Scion]

I'm not arguing the weapon's base damage

The second you say X damage vs Y damage you are argueing from the base damage.

They both can increase a weapons damage by one step. This is clear from the RAW.

If you wish to argue that weapons doing different base damage is unbalancing somehow we will need a ton of other balancing factors brought to play.

Even without that however the base still remains, they both increase the damage by a single step.

 

[Scion]

You can take it multiple times, but each time it applies to a different weapon.

That isnt what my version of the SRD says, but again, it may not be correct.

Note the difference between it and weapon focus.

 

[Artoomis]

...

Whew. Possibly the longest post ever.

Great answer from Customer Service - which I will post in the FAQ vs. Errata thread.

 

[Anubis]

I could have sworn you could take it multiple times and apply it to the same natural attack. Ah well, that just means it's weaker than I thought.

Still, I think we should stop focusing on something so trite as comparing the feats, they're not all equal. Let's instead focus on what customer service had to say this time around.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Great answer from Customer Service - which I will post in the FAQ vs. Errata thread.

Where it, like all CustServ responses, will be generally ignored by everyone except those who believe that from the mouths of the Holy CustServ, no lie shall issue forth.

 

[Anubis]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is the Rules forum, and as such, customer service counts. If you don't like it, take it to House Rules.

Or a better way to say it is this. WotC gave customer service the power to make these rulings, and in the Rules forum, WotC has the final say. If a player wants a say, that's what House Rules are for.

 

[Artoomis]

...
I don't agree. What Patryn and I have posted already shows that beyond a shadow of a doubt, INA is overpowered. I'd help with the comparison, but you need to tell us where to continue it beyond what we've already done. Is the comparison on INA versus the entire GWS tree insufficient?

No.

If you REALLY want to know if a monk taking INA is unbalancingly powerful you have to figure in factors like:

The opportunity cost of taking a feat for a monk vs. a fighter (no bonus feats for monks, so each feat is, in effect, more expensive).

The fact that some feats scale, and some don't.

The fact that in can be used by a small monk to make him equivalent in damage to a medium monk.

In other words - check all possible, relevant factors and then see what it look slike.

This does NOT look overpowering for a small monk at all, for example. It looks pretty scary for a large monk, though!

Also, a real definition for when something is too powerful. This would really help.

"Too Powerful?" Basically, as I understand it, something is too powerful if, by itself, it lets you take over the game from the other characters. Certainly INA does NOT do that - at best, it makes a monk be able to MAYBE stand his own in melee combat and in no way equal a fighter with all his extra fighter feats.