Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Infiniti2000]

They both can increase a weapons damage by one step. This is clear from the RAW....
Even without that however the base still remains, they both increase the damage by a single step.

And not only have you not shown this, but you have not shown that the steps are the same. 1 damage die step != 1 size step. It's absurd to think otherwise.

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

Bizarre.
Hypertext: "This feat may be taken multiple times, but each time it applies to a different natural attack."
Sovelior: "Special: A creature can gain this feat multiple times. Each time it applies to a different natural attack."

Strangely, it's not in the WotC SRD. But, it is listed in the MM Errata:

Improved Natural Attack Feat
You can take this feat multiple times, but each time it applies to a different natural attack.

 

[Infiniti2000]

No.

If you REALLY want to know if a monk taking INA is unbalancingly powerful you have to figure in factors like:
...
In other words - check all possible, relevant factors and then see what it look slike.

So, in your opinion to argue that something is overpowered, it has to be overpowered in all cases in comparison to all other abilities? That's not a good way to view. A thing (feat, spell, etc.) should be considered overpowered if it can be shown to be overpowerd even once, in comparison with one other (reasonably chosen*) thing.

* i.e. don't compare meteor swarm to magic missile as that isn't fair. But, comparing INA to WS is fair.

 

[FireLance]

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.

Sorry, Scion, but Infinit2000 and Patryn do have a point here. INA increases the damage by one step, but that one step is a size category increase. EWP (bastard sword) or EWP (dwarven battleaxe) also increases damage by one step, bit that step is just a die increase. A 6th-level monk who takes INA increases his unarmed strike damage from 1d8 to 2d6 (avg 4.5 to 7). A 6th-level fighter who takes EWP (bastard sword) increases his weapon damage from 1d8 to 1d10 (avg 4.4 to 5.5). The monk gets a damage boost compared to the fighter.

Of course, the balancer is that magic items that increase the enhancement bonus to natural weapons are generally more expensive than magic weapons. An amulet of mighty fists costs about three times as much as a magic weapon that grants an equivalent enhancement bonus to attacks and damage.

The other point to consider is that the base damage from a monk's unarmed strike typically outstrips a fighter's base weapon damage, anyway. At 8th level, a monk's unarmed strike deals as much base damage as the best (in terms of base damage) one-handed weapons in the core rules, and a fighter has to spend a feat slot to get that base damage, while the monk does not. From 12th level, a monk's unarmed strike deals as much base damage as the best (in terms of base damage) two-handed weapon in the core rules, and from 16th level, the monk's unarmed strike deals more base damage than any weapon in the core rules.

Hence, when it comes to feats that improve damage, it seems to me that monks should have the edge over fighters, so it doesn't bother me that INA provides a higher damage bonus that EWP or Weapon Specialization.

 

[Anubis]

So, in your opinion to argue that something is overpowered, it has to be overpowered in all cases in comparison to all other abilities? That's not a good way to view. A thing (feat, spell, etc.) should be considered overpowered if it can be shown to be overpowerd even once, in comparison with one other (reasonably chosen*) thing.

* i.e. don't compare meteor swarm to magic missile as that isn't fair. But, comparing INA to WS is fair.

What reality do you live in? Certainly not the one most people live in. Anything is abusable given a little strategic planning. I can take almost anything from the core rules and show at least one instance where it can be considered "broken", from magic missile to resist energy to Power Attack to just about anything. Why do you think "Smackdown" threads happen? How do you think they happen? By finding ways to abuse the system.

Everything is potentially broken. For something to be truly overpowered, it has to be broken more often than not.

 

[Scion]

Sorry, Scion, but Infinit2000 and Patryn do have a point here. INA increases the damage by one step, but that one step is a size category increase. EWP (bastard sword) or EWP (dwarven battleaxe) also increases damage by one step, bit that step is just a die increase.

I do not know what formula they use to get the dice change that they are useing for the bastard sword, but it doesnt use the other guidelines given elsewhere. Which means either it is a special, unwritten rule (and so we cannot compare it) or it was done improperly (at which point you then have to talk about the weapon itself and figure out what the problem is).

Say that we have a medium bastard sword. It does d10 damage.
Lets also look at a medium longsword. It does d8 damage.
The only real difference seems to be the damage die increase and the bastard sword needing a feat to be used in one hand.

So, one feat to increase the damage die by one step. How they go from d8 to d10 no one really knows. But, it is a single increase.

Now we look at a large long sword. It should do 2d6 damage.
Looking at a large bastard sword it should do 2d8 damage.

Either way it is an increase of one step.

It happens that one step is along the column for some unknown reason while the other step is in the row for reasons that are explained.

Either way though, they are a change of one step and the damage is increased.

One could argue that one of the steps isnt as powerful as the other, which I believe I said something to that effect in my first post, but that the extra requirements of INA plus the extra versitility of EWP make up for this.

Which, as far as I can tell, is still true.

Edit: I forgot to mention that for the chart in question everything below the d8 line works the same either column wise or row wise. I believe the issue to be that it 'should' continue to work this way over the entire length but for some reason it 'doesnt'. Which means that either d8 should go to d10 or that the bastard sword should be 2d6. The shifting rules at that point where it goes from small increases to sudden jumps just doesnt make much sense. It may very well be that this was done purposefully, to make larger monsters more of a threat. If that is the case it was done in very poor form since they could have simply raised the monsters str value and kept the system working without the discontinuity that exists currently.
/edit


Now, monks have a larger base weapon damage die, eventually, this is true.

However, that is a completely new arguement that calls into play a number of other balance issues.

As such, it is irrelevant to my point, but it is a valid point in a completely seperate arguement. Trying to say that my arguement is wrong because some seperate arguement says something is, at best, silly.

I have merely put up how the rules themselves point out in some very explicit places in the rules. It isnt a question of ambiguity, it isnt a question of conflicting rules, it is right there in the text.

Hence, when it comes to feats that improve damage, it seems to me that monks should have the edge over fighters, so it doesn't bother me that INA provides a higher damage bonus that EWP or Weapon Specialization.

Which of course is a completely seperate issue.

I was merely pointing out to those who said that INA was a no brainer that there was a very similar feat which had the equivalent effect and yet many/most do not take that feat. It is an issue to think about when deciding if something is too powerful because everyone takes it. It could just as easily be that there just arent very many choices anyway and so the few that are there are picked a disproportionate amount of times.


Edit2: thinking about this entire issue further I think I will make the following houserule in my game and apply it as often as possible.
Single chart of die advancement: d1 -> d2 -> d3 -> d4 -> d6 -> d8 -> d10 -> 2d6 -> 3d6 -> 4d6 -> 5d6 -> 6d6
So that would be avg: 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3.5, 4.5, 5.5, 7, 10.5, 14, 17.5, 21, etc
That is a very smooth adjustment that still gives some extra benefit to the very large creatures out there. It may take a little more adjustment in the very high end (at some point extra d6's should be added each time, likely after 6d6 it will add 2d6 each time for 3 times then 3d6 each time for 3 times and so forth.. that should be perfect.
/Edit

 

[Scion]

But, comparing INA to WS is fair.

So comparing something that changes constantly based on what level you are, what equipment you are useing (not including weapon changes), requires a nonclass specific ability, and what size you happen to be at the time to something that is static, gear independent, class specific, and size independent is fair?

I'd have to say you are reaching beyond the realm of useful comparisons there.

You were talking about apples and oranges before, this seems to come pretty close to that.

 

[FireLance]

As such, it is irrelevant to my point, but it is a valid point in a completely seperate arguement. Trying to say that my arguement is wrong because some seperate arguement says something is, at best, silly.

Just for the record, I'm not saying that your argument is wrong. I'm just saying that a one step damage increase because of size is not the same as a one step increase in the damage dice. INA does the former, and EWP does the latter, if you compare a bastard sword to a longsword, or a dwarven waraxe to a battleaxe. Of course, the reason for the confusion is that "step" is not a defined game term .

The other point about monks doing more base damage than fighters anyway is a separate argument, and is directed more at the "INA is overpowered" crowd.

 

[Caliban]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this is the Rules forum, and as such, customer service counts.

No, this is the Rules Forum. As such, unsubstantiated e-mails from Cust Serv have no weight. We've had experience with Customer Service before, they aren't reliable in any way when it comes to the rules.

If you don't like it, take it to House Rules.

You really have no authority to tell people what to do, you know that right?

Or a better way to say it is this. WotC gave customer service the power to make these rulings

Please show me an official WOTC source where it states that this power was granted to them. Seriously, put up or shut up.

and in the Rules forum, WotC has the final say. If a player wants a say, that's what House Rules are for.

This is not a WOTC forum. Players have just as much, or more, say into how the rules are interpreted as WOTC does. We are the one who actually use them after all.

 

[Scion]

Just for the record, I'm not saying that your argument is wrong. I'm just saying that a one step damage increase because of size is not the same as a one step increase in the damage dice.

Actually, it is the same except at the discontinuity points. I started another thread about them.

If you are above then it works fine, if you are below it works fine, but if you are right at the discontinuity then it breaks down. Very odd system. Something I see as a bug.

But just because this can happen on that point does not remove the general statement

 

[Anubis]

Please show me an official WOTC source where it states that this power was granted to them. Seriously, put up or shut up.

They're customer service. It's there job. Do you regularly practice being this crazy, Caliban?