Human Monks can take Improved Natural Attack?

[Dannyalcatraz]

You, Dimwhit, and Dannyalcatraz must have a lot of ranks in Ride (fence).

I'm no fence rider- IMHO, Unarmed Strikes = Natural Weapons (with special rules).

Its just that the rules about unarmed strike are so messed up that it functionally doesn't matter if you say US are NW with special rules so can be used with anything that can be used on NW's (unless there is a specific explicit exception) or if you say that US are NOT NW, but have special rules that allow them to be used with anything that can be used on NW's (unless there is a specific explicit exception).

The dabate has shifted to whether all unarmed attacks (monks included) are natural weapons (at least as for as feats, spells,. etc. are concerned) which, if they are, renders the monk debate moot as anyone with unarmed attacks could take INA, though it would be of little benefit for most.

Not quite moot.

As I stated before, since I believe that all unarmed strikes are natural weapons, that forced me to re-analyze the section in the Monk description.

Since it states that a monk's unarmed strike can be considered a natural or manufactured weapon for purposes of spells or effect, the only conclusion I could come to was that the benefit being added to the monk is the "manufactured weapon" language- AFAIK, unique to the monk class.

In other words- any spell or effect that affects manufactured weapons (other than those that are extremely specific, like Shillelagh) can be used on a Monk's unarmed strikes.

 

[Artoomis]

Not quite moot.

The debate of whether monks can take INA becomes moot. Your point about what this means for considering unarmed strikes as manufactureed weapons is technically a different debate, though very similar.

 

[Fortain]

Sorry for a bit of grave-digging, but...

Quote from Official D&D Game Rules FAQ...Updated 10/20/05

"Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack (Monster
Manual, page 304) to improve his unarmed strike?
Yes. As stated on page 41 of the Player’s Handbook, a
monk’s unarmed strike “is treated as both a manufactured
weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and
effects that enhance or improve either” which includes feats
such as Improved Natural Attack.
Barring multiclassing, the earliest a monk could take this
feat would be at 6th level (due to the base attack bonus
prerequisite), at which point her unarmed strike damage would
improve from 1d8 to 2d6 (which represents an average increase
of +2.5 points of damage). The same monk at 20th level would
deal 3d8(?) points of damage with her unarmed strike."

And for those who question what progression the Monk would use after gaining INS...

Quote from D20 SRD...
"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.

This feat may be taken multiple times, but each time it applies to a different natural attack."

Not sure where the FAQs' 3d8 came from - possible typo for 4d8?

 

[Hypersmurf]

Quote from Official D&D Game Rules FAQ...Updated 10/20/05

It's the same Sage Ruling referred to in post 1 of the thread (just in a different place), so all 650 replies so far have taken its existence into account already

-Hyp.

 

[Fortain]

It's the same Sage Ruling referred to in post 1 of the thread (just in a different place), so all 650 replies so far have taken its existence into account already

-Hyp.

I kinda figured that, Hyp. I just felt like posting it, anyway. IMO, if I was DMing, and a person wanted to get INS for their Monk, they can - simple as that.

As an aside, are there any other rules debates on other topics that've gone on for as long as the "INS for Monks" thread has?

Edited for Caliban...

 

[Caliban]

IMO, Monks can take INS - simple as that.

If they check with their DM first.

 

[Anubis]

Why is this debate still going even? We have not one, not two, but three official sources now (the RAW when by the most widely-accepted interpretation, Skip Williams from Dragon, and now the FAQ) stating monk's can take the feat.

Any DM who says they can't take it, that is a house rule. Per the official rules, monks can take the feat. Let it die already.

 

[Hypersmurf]

... Skip Williams from Dragon...

Andy Collins from Dragon.

-Hyp.

 

[Hypersmurf]

As an aside, are there any other rules debates on other topics that've gone on for as long as the "INS for Monks" thread has?

It's the longest thread currently in the Rules Forum.

-Hyp.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

...Skip Williams from Dragon...

Ah...

As Hypersmurf has pointed out earlier in this thread (Edit: and just above as I was posting this!):

Andy Collins works as a roleplaying game developer for Wizards of the Coast. He's also the official "Sage," answering D&D rules questions every month in the pages of Dragon Magazine.

but other than that- I'm still in the YES group.