Improved monk attack

[apesamongus]

Not sure if this has been addressed, but...

"A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons." - SRD

And if we consider a feat to be "an effect that improves a natural weapon", then he could take Improved Natural Attack to boost damage on all of his unarmed attacks. (using his 9th level feat, that would change his 1d10 to 2d8)

 

[Egres]

Not sure if this has been addressed, but...

"A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons." - SRD

And if we consider a feat to be "an effect that improves a natural weapon", then he could take Improved Natural Attack to boost damage on all of his unarmed attacks. (using his 9th level feat, that would change his 1d10 to 2d8)

Of course, we could consider the feat's benefit as an effect.

But in order to activate the feat's effect we must take it.

And, without a Natural Weapon, we can't.

No prerequisite, No feat, No effect.

 

[Targos]

This has been debated quite a bit. In regards to the previous post Eberron throws a wrench in that. (Although I'd say its correct by the RAW.) The warforged and shifters have or can have natural weapons so then they could take it. Now would it apply to the monk unarmed strike? By the RAW I think so, but it doesn't seem fair to let it apply to monks of only certain races. Personally the issue I have with that feat is it follows a different damage progression than the monk. A player of mine pointed out the monk has the odd progession and not the feat. Weapon sizes, size increases for monsters, and the feat I believe have the same die increases.

 

[hong]

Of course, we could consider the feat's benefit as an effect.

But in order to activate the feat's effect we must take it.

And, without a Natural Weapon, we can't.

No prerequisite, No feat, No effect.

That's... dumb.

 

[apesamongus]

Of course, we could consider the feat's benefit as an effect.

But in order to activate the feat's effect we must take it.

And, without a Natural Weapon, we can't.

No prerequisite, No feat, No effect.

I would say that "for the purpose of" includes both qualifying and using. It doesn't say "for applying bonuses from", which would not include prerequisites.

 

[Mordane76]

I'm with hong - if the monk's fists aren't natural weapons (as it states they are in the description), then what are they?

Allowing this feat for a monk is really not much worse than allowing Monkey Grip for weapon-using characters - a monk can get pretty much the same effect from a enlarging spell, but the spell also brings with it extra damage (from increased Strength) and slightly lower attack and AC. There are other things he could spend this feat on around 9th level that would be just as deadly if not more so.

 

[Sejs]

A monk's unarmed strike is not a natural weapon. They are an unarmed strike.

 

[apesamongus]

A monk's unarmed strike is not a natural weapon. They are an unarmed strike.

Except when you read the part I quoted DIRECTLY from the SRD which says that they are treated like natural weapons (in certain circumstances - which may or may not apply here).

 

[MadMaxim]

I agree with Mordane76 that a monk's unarmed strike is a natural weapon. I'd allow my players to take the feat for a monk in order to deal unarmed damage as if he/she were playing a large monk. And if the monk's unarmed strike wasn't treated as a manufactured weapon they would never get their second and third attack.

 

[Egres]

Except when you read the part I quoted DIRECTLY from the SRD which says that they are treated like natural weapons (in certain circumstances - which may or may not apply here).

Right.

They are treated as, but they aren't natural weapons.

Do they follow the Natural Weapons attack routine?

No.

They are Unarmed Strikes that count as NW in some circumstances.

This isn't one of them.

They count for effects, not for prerequisites.

That's... dumb.

Well, I think that that post wasn't nice.

However, I'm curious to see what Hypersmurf is going to reply, since, IIRC, he used the same argument.