Improved monk attack

[Mordane76]

Much of what I've been reading in the FAQ and the SRD would lead me to believe that officially it would be ruled as not a natural weapon for the purposes of the feat. The answers to monks that have natural weapons (such as centaurs) in the FAQ seem to paint a definite distinction between a monk's fists and other 'natural' weapons.

The text of the monk ability seems to be specifically aimed at allowing spells that enhance weapons, like bless weapon and holy sword. While I don't think there's any problem with it, I would suspect that the Sage would rule it as not a natural weapon for the purposes of this feat.

 

[Diirk]

Ignoring convoluted arguments of "well I can twist the rules to say this or this", there's a better way to look at it... Its too poweful as a feat to allow a monk to take it imo.

You can take it as early as 6th level (BAB +4 requirement), at which point it raises your average die damage from 4.5 (1d8) to 7 (2d6)... +2.5 damage per attack. Thats already better than weapon specialisation, and the difference only gets more pronounced as your fists get better.

At 12th level a monks base damage is 2d6, and with this feat would be 3d6.. thats +3.5 damage. Compare to an equal level fighter who's spent 2 feats for +4 damage... hmm.

Unarmed strike damage caps out at 2d10 (avg 11), the feat would make this 4d8? (avg 18). This can be achieved at lvl 15 with a monks belt. +7 damage per hit for a single feat. Heck, throw on an enlarge person and you're looking at 4d8 vs 6d8... we're up to +9 damage per hit for our single feat... its somewhat ridiculous.

One poster compared it to monkey grip for monks. The problem with that is monkey grip imposes a penalty to attack rolls, and improved natural attack doesn't. Also, even with monkey grip, you're looking at 2d6 -> 3d6 for a greatsword or 3d6 -> 4d6 enlarged, an increase of only 3.5 damage compared to a monks possible +9... if you want more than that you're looking at a few exotic weapons, and you'll have to spend extra feats.

In past posts where this has been pointed out the counterargument for the monk supporters was generally along the lines of 'Who cares, monks aren't that great anyway'.

.....

 

[Darkness]

You can take it as early as 6th level (BAB +4 requirement), at which point it raises your average die damage from 4.5 (1d8) to 7 (2d6)... +2.5 damage per attack. Thats already better than weapon specialisation

Hm, you'll need to factor in all variables if you want a useful comparison. For starters, monks don't hit as often as Fighters.
I'm interested in the average per-round damage increase difference.

 

[Corlon]

I think they're definitely natural weapons.

Once you let them enchant their fists with flaming for the same price as enhancing a greatsword then we can talk about them not being natural.

Sure it's not the greatest argument, but it's how I feel

 

[Egres]

Ignoring convoluted arguments of "well I can twist the rules to say this or this", there's a better way to look at it... Its too poweful as a feat to allow a monk to take it imo.

You can take it as early as 6th level (BAB +4 requirement), at which point it raises your average die damage from 4.5 (1d8) to 7 (2d6)... +2.5 damage per attack. Thats already better than weapon specialisation, and the difference only gets more pronounced as your fists get better.

At 12th level a monks base damage is 2d6, and with this feat would be 3d6.. thats +3.5 damage. Compare to an equal level fighter who's spent 2 feats for +4 damage... hmm.

Unarmed strike damage caps out at 2d10 (avg 11), the feat would make this 4d8? (avg 18). This can be achieved at lvl 15 with a monks belt. +7 damage per hit for a single feat. Heck, throw on an enlarge person and you're looking at 4d8 vs 6d8... we're up to +9 damage per hit for our single feat... its somewhat ridiculous.

One poster compared it to monkey grip for monks. The problem with that is monkey grip imposes a penalty to attack rolls, and improved natural attack doesn't. Also, even with monkey grip, you're looking at 2d6 -> 3d6 for a greatsword or 3d6 -> 4d6 enlarged, an increase of only 3.5 damage compared to a monks possible +9... if you want more than that you're looking at a few exotic weapons, and you'll have to spend extra feats.

In past posts where this has been pointed out the counterargument for the monk supporters was generally along the lines of 'Who cares, monks aren't that great anyway'.

.....

Not to mention Empty Hand Mastery.

 

[apesamongus]

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

This isn't one of them.

On what do you base that opinion?

They count for effects, not for prerequisites.

Not mutually exclusive. They are NWs for the purpose of effects. "Purpose" is vague enough to allow either interpreation.

 

[Klaus]

Hmm...

I'd allow it.

But I'd rule that Improved Natural Attack increases the unarmed damage to the next unarmed damage value, as per the monk table.

And I don't buy the natural weapons/unarmed strikes being mutually exclusive. If a character has natural attacks and is a monk, I'd say that he can use either damage value with his strikes.

 

[Egres]

Not mutually exclusive. They are NWs for the purpose of effects. "Purpose" is vague enough to allow either interpreation.

Are you trying to argue that a prerequisite is an effect?!?

 

[Lord Pendragon]

RAW, a monk's unarmed attack is not a natural weapon. This seems clear enough to me. So the question becomes, is it treated as a natural weapon for the purposes of feat prerequisites. I don't believe it is, or was meant to be. Others have already given good background for why this is so.

Carry on.

 

[Diirk]

Hm, you'll need to factor in all variables if you want a useful comparison. For starters, monks don't hit as often as Fighters.
I'm interested in the average per-round damage increase difference.

Err, let me put it this way. If a monk could take either Weapon Specialisation (unarmed) or improved natural attack (unarmed), it is more advantageous to take the latter of the two. At later levels the latter option can give him as much as +7 (or more, dunno what this empty hand mastery thing is) extra damage over the former.

Of course a monk can't take the former.. the designers felt that an improvement of this nature should be fighter only.

Given that, allowing the latter seems drastically out of whack. How much the classes can do in a round is irrelevant as we're talking about feat balance, not overall class balance (which can't be shown by a simple 'who does more damage' comparison anyway).

Hmm...

I'd allow it.

But I'd rule that Improved Natural Attack increases the unarmed damage to the next unarmed damage value, as per the monk table.

This would be a decent compromise, while in the short term it would rival weapon specialisation, in the long term it would be a wasted feat, as unarmed strike has no progression past 2d10 damage.. there is no epic continuation of it. It also allows a bit of flexibility because at level 16+ (or whatever) with the houseruled version of the feat you can dump your monks belt for something else