Improved monk attack

[Trainz]

I don't understand where the confusion lies.

It's right there in the Player's Handbook, p. 41, Monk:

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.

It doesn't outright say that they are natural weapons, but the intent is quite clear that whenever in doubt, the monk chooses if he should be considered as a natural weapon or manufactured weapon. Because there is nothing else more precise about the subject, logic dictates that we follow that guideline.

 

[Doctor Shaft]

Read the post above however. The FAQ someone just posted says clearly that a monk's unarmed attacks are not natural weapons.

The clause in the PH is only there to indicate that you can cast either natural weapon spells or manufactured weapon spells on a monk fists.

The clause in the PH is only there to indicate that in special situations, a monk considers his fists both natural and manufactured weapons when attacking someone with them, or having any other "in-game" activity occur.

Taking feats isn't "in-game". You don't "use" your monk fists to get the feat. And besides which, I seriously doubt they'd go through all the trouble in the past to come up with feat trees in Oriental Adventures to give a monk a slightly higher damage dice if Improved Natural Attack was just sitting right there.

After further thought, I have to agree with others that it is one of those feats that just has too many plusses and nearly no minuses. Having the ability to increase your damage arbitrarily, at no penalty, for one feat, is a bit unfair. Power Attack at least requires you take down your AB a notch. This just requires that you proceed to kick more butt.

 

[the Jester]

It's never come up but I'd allow a monk to take INA for unarmed strike.

I really don't think it's overpowered- most monks, ime, rely on mobility and staying out of harm's way (at least at higher levels).

 

[adienpryde]

What I dont understand is from a discussion from a few months ago, A monk with a Vow of Poverty(sp?) then becomes a Kensai would lose his vow because he had a magic manufactured weapon. How can his fist be manufactured in regard to the Vow, but not natural in in regards to Improved Natural Attack?

 

[Plane Sailing]

I personally wouldn't allow it. What is improved natural weapon? Bigger claws, bigger teeth, bigger stinger? I can visualise that in a monster. How could it work for Monks? Bigger hands, headbutts, feet? It doesn't make sense to me.

I'm quite comfortable ruling that natural weapons is teeth and claws etc. A monks unarmed attacks specifically allows any part of his body to be used, Improved Natual Attack is only one of the natural attack forms.

Others think differently, clearly, but you have to rule in a way which makes sense to you.

 

[Diirk]

It's never come up but I'd allow a monk to take INA for unarmed strike.

I really don't think it's overpowered- most monks, ime, rely on mobility and staying out of harm's way (at least at higher levels).

Yeah, thats the general reason I've seen defending it in the past:

"+9 damage per hit is fine for a single feat with no drawbacks because monks don't do anything but run really fast and try not to get hit."

Maybe I'm just getting cynical in my old age

 

[Egres]

Can we stop claiming that the monk's Unarmed Strikes are Natural Weapons?

If they are treated as Natural Weapons, they can't be Natural Weapons.

Come on, are we really arguing about this clear point?

 

[Crothian]

Come on, are we really arguing about this clear point?

My guess is it is being argued because it is not that clear. :\

 

[Mordane76]

Can we stop claiming that the monk's Unarmed Strikes are Natural Weapons?

If they are treated as Natural Weapons, they can't be Natural Weapons.

Come on, are we really arguing about this clear point?

It doesn't really matter if they 'are' or 'aren't' de facto natural weapons. What's being argued, or at least what I thought was being argued, is whether or not they are 'natural weapon' enough by the description in the monk class to qualify for the feat in question.

 

[Egres]

It doesn't really matter if they 'are' or 'aren't' de facto natural weapons. What's being argued, or at least what I thought was being argued, is whether or not they are 'natural weapon' enough by the description in the monk class to qualify for the feat in question.

They can't qualify, simply because they are eligible for effects, not for prerequisites.

Unless someone is going to argue that a prerequisite is an effect.(!)