Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Diirk" data-source="post: 1986755" data-attributes="member: 14476">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'......</blockquote>

Verification