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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arkhandus" data-source="post: 1988403" data-attributes="member: 13966">I'd allow Improved Natural Attack for monks, as I see it as reasonably fair given the monk's weakness in combat.  I've played several in 3.0 and 3.5, and they're quite simply underpowered in battle.  Rogues outdamage them, and tend to have higher AC to boot.  A fighter can use Power Attack to take -5 on attack rolls and deal +10 damage with their greatsword, and they'll still have a better attack bonus than the monk, while dealing around twice as much damage.  INA would just bring the monk reasonably close so they could still be useful in the party.  No monk of mine (I haven't seen anyone else even dare to try the weaklings) has been useful nor survivable as the party's primary or secondary melee or ranged combatant.  The party's druid and his wolf companion do better in melee, without even resorting to spells or wild shape.  Trust me, Improved Natural Attack would not overpower monks, it would only bring them close to being comparable with other warriors, so they could at least do as decently as the party rogue.The term 'effect' has not been specifically defined in the rules of the d20 System, so there is no definate exclusion of 'prerequisites' from being also 'effects'.  Nothing particularly excludes them from being 'effects', nor from feats being 'effects.Just because a natural weapon does not count as an unarmed strike, does not mean that an unarmed strike cannot be counted as a natural weapon.  I believe your argument in that regard is a Non Sequitor.  Or something very similar to that extent, it has been a few years since my Critical Thinking class........</blockquote>

Verification