Improved Natural Attack

[BASHMAN]

No, it cannot be taken more than once.

And, even though the FAQ says it applies to monk damage, many DMs I know (all that I have tried to play a monk with) have said NO to that-- that it only applies to bites, claws, etc, and that they will not allow it for any humanoid/monstrous humanoid, etc character.

So your friend is lucky to get it at all!

 

[saucercrab]

The feat says, "This feat may be taken multiple times, but each time it applies to a different natural attack."

So, no. Definitely not.

That line doesn't appear in the MM (or, my MM at least). Is the feat listed in another book?

 

[Nail]

He's *so* banned.

 

[starwed]

Not a seperate book, but part of the errata:

Improved Natural Attack Feat
You can take this feat multiple times, but each time it
applies to a different natural attack.

Chances are previous posters looked at one of the online SRD's, which tend to include official errata. (The official SRD release is not so updated.)

 

[Machiavelli]

Frankly, I'd allow it to stack if the player was not building himself a GOD AMONG MEN of natural attacks. A fairly average 1d6 attack (say... two of them, even) bumped to 2d6 with two feats?

Oooo, he's getting +7 total damage on full attacks, assuming both attacks hit the target! And he only paid 2 feats to do it! That's unacceptable!
In all seriousness, if you can trust your players to "build" a character with fun being more important than overshadowing the rest of the party, then let little things like this slide.

Of course, if you value consistency in your games, and one of your players is eager to exploit whatever avenue he can to boost his character's damage output into the stratosphere, then it is unacceptable. If you let be, INA can be abused quite heavily.

 

[Artoomis]

Every post so far except Artoomis's has had the word "it" in it. Artoomis even went so far as to mispell "without" so that the two letters would not even be next to one another in the correct order anywhere in his post. Dedication!

Darn IE spellchecker does not work with this site.

Now I have to leave "it" alone and pretend I really meant "ti."

 

[saucercrab]

Not a seperate book, but part of the errata:

Chances are previous posters looked at one of the online SRD's, which tend to include official errata. (The official SRD release is not so updated.)

Hmm, I thought I had penciled in the errata when I could. Well, thanks for that, then.