Is Improved Natural Attack a 'no brainer' for Monks?

[Dimwhit]

Well, weapon specialization is a single weapon and I would not imagine not taking it as a fighter.

See, that's what you would do. My fighters rarely take that feat anymore. Too many better feats to take.

If you think INA is a no-brainer, great. That's what the poll is for. But not everyone agrees with you.

 

[Rashak Mani]

There are LOTS of feat choices other thna those that directly improve melee damage. A monk is all about survivability and mobility. Maximize those two features and he gets really, really dangerous in a fight.

Monks are so good at survivability and mobility that its not worth investing more in it... IMO. Also surviving combat doesn't make anyone "really dangerous in a fight" he just lasts longer. So maximizing survival sucks for the rest of the group.

Anyone who has ever played a monk knows how just surviving well isn't enough... its delaying the inevitable if you don't dish some damage back.

 

[Enamel_32]

You assume a monk can only punch things. A tricky monk can grapple to immobilize enemies, or disarm, and take the BBEG's weapon. Tripping is also fun when there's a friendly fighter next to the guy.

 

[UltimaGabe]

I voted "yes", but only because there's no "sometimes" choice.

From my roleplaying experience, I'd have to say there was only one point when I would have considered Improved Natural Attack a "no-brainer" for a Monk- and that was when I first started playing the game, before I realized there's so many nastier things you can do than possibly deal a couple extra points of damage. For a class that's only gonna hit a third of the time anyway, and you could easily be tripping or disarming or grappling or (depending on other books allowed) flying and doing all sorts of other crazy monk things with your limited feat choice, I'd only take it if I honestly had run out of other feats to take.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Keep in mind that the damage also applies in a grapple and for improved trip.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm firmly in the "Depending on the monk concept" camp, so I voted no.

INA SUCKS for a monk who primarily uses monk weapons instead of his natural attacks. Then there's that whole "Deflect Arrows" Feat tree, etc.

 

[Legildur]

<snip>That said, a Monk can not take INA anyway, so the point is moot

(Sorry, had to get it in there)

LOL!! Forgiven (and you would have been equally forgiven if you had of said that they CAN take INA). I'm disappointed that there haven't been more comments along these lines (ignoring my initial request that is).

And to the others wanting to know more background to the poll, I deliberately excluded a 'sometimes' option simply to polarise the poll. However, the poll options are 'most likely' and 'not likely' to take INA in recognition that sometimes you may or may not wish to select the feat, but would you do so (or not) most times you generated a monk character.

I also decide to specify core rules only as once you start moving outside those parameters, the options increase dramatically, and the likelihood of not selecting the feat increases. However, as not everyone either includes non-core material in their games, or the volume of non-core material differs, it seemed prudent to standardise the parameters to the core set.

The speculation about the poll question being 'number's driven' is fundamentally correct. While combat isn't everything, it is a large part of D&D for most campaigns. Given that monks are voted as underpowered on another thread, I wanted to see if INA would be a 'no brainer' selection as a way to boost their power. So far, the poll results are around 4:1 in favour of INA being a 'no brainer', which, interestingly enough, doesn't seem to reflect the ratio of comments in the thread, so it seems that while not an automatic choice for Monks, it isn't too far from it.

 

[Storyteller01]

For a monk focused on causing hit point damage, yes. For a lot of other monk concepts, no.

Same here.

 

[LokiDR]

I see this as a similar issue to Weapon Specialization. True, some fighters won't take it, but the vast majority of 4th level or better fighters will. It is almost a class features, and lets the fighters compare to the barbarians. Weapon Specialization is to me a 'no brainer' for a fighter.

The issue that has been raised is monks the don't punch. Well, they are more viable than fighters that don't swing, but not by too much I think. The monk can focus on those special maneuvers, but any reasonable player in anything like a standard game will know that there are creatures they won't work against. Weapons just don't make sense in the face of this feat either. At the cost of 1 feat I can dramatically increase my damage potential. Even with limited feats, that is always a good deal.

Take another example of a feat I would deem as a no-brainer: improved sneak attack. Your d6 sneak attacks become d8. Now, I know sneak attack isn't the sum total of a rogue, but wouldn't you want that feat for your rogue? Past fifth level, that is great boost, even if it won't always come into play. Plus one damage per two levels per hit is steal for almost everyone.

The difference in the feats mentioned here is that fighter needs specialization, and improved sneak attack is overpowered since rogues have so many options. Given the status of the monk as a weaker class, I think they deserve it. Its a no brainer, but not a problem. Oops, wrong thread.