Monks & the Improved Natural Attack Feat


log in or register to remove this ad

Aus_Snow

First Post
Hm. Another option is to use the feat from the Book of Nine Swords. . . Superior Unarmed Strike? I think that's it. Basically, if you're a Monk, your unarmed damage is calculated as if you had 4 more levels (of Monk.) Otherwise, it improves the damage (up from IUS) according to a table.

There might be a BAB prereq. . . +3? So anyway, it's not going to help a very low level monk, at all. :\ But for mid levels, it's not a bad choice, IMO. You could always remove the second prereq., leaving just IUS for that. Shouldn't break anything, really.
 

eamon

Explorer
DungeonMaester said:
No, according the Monster Manual pg 312, RAW says no.

It says 'A Natural Weapon is a physical part of the creature.'

How ever in the second paragraph: Creatures can not receive extra attacks from a high base attack bonus.

Monks get bonus attacks from a higher attack bonus, so they don't. However, I'd houserule it in.

The question isn't whether a monk's unarmed strikes are a natural weapon. The monk class specifies that they're treated as such for spells or effects which "enhance or improve" them.

Improved Natural Weapon is an effect which improves a natural weapon; hence for the purpose of the feat a monk's unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon - and the feat applies.
 

glass

(he, him)
eamon said:
The question isn't whether a monk's unarmed strikes are a natural weapon. The monk class specifies that they're treated as such for spells or effects which "enhance or improve" them.

Improved Natural Weapon is an effect which improves a natural weapon; hence for the purpose of the feat a monk's unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon - and the feat applies.
That is one side of the many page debate, as linked above (and several others). The other side is 'it says spells and effects, not prerequisites, so that ability has no bearing on whether the monk meets prerequisites'.

I am very strongly in the 'no' camp, FWIW.


glass.
 

eamon

Explorer
glass said:
That is one side of the many page debate, as linked above (and several others). The other side is 'it says spells and effects, not prerequisites, so that ability has no bearing on whether the monk meets prerequisites'.

So, a monk could improve his unarmed strike using "Improved Natural Attack" (INA), but can't satisfy the prerequisites? By a similar logic, any spell targeting natural weapons which improves them, could theoretically improve a monk's unarmed strike, but simply can't target them. Worse, it might mean that you can improve a monk's unarmed strike, so long as you fulfill the prerequisites - i.e. a warforged monk, who has a natural weapon, can take the feat because he has a slam attack, but then choose to use the feat to improve his unarmed strike. That's doesn't make any sense.

Think of it this way:
1. Improved Natural Attack improves or enhances natural weapons.
2. The monk's unarmed strike is considered a natural weapon for effects which enhance or improve natural weapons.
3. Ergo, the monk's unarmed strike is considered a natural weapon for Improved Natural Attack.
4. A monk satisfies INA's prerequisite that the creature have a natural weapon. If the monk also has +4 BAB, he can take the feat.

Fortunately, wizards gives us concrete examples: The PHB2, for instance gives the recommendation that monks take Improved Natural Attack. It's not an accident "error" either, since in the errata, they mentioned that you can't take it at first level (because of the BAB prerequisite) and should take it only at 6th. In the errata making process they obviously considered the prerequisites for INA, since that's what the errata fixes!

The "rules of the game" column also suggests a monk can take INA. The D&D 3.5 FAQ does too.

You can take INA to improve your monk's unarmed strike. The alternative makes little sense (what else would the rules-text mean otherwise?), and wizards has repeatedly made use of the fact.
 

Cheiromancer

Adventurer
eamon said:
By a similar logic, any spell targeting natural weapons which improves them, could theoretically improve a monk's unarmed strike, but simply can't target them.
No, because IUS counts as a natural weapon for the purpose of spells. So spells that target natural weapons can target a monk's unarmed strike. If the wording was that that a monk's IUS counted as a natural weapon for the purpose of feats, then we wouldn't need this discussion.

But it doesn't say "feats", it says "effects". And while a feat has one or more effects, it is not an effect. Some feats, including INA, also have prerequisites. Prerequisites are not effects. Satisfying the target requirement of an effect is different from satisfying the prerequisites of a feat. IUS satisfies the target requirements of INA but not the prerequisites. And if the FAQ says otherwise, the FAQ is wrong.

The claim is not that it is unbalanced or unfun or broken to allow a monk to take INA, but that they do not satisfy its prerequisites.

But all this was debated ad nauseam in the thread.
 

Artoomis

First Post
Let's not redo that whole debate again. The case for both sides has already been succinctly stated in this thread. Can we drop it and leave it alone? :)
 

glass

(he, him)
Artoomis said:
Let's not redo that whole debate again. The case for both sides has already been succinctly stated in this thread. Can we drop it and leave it alone? :)
I agree with Artoomis (and I didn't used to say that very often when we were still debating these things :D).


glass.
 

DungeonMaester

First Post
eamon said:
The question isn't whether a monk's unarmed strikes are a natural weapon. The monk class specifies that they're treated as such for spells or effects which "enhance or improve" them.

Improved Natural Weapon is an effect which improves a natural weapon; hence for the purpose of the feat a monk's unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon - and the feat applies.

I found no eveidence that a feat is a spell or effect. Thus, saying this mechanic applies to a Monks Unarmed strike is arbitrary. And because it does not apply to the definition of a Unarmed weapon in the MM, then the answer still is no, BTB.

---Rusty
 

Artoomis

First Post
DungeonMaester said:
I found no eveidence that a feat is a spell or effect. Thus, saying this mechanic applies to a Monks Unarmed strike is arbitrary. And because it does not apply to the definition of a Unarmed weapon in the MM, then the answer still is no, BTB.

---Rusty

Good Lord, man, let it go... There is nothing new to say, it's all been said before and summarized nicely in this thread already.

You do not want to get me started... :)
 

Remove ads

Top