Monks & the Improved Natural Attack Feat

[Deset Gled]

Actually, I would be very interested to hear from someone that owns the Rules Compendium to find out if any of the wording about this has been changed there. We're about due for this topic to come up again, anyway (it happens about once a year).

Just to round up the various points that have been discussed on this issue in other threads, here's a list of the most prominent opinions I have seen:

Rules POV:

1. Monks can take INA. Their unarmed strike counts as a natural weapons for spells and effects, and feats are effects.

2. Monks cannot take INA. Their unarmed strike counts as a natural weapons for spells and effects, and feats are not effects. (Many secondary sources are incorrect per the Primary Source rule.)

3. Monks cannot take INA. Their unarmed strike counts as a natural weapons for spells and effects. Feats are effects, but their prerequisites are not. (Many secondary sources are incorrect per the Primary Source rule.)

4. Monks can take INA. The primary source is ambiguous, and other sources clarify that they can.

Balance POV:

A. Monks can take INA. The monk is underpowered, and this feat helps balance them.

B. Monks cannot take INA. INA is too powerful for a feat. Other sources provide better alternatives.

Intent POV:

I. Monks cannot take INA. INA was intended for monsters only. (Many secondary sources were written by authors that did not follow the original intent.)

II. Monks can take INA. INA was intended to improve any attack made without weapons.

Of course, there are always fringe theories, but I think this covers most of the bases.

If anyone objects to people discussing this issue, or feels that they cannot remain civil in the discussion, I would humbly request that you simply not participate in the thread.

 

[Artoomis]

Well, if we have to go there could we at least restrict this discussion to how the Rules Compendium may have put a different spin on this??

At least that would be something new.

 

[mvincent]

Best to ask your DM. The 3.5 FAQ (if desired) says:
"Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack (Monster
Manual, page 304) to improve his unarmed strike?
Yes. As stated on page 41 of the Player’s Handbook, a
monk’s unarmed strike “is treated as both a manufactured
weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and
effects that enhance or improve either” which includes feats
such as Improved Natural Attack.
Barring multiclassing, the earliest a monk could take this
feat would be at 6th level (due to the base attack bonus
prerequisite), at which point her unarmed strike damage would
improve from 1d8 to 2d6 (which represents an average increase
of +2.5 points of damage). The same monk at 20th level would
deal 4d8 points of damage with her unarmed strike."

Based on the poll results provided earlier, the majority of players seem to agree with this. Also, it would certainly be allowed in an RPGA game (since the RPGA follows the FAQ).

Still, best to ask your DM.

 

[UltimaGabe]

I found no eveidence that a feat is a spell or effect.

Except that, in the FAQ, this exact question is raised, and the FAQ specifically states that a Feat IS an effect.

Honestly, this entire debate wouldn't exist if people just read the FAQ. It's right there, plain and simple. You can choose to not allow it, which is fine- just be aware that you're making a House Rule.

 

[Piratecat]

Well, if we have to go there could we at least restrict this discussion to how the Rules Compendium may have put a different spin on this??

At least that would be something new.

Artoomis, clearly this isn't the thread for you. Finding a thread you think is more interesting is always preferable to a blatant threadcrap... or, really, any threadcrap.

Seriously, folks. If a thread doesn't excite you, just head off to find one that does. Thank you.

 

[akbearfoot]

Mmmm.....

Improved natural attack at 6th level....Superior Unarmed Strike at 9th level and a monks belt and you're sitting at doing 16th level monk damage PLUS its a higher size category at 9th level.

Pretty beefy....It's just too bad monks suck compared to swordsages, lol.

 

[DungeonMaester]

Except that, in the FAQ, this exact question is raised, and the FAQ specifically states that a Feat IS an effect.

Honestly, this entire debate wouldn't exist if people just read the FAQ. It's right there, plain and simple. You can choose to not allow it, which is fine- just be aware that you're making a House Rule.

Source please.

---Rusty

 

[mvincent]

Source please.

It was given earlier. The 3.5 FAQ says:
"a monk’s unarmed strike “is treated as both a manufactured
weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and
effects that enhance or improve either” which includes feats
such as Improved Natural Attack."

 

[Squire James]

I see no particular balance problem with letting a monk take the feat... though I agree it is pretty much a no-brainer for that class. Natural Spell seems to set a certain precedent for feats that are must-haves for one class and almost totally useless to everyone else. As always, ask the DM for "his" opinion, and abide by "his" decision even if you don't agree with "him".

By the way, if talking about something that's been talked about before was somehow forbidden, there would be little point to reading books or playing D&D at all! Yeah, most of it's been done before, but not necessarily for the people involved. It's fairly easy to click that Back button and select another topic if this one's a bit boring for you. I happen to think that most Rules threads are mind-numbingly boring, so I'm talking from a position of experience here!

 

[DungeonMaester]

It was given earlier. The 3.5 FAQ says:
"a monk’s unarmed strike “is treated as both a manufactured
weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and
effects that enhance or improve either” which includes feats
such as Improved Natural Attack."

And by the same vain of logic, it says in complete Adventure that monks can not take INA. What I am getting at is when a sources it is asked for, post where the said information can be found so it can be reviewed rather then expecting people to believe it is true because you said it.

---Rusty