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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 4013230" data-attributes="member: 51942">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.</blockquote>

Verification