Try again <sigh> Monks and Improve Natural Attack

[Cedric]

I say no because there's a feat in the Book of Nine Swords, which provides a similar effect anyway.

Superior Unarmed Strike +4 class level when determining damage.

Not sure if this stacks with the monk's belt.

Per the question posed by the Poll...

Per the PHB, DMG and MM plus errata ONLY, is a monk qualified to take INA?

The Book of Nine Swords would not be valid for determining the allowability of Improved Natural Attack for Monks in this poll. I'm sorry if that seems nitpicky, however after days of refining the question this particular thread is discussing the intent of those books alone and disregards other material, including the FAQ, PHB2, Book of Nine Swords, etc.

 

[gabrion]

I say no because there's a feat in the Book of Nine Swords...

Okay, one more time. Using PHB, DMG, MM and errata ONLY, may monks take INA?

Perhaps you missed the point of the question? Maybe the OP didn't empahsize the word "only" enough?

 

[Hypersmurf]

So when the description for Magic Weapon says You can’t cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike it is absolutely including "unarmed strike" into the overall category of "what is" a natural weapon.

However, as a subsection of natural weapons it does have some of its very own rules that govern its use.

Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal).

As normal? But wait... if unarmed strike were my only natural weapon, 'as normal' would be to add 1.5x my Str modifier!

If it were a natural weapon with special rules, it could deal only Str bonus to damage. But special rules are the opposite of 'as normal'...

If backed into a corner, could a Locathah make an unarmed strike?

-Hyp.

 

[Cedric]

But wait... if unarmed strike were my only natural weapon, 'as normal' would be to add 1.5x my Str modifier!

I'm not familiar with that rule, where could I read about it?

 

[Sejs]

However, as a subsection of natural weapons it does have some of its very own rules that govern its use.

Or in actuality, a completely different set of rules. Frankly, the only similarity between the two is that they use the body in some way, and for every example that can be listed, bold and italic or not, there're just as many that say Manufactured Weapons = X, Unarmed Strikes = Y, Natural Weapons = Z.

 

[Sejs]

I'm not familiar with that rule, where could I read about it?

Half way down the page, under "Full Attack"

"A creature’s primary attack damage includes its full Strength modifier (1-1/2 times its Strength bonus if the attack is with the creature’s sole natural weapon)..."

 

[Cedric]

Or in actuality, a completely different set of rules. Frankly, the only similarity between the two is that they use the body in some way, and for every example that can be listed, bold and italic or not, there're just as many that say Manufactured Weapons = X, Unarmed Strikes = Y, Natural Weapons = Z.

Ah ha, and you have landed PRECISELY on why I do NOT think the "natural weapon" prerequisite excludes Monks. The terms are used interchangeably in so many places, AND, there is text in place to specifically guide the reader to apply a broad array of end results to a Monk's Unarmed Strikes (spells and effects).

 

[Sejs]

Right, but is qualifying for a feat a 'spell or effect'?

My own opinion as stated above is that a monk can take INA if they're of a race that has natural weapons, because the benefit of the feat is a spell or effect. However, if they're not a race with natural weapons, they don't meet the pre-reqs, and thus can't take the feat as an unarmed strike (monkly or not) is not itself a natural weapon.

 

[Cedric]

Half way down the page, under "Full Attack"

"A creature’s primary attack damage includes its full Strength modifier (1-1/2 times its Strength bonus if the attack is with the creature’s sole natural weapon)..."

Thanks, I've missed that for a long time.

However, it doesn't apply here since an Unarmed Strike is also considered a light weapon and light weapons cannot deal 1-1/2 strength damage.

 

[Artoomis]

Okay, those who are voting 100% certainty either way - I suspect something less than 100%.

Do you guys REALLY feel there is ABSOLUTELY NO validity to the opposing argument. If so I am truly amazed at the number of folks who feel that way - on both sides.

Did everyone miss "By 100% certain I really mean it - no room whatsoever for an opposing view."

Or are folks really that entrenched into their own positions? I am very surprised.