PDA

View Full Version : can monks take improved natural strike?



the_tick_rules
2007-01-22, 06:56 PM
fairly straightforward. it's a feat from MM (page 300 somethin) all that is required is base attack +4 and having a natural attack. the monk description says it's unarmed attacks are considered both weapons and natural attacks for all effects and spells that enhance both (so they their atacks take benefits from either magic fang or magic weapon spells), would this feat count as such. also it says it only applies to one style, but this is meant for monsters that have claws and teeth that have different damages and such. since all monk unarmed attacks are similar would this feat be universal?

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-22, 06:59 PM
Monks' unarmed strike counts as both a natural and a manufactured weapons.

INA can apply to any natural weapon.

Therefore, INA can apply to monks' Unarmed Strikes.


Where's the problem?

AmoDman
2007-01-22, 07:09 PM
Monks' unarmed strike counts as both a natural and a manufactured weapons.

INA can apply to any natural weapon.

Therefore, INA can apply to monks' Unarmed Strikes.


Where's the problem?

I'm guessing the OP wanted it but didn't know if it was legit...as it's usually more of a non-humanoid feat. It is, though.

Dark
2007-01-22, 07:17 PM
"A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."

Is "qualifying for a feat" a spell or effect? I don't think so.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-22, 07:17 PM
Well, "usually" doesn't really matter rules-wise. The rules are pretty clear on the matter.

AmoDman
2007-01-22, 07:37 PM
Well, "usually" doesn't really matter rules-wise. The rules are pretty clear on the matter.

Oh no, I meant it is legit. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Dark, this feat is an effect enhancing natural weapons...

Ramza00
2007-01-22, 07:41 PM
Bears with Lasers is correct, and I believe its even in the D&D faq.

TheOOB
2007-01-22, 07:46 PM
I seem to remember an FAQ or ask wizards that said you could used that feat with a monks natural weapons, otherwise under the most literal translations of the rules you probally couldn't as an unarmed strike is not a natural weapon and does not meet the prereqs (even though it can benefit from the feat).

Zherog
2007-01-22, 07:47 PM
...and I believe its even in the D&D faq.

Indeed, it is:



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.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-22, 07:56 PM
Is "qualifying for a feat" a spell or effect? I don't think so.

The things feats do are effects, yes. For the purposes of the "effective size category increase" effect, the monk Unarmed Strike is treated as a natural weapon.

AmoDman
2007-01-22, 08:40 PM
I seem to remember an FAQ or ask wizards that said you could used that feat with a monks natural weapons, otherwise under the most literal translations of the rules you probally couldn't as an unarmed strike is not a natural weapon and does not meet the prereqs (even though it can benefit from the feat).

No, it does meet the pre-reqs. That's exactly why it's in the faq, people can't seem to take to the idea that it's a feature of the monk to treat their fists as natural attacks (or manufactured weapons) when it comes to dealing with them mechanically.

Thomas
2007-01-23, 07:01 AM
I seem to recall it's even listed as a suggested feat for a monk in the PHB2 (although at too low a level; the monk won't have the requisite BAB).

Seems like a clear-cut case. The rules support it, the FAQ supports it, and it's clearly the intention and opinion of the designers that you can apply Improved Natural Attack to a monk's unarmed strike.

Leon
2007-01-23, 07:35 AM
Wizards seem to like forgetting their own rules for feats - ive noticed a number of things along those lines overtime. most recent one was the Dwarf Runesmith in races of Stone has Hvy Armour Profiancy without having the other 2

PinkysBrain
2007-01-23, 09:02 AM
Creatures can have feats without the prerequisites, so I don't see why PrCs could not.

Leon
2007-01-23, 08:45 PM
Creatures can have feats without the prerequisites, so I don't see why PrCs could not.

Yes creatures can but to get into this PrC you need to have The armour Profiancy and a PC has to follow the Normal route of feat trees to achive it unless he takes 1 lvl of Fighter which the sample doesnt

MeklorIlavator
2007-01-23, 08:55 PM
Wait a minute if the Faq says yes, shouldn't we treat the faq as the official ruling from Wizards, since, you know that's what the faq is?
Also, if the faq said no, I would probably house rule it, because since when is a fist not a natural weapon? Its a fist, part of your body. I would say that is about as natural as you can get.

SpiderBrigade
2007-01-23, 09:07 PM
Also, if the faq said no, I would probably house rule it, because since when is a fist not a natural weapon? Its a fist, part of your body. I would say that is about as natural as you can get.
Right, but by that argument any character could take the feat, and get nice natural attacks. Which they don't want to allow.

MeklorIlavator
2007-01-23, 11:13 PM
Right, but by that argument any character could take the feat, and get nice natural attacks. Which they don't want to allow.
True, I would have to add the qualifier"proficient with unarmed attacks", basically, one has to have improved unarmed strike

nathkry
2007-01-23, 11:25 PM
Right, but by that argument any character could take the feat, and get nice natural attacks. Which they don't want to allow.

I wouldn't exactly call 1d6 damage a nice natural attack (assuming Medium size) except for possibly wizards, and unlikely sorcerers (sorcerers have proficiency with all simple weapons, wizards only a few), because they could only qualify for it a lvl 8, barring multiclassing, and they have better options for feats, so monks would be almost the only class to consider taking it.

Maltrich
2007-01-23, 11:28 PM
Unarmed attacks aren't natural attacks? This is news to me... does it clarify this distinction anywhere in the 3.0 books? I refused to indulge the whims of WoC's marketors by buying 3.5, so if this is new, I missed it.

It doesn't make a terrible lot of sense. Why would all monsters get natural attacks except for PC races? Are our limbs somehow inherently different? If I punch somebody, what's different from, say, a cat clawing somebody, except for the damage type?

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-23, 11:29 PM
The fact that claws are intended to be weapons; fists aren't.

Maltrich
2007-01-23, 11:32 PM
Fists aren't? I can only imagine the feeling of discovery in early man when he realized he could use his hands to kill things, in direct conflict with everything he knew before... he could hurt things? With his fists? Amazing!

Yes, I know that's the premise of the entire Cain and Abel event, but it seems a bit ludicrous.

Bears With Lasers
2007-01-23, 11:37 PM
No, they aren't. Man uses pointy sticks and sharp rocks for that purpose. Fists just plain don't make very good weapons, compared to claws and fangs. Yes, we CAN punch things, but our hands are fine manipulators, not weapons.

Lord Iames Osari
2007-01-23, 11:45 PM
No, they aren't. Man uses pointy sticks and sharp rocks for that purpose.

Or he did, before he got around to inventing bows, swords, guns, hand grenades, man-portable rockets...

Dark
2007-01-24, 06:10 AM
Or he did, before he got around to inventing bows, swords, guns, hand grenades, man-portable rockets...
Those are all just elaborations on the "pointy stick" concept :)

Well, maybe not the hand grenades. Those are covered by "sharp rocks".

SpiderBrigade
2007-01-24, 08:53 AM
Yeah, I'm pretty sure our simian relatives don't punch things, do they? I know that both apes and monkeys like to bite, though. Maybe a human could take improved natural attack, Bite? For a d4?

I'd allow it.

Rigeld2
2007-01-24, 09:13 AM
Human mouths arent designed to bite in melee. Yes, it can be done, but youre about as likely to succeed at that as sitting on someones face.

pestilenceawaits
2007-01-24, 09:31 AM
It doesn't seem like to much of a stretch to me I would allow it for monks or anyone who has taken improved unarmed strike. They have basically learned how to make their hands natural weapons. and the faq is pretty clear. Upping the dice damage on this attack isn't going to break the game.

SpiderBrigade
2007-01-24, 09:35 AM
I think it depends on what you mean by "in melee." Yeah, no, you're not going to go to war with your mouth (although the idea of the 41st Biting Cavalry is amusing). But if you're in a grapple with a single opponent, I think biting has the potential to do a lot more damage than sitting on them. Even if you do sit...on their face...
was that on purpose?

Person_Man
2007-01-24, 10:39 AM
Bears is right.

Also, its always worth mentioning that Monks are worse at dealing damage then almost every other class, so being a Monk that takes Improved Natural Attack is like being a Wizard that takes Weapon Focus. Sure, it helps a little. But you're usually much better off taking a feat that plays to your strengths (Touch of Golden Ice, Freezing the Lifeblood, Knock-Down, Preasure Point Strike), rather then one that slightly improves one of your weaknesses.