Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Thorsbjorn 08-14-07, 10:13 PM	Does the Improved Natural Attack feat from the Monster Manual apply to a monk's unarmed attacks? Why or why not? Thanks. :)
Kouk 08-15-07, 02:19 AM	It works because a Monk's Unarmed Strike counts as both natural and manufactured. So, technically it is a natural weapon. You can find this in the FAQ I'm pretty sure. Regardless of the FAQ's rule, it depends on your DM if it is legal for you to take.
DM Zoc 08-15-07, 02:24 AM	It also shows up on quite a few example characters in the PHB 2.
Someone 08-15-07, 03:08 AM	Monk+INA threads have a dangerous habit of spontaneously exploding, as it tends to be contested strongly whenever the subject comes up... I myself have two reasons for why I say no. The first is that the sentence saying they count as natural attacks is for "spells and effects", and that does not (or at least should not) include feats, only magic. The other is monks in effect already have the feat (and a better version, like their Stunning Fist), and INA doesn't say it stacks, so it won't help to take it "again". But yeah, as Kouk said, ask your DM.
concerro 08-15-07, 03:25 AM	Monk+INA threads have a dangerous habit of spontaneously exploding, as it tends to be contested strongly whenever the subject comes up... I myself have two reasons for why I say no. The first is that the sentence saying they count as natural attacks is for "spells and effects", and that does not (or at least should not) include feats, only magic. The other is monks in effect already have the feat (and a better version, like their Stunning Fist), and INA doesn't say it stacks, so it won't help to take it "again". But yeah, as Kouk said, ask your DM. Stunning Fist has nothing to do with INA
Egres 08-15-07, 04:18 AM	There's a FAQ stickyed (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=305458) on the top of this board for this kind of questions: try it before posting.;) However, it's (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=482998&page=1&pp=30) strongly (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=315832) debated. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=522283&page=1&pp=30) This is the official answer from Andy Collins, directly quoted from Dragon Magazine #336 and the FAQ 10/20/05 (updated 2/24/06): 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.
Grogmir 08-15-07, 06:25 AM	Ah – The worms The Worms – Putting them back in the can PLEASE!!!! Ok so it’s always strongly debated but its been confirmed countless times before and books even have pre-gened characters with it. The answer is a firm yes. A small boost to a really sucky class anyway. No reason to bad it. Grogmir
Thorsbjorn 08-15-07, 11:00 AM	There's a FAQ stickyed (http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=305458) on the top of this board for this kind of questions: try it before posting.;) However, it's (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=482998&page=1&pp=30) strongly (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=315832) debated. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=522283&page=1&pp=30) This is the official answer from Andy Collins, directly quoted from Dragon Magazine #336 and the FAQ 10/20/05 (updated 2/24/06): 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. Thanks very much. I do recall that some time back people fiercely debating it but as I'm struggling to introduce a new player (who wants his monk to take the feat) to my high-level campaign, prepare to start teaching a new semester, and figure out how the heck I can take off of teaching to go out of town to attend the dedication of my father's tombstone, I just didn't have time to figure out where I might find it. :weep: Thanks again very much for clarifying this for me. :)
Scion of Coldshard 08-15-07, 12:34 PM	Of course they can, it practically slaps people in the face saying it can ;) I myself have two reasons for why I say no. The first is that the sentence saying they count as natural attacks is for "spells and effects", and that does not (or at least should not) include feats, only magic. The other is monks in effect already have the feat (and a better version, like their Stunning Fist), and INA doesn't say it stacks, so it won't help to take it "again". So you dont let monks take Superior Unarmed Strike? After all, they already have a better version of it...
Thorsbjorn 08-15-07, 12:36 PM	Of course they can, it practically slaps people in the face saying it can ;) So you dont let monks take Superior Unarmed Strike? After all, they already have a better version of it... What is Superior Armed Strike? Where does it come from?
Scion of Coldshard 08-15-07, 12:39 PM	What is Superior Armed Strike? Where does it come from? Tome of Battle - Book of Nine Swords. It grants a character a monk like progression for damage but also has a special tagline that monks who take it are treated as being 4 levels higher instead. It is an example that shows just because a class already has something like an ability doesnt mean they cant spend feats to improve it, even if that something seems very similar. Monk + Superior unarmed strike + improved natural weapon + monks belt = good damage monk (yey! but it costs a lot for a monk).
Someone 08-15-07, 01:26 PM	In no (well, some) particular order: INA and Stunning Fist are both feats. Monks get them before they meet the prereqs (as bonus feats). Monks also get better versions that scale quicker (or at all) than the version everyone else gets. So the two have a lot in common. Superior Unarmed Strike says it stacks with monk (what about itself for monk lvl +8?). INA doesn't say it stacks with itself. (And no, I don't let my players take SUS- because I don't have ToB :D )
Nephlite 08-15-07, 02:04 PM	In no (well, some) particular order: INA and Stunning Fist are both feats. Monks get them before they meet the prereqs (as bonus feats). Monks also get better versions that scale quicker (or at all) than the version everyone else gets. So the two have a lot in common. Superior Unarmed Strike says it stacks with monk (what about itself for monk lvl +8?). INA doesn't say it stacks with itself. (And no, I don't let my players take SUS- because I don't have ToB :D ) Neither SUS or INA can be taken multiple times: neither stacks with itself. But they stack with each other. However, you need to a be Monk to get both (as INA can only be taken by monks).
Thorsbjorn 08-15-07, 04:03 PM	Tome of Battle - Book of Nine Swords. It grants a character a monk like progression for damage but also has a special tagline that monks who take it are treated as being 4 levels higher instead. It is an example that shows just because a class already has something like an ability doesnt mean they cant spend feats to improve it, even if that something seems very similar. Monk + Superior unarmed strike + improved natural weapon + monks belt = good damage monk (yey! but it costs a lot for a monk). Ah, well that explains why I don't know it--I don't have that book. Thanks! :)
EjoThims 08-15-07, 07:59 PM	(as INA can only be taken by monks). Wrong.
Nephlite 08-15-07, 10:00 PM	Wrong. Nope. Unarmed Strikes aren't natural weapons: they are natural attacks. Monks, however, can let their unarmed strikes count as natural weapons for spells and effects if advantage is gained. Improved Natural attacks requires a natural weapon not a natural attack. Thus only monks can get it for unarmed strikes.
DM Zoc 08-15-07, 10:23 PM	Nope. Unarmed Strikes aren't natural weapons: they are natural attacks. Monks, however, can let their unarmed strikes count as natural weapons for spells and effects if advantage is gained. Improved Natural attacks requires a natural weapon not a natural attack. Thus only monks can get it for unarmed strikes. Now this is a much less overdone argument. For what it's worth, my reading places the normal humanoid unarmed strick as a natural weapon, and the statement under the monk unarmed strike only clarifies that it also counts as a manufactured weapon. Does anyone else have an opinion on this?
concerro 08-15-07, 10:54 PM	Now this is a much less overdone argument. For what it's worth, my reading places the normal humanoid unarmed strick as a natural weapon, and the statement under the monk unarmed strike only clarifies that it also counts as a manufactured weapon. Does anyone else have an opinion on this? If that were the case a bugbear could use its claws and the monster manual states they can not be used as a weapon so unarmed strikes are not natural weapons unless the creature is proficient with them. The only way to for a human to be proficient, without being a monk, is to take the feat( improved unarmed strike) that lets them use their hands as weapons.
Tsuul 08-16-07, 01:29 AM	For what it's worth, my reading places the normal humanoid unarmed strick as a natural weapon, and the statement under the monk unarmed strike only clarifies that it also counts as a manufactured weapon. Does anyone else have an opinion on this?If your reading consists of only the PHB glossary, then yup. But when you look at the MM Natural Weapons entry, no.
Someone 08-16-07, 02:37 AM	I've always viewed "spells and effects" including feats to be incorrect. Thus, I view the FAQ answer to be incorrect as well, as its based on a false assumption. The phrase doesn't show up too often, but every other time it does, it comes with a clarifier like "enchantment"- i.e. "enchantment spells and effects". For example, sticking with the monk, take its still mind ability- it says "...a +2 bonus on saving throws against spells and effects from the school of enchantment". By the FAQs logic, the ability applies to any feat that results in a save for the monk, so long as the feat is from the school of enchantment...
EjoThims 08-16-07, 08:34 AM	The only way to for a human to be proficient, without being a monk, is to take the feat(improved unarmed strike) that lets them use their hands as weapons. And you'd be foolish to take INA (unarmed strike) before taking Improved Unarmed Strike. And for some reason everyone seems to be under the impression that Unarmed Strikes are some kind of unidentified attack form in a mystery category all their own. While it is never stated which category they explicity fall under, following the definitions presented for all involved, it makes the most sense to place them as a natural attack with the ability to make iterative attacks, thus making the Monk only adding the 'manufactured' quality to them. As for: I've always viewed "spells and effects" including feats to be incorrect. Thus, I view the FAQ answer to be incorrect as well, as its based on a false assumption. Too bad. ;) FAQ is official where it does not contradict core rules. There is no contradiction here, only clarification, so the FAQ ruling is the official one.
Mindolin 08-16-07, 10:40 AM	In no (well, some) particular order: INA and Stunning Fist are both feats. Monks get them before they meet the prereqs (as bonus feats). Monks also get better versions that scale quicker (or at all) than the version everyone else gets. So the two have a lot in common. Superior Unarmed Strike says it stacks with monk (what about itself for monk lvl +8?). INA doesn't say it stacks with itself. (And no, I don't let my players take SUS- because I don't have ToB :D ) Monks do not gain INA before meeting the prereqs, they do not gain it as a bonus feat and so must choose it same as anyone else, which includes meeting the prereqs. Someone, if you're talking about they gain a better thing then anyone else with INA, then you are wrong, as it affects everyone the same. If you are speaking of Superior Unarmed Strike, then that is why it has the note that it just treats a monk as 4 levels higher.
jaelis 08-16-07, 11:59 AM	While it is never stated which category they explicity fall under, following the definitions presented for all involved, it makes the most sense to place them as a natural attack with the ability to make iterative attacks, thus making the Monk only adding the 'manufactured' quality to them. I rather disagree. They get iterative attacks like manufactured weapons, you can TWF with them like manufactured weapons, they are listed in the PHB table with all the other manufactured weapons, you can modify them by wearing a gauntlet (which is clearly a manufactured item). The only way in which they are similar to natural weapons is the fact that they are part of your body. There's no denying that, but for rules questions, they clearly fall in the category of manufactured weapons. The one exception is for magical effects. They are subject to magic fang and not magic weapon, and they use an amulet of mighty fists, not the normal magic weapon rules. But those are all clearly spelled out in the respective descriptions. I would say that they represent a sensible exception to the general rule, not the general rule itself.
Scion of Coldshard 08-16-07, 12:21 PM	I've always viewed "spells and effects" including feats to be incorrect. Why is that? A feat looks to be an 'effect' of training as much as casting a spell leaves an 'effect' on a character or object. There is at least one place in the rules I know of that refers to feats as 'permanent effects', but even without that I have a hard time seeing a feat as not an effect of something. Perhaps it is because I view feats as something that had to be trained for, either on or off camera, or comes inately through some other source (such as things like dragon heritage, although even some of those might take some sort of activity in order to 'unlock' them). The feat entry is just a shorthand way of seeing what abilities you have that you have gained over time through whatever process. If there was a feat that said, 'you gain a +1 bonus to hit with all of your natural weapons' I would let the monk take it, if there was one that said, 'you gain a +1 bonus to hit with all of your manufactured weapons' I would let the monk take that too ;)
Someone 08-16-07, 01:28 PM	Whee! Multi-response! Monks do more damage with their "natural weapon" (unarmed strike) in the form of increased dice size/number. INA does more damage in the form of increased dice size/number. A monk's version is "better" because it increases two steps at first, and continues to increase with levels. It doesn't exactly follow the INA progression (monks have a 1d10 and 2d8 step where INA doesn't), but if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck... My gripe about "spells and/or effects" is that the monk's unarmed strike is the one and only time the phrase doesn't come with a word like "magical" or "enchantment", and INA isn't a magical (or transmutation) spell or effect.
Scion of Coldshard 08-16-07, 01:54 PM	My gripe about "spells and/or effects" is that the monk's unarmed strike is the one and only time the phrase doesn't come with a word like "magical" or "enchantment", and INA isn't a magical (or transmutation) spell or effect. How many times would it have to come up? Plus, even if there were no other phrases that were the same, why are unique effects discouraged in your eyes?
EjoThims 08-16-07, 09:06 PM	I rather disagree. They get iterative attacks like manufactured weapons, you can TWF with them like manufactured weapons, they are listed in the PHB table with all the other manufactured weapons, you can modify them by wearing a gauntlet (which is clearly a manufactured item). The only way in which they are similar to natural weapons is the fact that they are part of your body. There's no denying that, but for rules questions, they clearly fall in the category of manufactured weapons. By the PHB definition, they are natural weapons. By the MM definition fo natural weapons, the only thing strange about them is iterative attacks. You can modify claw attacks with worn, manufactured items as well; that does not make the claw attack a manufactured weapon. So they're either a manufactured weapon that fits the definitions of a natural weapon, a natural weapon that has the ability to make iterative attacks where most don't, or they're neither. I still believe it's easier to make everything work together by thinking of them as natural weapons that can make iterative attacks. It doesn't exactly follow the INA progression (monks have a 1d10 and 2d8 step where INA doesn't), but if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck... Then it might just be a goose or an imposter. There are even templates that grant special qualities that increase the damage of natural attacks as if the subject was one size larger (just like INA), yet they stack with INA simply because the only thing INA doesn't work with it itself.
Thorsbjorn 08-16-07, 11:12 PM	Wow. I almost sorry I asked! :P Seriously though, thanks for all the feedback. For good or ill, I'm allowing my player's monk to benefit from Improved Natural Weapon. Perhaps in 4E they'll clarify this issue--though I'm willing to bet that they won't. :(
Someone 08-17-07, 02:13 AM	Hey, this thread is a LOT more civil than some of the other monk+INA threads. So far, at least :D First, I'm not comfortable with basing an entire argument on what could easily be a typo. All that's missing is the word "transmutation"- it would cover both magic weapon and magic fang (and pretty much all the non-core buffs too). Second, templates that change natural attack damage either actually change the creature's size, or grant a particular damage "or the creature's base damage, whichever is higher". And templates and feats stacking isn't the same as a class feature thats like a feat stacking with the feat without saying it does...
EjoThims 08-17-07, 02:30 AM	Second, templates that change natural attack damage either actually change the creature's size, or grant a particular damage "or the creature's base damage, whichever is higher". And templates and feats stacking isn't the same as a class feature thats like a feat stacking with the feat without saying it does... Wrong, there are many templates that simply increase damage of natural attacks, not give a new type or truly increase creature size. As for templates being different than class features... So are feats... And neither the class feature nor the templates actually grant that feat despite having similar bonuses. This is why the feat stacks with both the templates and with the monk's class feature.
Someone 08-17-07, 01:26 PM	Wrong, there are many templates that simply increase damage of natural attacks, not give a new type or truly increase creature size.Uh, could you give some examples? While my knowledge of monster templates may be comparatively limited, I wasn't aware of any that just ups the damage. All the ones I'm familiar with say "this value or the creature's normal, whichever is better". If there was a class feature that said something like "the character gets a +1 bonus to hit with a specific weapon" (i.e. looks a lot like weapon focus) and didn't say it stacks with weapon focus, I would say that the class ability IS weapon focus as a bonus feat. Yes, you can use it to qualify for feats that have weapon focus as a prereq. And no, you can't take weapon focus again for a +2.
Thorsbjorn 08-17-07, 11:27 PM	Hey, this thread is a LOT more civil than some of the other monk+INA threads. So far, at least :D Yes, I seem to recall that when I first ran across a thread dealing with this question some time ago, that people get rather nasty there. I'm glad that people have so far exercised more restraint here. I wonder why people get so angry about it?
EjoThims 08-18-07, 08:31 PM	Uh, could you give some examples? While my knowledge of monster templates may be comparatively limited, I wasn't aware of any that just ups the damage. All the ones I'm familiar with say "this value or the creature's normal, whichever is better". Most of them are monster templates. Look at magebred and the other one from whichever eberron book it's in. Horrid or some such. If there was a class feature that said something like "the character gets a +1 bonus to hit with a specific weapon" (i.e. looks a lot like weapon focus) and didn't say it stacks with weapon focus, I would say that the class ability IS weapon focus as a bonus feat. Yes, you can use it to qualify for feats that have weapon focus as a prereq. And no, you can't take weapon focus again for a +2. That ruling would be fine in a game run by you, but it is a house rule and has no impact on giving rules advice to other players. The actual rules would not grant weapon focus as a bonus feat unless it specifically stated that that was what the ability did. By the actual rules real Weapon Focus would stack, and the calss ability would not be able to be used in place of Weapon Focus as a prerequisite.
Someone 08-19-07, 01:40 AM	Then its more a problem of the designer/writer not describing the effect with existing rules. You shouldn't be able to take the same thing twice just because one has a different title. If a class feature granted a +1 luck (or competence, or other named bonus) to hit, then yes, it would stack with the "unnamed" weapon focus bonus. And the idea of the "virtual feat" was an actual rule from the 3e splatbooks. So its a little old, it seems relevant enough here.
EjoThims 08-19-07, 02:05 AM	Then its more a problem of the designer/writer not describing the effect with existing rules. You shouldn't be able to take the same thing twice just because one has a different title. If a class feature granted a +1 luck (or competence, or other named bonus) to hit, then yes, it would stack with the "unnamed" weapon focus bonus. And the idea of the "virtual feat" was an actual rule from the 3e splatbooks. So its a little old, it seems relevant enough here. It's actually in the rules that all untyped bonuses stack as long as they do not have the same name while granting the same ability. This is not an oversight. And virtual feats any more are only those that state they are virtual feats.
Someone 08-19-07, 01:29 PM	That unnameds (is that even a word?) stack isn't what I have a problem with, its that things that should/could have been named aren't. Thus, a virtual feat is a bonus feat that, for whatever reason, wasn't called a bonus feat (or even a feat). So even though it was an unnamed feat, you could still use it as a feat, usually for the purposes of meeting prereqs. Its a catch-22: you can't call something a virtual feat, its by not naming it a feat that makes it a virtual feat.
EjoThims 08-19-07, 04:47 PM	Its a catch-22: you can't call something a virtual feat, its by not naming it a feat that makes it a virtual feat. Wrong. Virtual feats in 3.5 are class abilities or other feats that specifically state they can act as some feat for the purpose of prerequisites. The whole "judge virtual feats based on what they do" thing was very 3.0 and very, very DM Fiat in the first place, which is why it never reappeared.
Someone 08-20-07, 02:16 AM	I wasn't aware they had changed the definition of a virtual feat with 3.5, only that they dropped all reference to it... For example, if a class has an ability that is turned into a feat in a different book, then the class has that feat as a virtual feat. However, some DMs might not have the other book, so calling that a DM fiat isn't really fair. Its simply looking at the class abilities and noticing that it behaves the same as some feat. And that's the point of my second argument against monks and INA, the monk's unarmed strike ability behaves a lot like the INA feat, and it seemed like a reasonable explanation for them to do the unarmed strike damage greater than non-monks.
EjoThims 08-20-07, 04:48 PM	For example, if a class has an ability that is turned into a feat in a different book, then the class has that feat as a virtual feat. Nope. Short of Rule 0 the feat or ability has to explicity state it counts as a certain feat. And that doesn't always mean it won't stack, depending on if it says it "as the feat" and has the same name or just says "counts as x feat for the purpose of meeting prerequisites" regadless of it's name. In the first case it would not stack, in the second, it likely would.