Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Bjorn_Wolfsbane 07-28-07, 12:46 AM	Is there a link to the errata that shows that it works having some trouble convincing my dm
zorgling25 07-28-07, 12:50 AM	There's no errata saying it works, mainly because it DOESN'T. Improved Natural Attack requires a natural weapon. Natural Weapons Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature. A creature making a melee attack with a natural weapon is considered armed and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Likewise, it threatens any space it can reach. Last i checked, unarmed strikes don't do that.
Mastel 07-28-07, 01:01 AM	from the faq: 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. PHB p41 : a monk unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon... I allow it in my game but your DM is the boss.
Steidas 07-28-07, 01:03 AM	There's no errata saying it works, mainly because it DOESN'T. Improved Natural Attack requires a natural weapon. Last i checked, unarmed strikes don't do that. Wow, it's so cool that monks make AoO with their fists... wow, you know what's cool too? That if you take Improved Unarmed Strike you can do that too. It's so awesome and convenient that your fists are part of your body... at least last time I checked... of course, it's a fantasy world, maybe in D&D your arms and legs aren't part of your body? It's so awesome Magic Fang ALSO works with them: Magic fang gives one natural weapon of the subject a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. The spell can affect a slam attack, fist, bite, or other natural weapon. (The spell does not change an unarmed strike’s damage from nonlethal damage to lethal damage.) WOW! It even says that the fist is INCLUDED as a natural weapon! OMG! That's like... such a coincidence... well, considering that all you said goes against what the SRD says... but oh well, whatever... maybe the SRD is wrong, bleh, who cares about what the rules say?
zorgling25 07-28-07, 01:12 AM	WOW! It even says that the fist is INCLUDED as a natural weapon! OMG! That's like... such a coincidence... well, considering that all you said goes against what the SRD says... but oh well, whatever... maybe the SRD is wrong, bleh, who cares about what the rules say? It groups fists with natural weapons, that doesn't mean that they always are natural weapons. Monks are an exception. But its explicitly stated that their fists count as natural weapons, so I ignored that (since I figured the OP would be smart enough to find that if that was what he was looking for). Other than that, unarmed strikes and natural attacks ARE different. Take the wording from Power Attack if you need another example: You can’t add the bonus from Power Attack to the damage dealt with a light weapon (except with unarmed strikes or natural weapon attacks), even though the penalty on attack rolls still applies. Why would they be listed separately if unarmed strikes were natural weapon attacks? Its also important to note that while IUS covers the differences noted above, unarmed strikes are still different in one main thing: they can make iterative attacks for high BAB. No way to cover that difference from natural attacks. There is more definitive evidence in the SRD. I will post it if I find more. Also, if you accept RotG articles (and there's often good reason not to, but seeing as theres nothing contradicting this): Unarmed Attack/Unarmed Strike: These two terms are used interchangeably to describe an attack with an appendage that is not a natural weapon, such as a human's fist. An unarmed attack usually deals nonlethal damage and provokes an attack of opportunity from the creature being attacked. After a quick search of the boards, it soon becomes apparent that it has been discussed before: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=873097 Regardless, there is no errata for it, which answers the OP's question.
Daeva 07-28-07, 07:23 AM	in PHB 2 page 51 under package 2, the monk is given improved natural attack, and again on page 212. plus the FAQ. Yes, im very sure you can.
ShinAkuma2 07-28-07, 08:39 AM	zorgling is correct....While a Monk's unarmed strikes are considered natural weapons, this is not the case for your average humanoid. This is why unarmed strikes and natural weapons are always listed seperately, with Magic Fang and Magic Weapon being rare exceptions.
Mastel 07-28-07, 10:29 AM	Bjorn_Wolfsbane is asking for help to convince is DM. He doesn’t want to know what your guys think. I guess understanding English is not a easy thing. Maybe that is why some people fail to see the truth that improve natural attack are allowed to monk. What do I know, English is a second language to me..?
Dheran 07-28-07, 10:57 AM	WotC seems to flip-flop on this issue. They say that unarmed strikes are natural weapons in Magic Fang (and Greater Magic Fang), but the Sage seems to think only Monks can take Improved Natural Attack for their unarmed strikes. However, the clearest answer I know is contained in an item: the Fanged Ring (Dragon Magic, page 101). Among other things, this item grants the following feats: Improved Unarmed Strike Improved Natural Attack (unarmed strike) No Monk levels are required to benefit from the Fanged Ring. So the official WotC position is you can benefit from Improved Natural Attack (unarmed strike) via the Fanged Ring. It seems reasonable that you should be able to take Improved Unarmed Strike and Improved Natural Attack (unarmed strike) as regular feats. Whether unarmed strikes count as natural weapons for purposes other than this feat combination and Magic Fang is still undecided.
J_Vhad 07-28-07, 11:25 AM	Is there a link to the errata that shows that it works having some trouble convincing my dm No, there is only an entry in the FAQ. The FAQ is not a primary source and can't contradict rules (well it can, but it gets over ruled when it does), so your DM is quite within the rules to disallow it. Wow, it's so cool that monks make AoO with their fists... wow, you know what's cool too? That if you take Improved Unarmed Strike you can do that too. It's so awesome and convenient that your fists are part of your body... at least last time I checked... of course, it's a fantasy world, maybe in D&D your arms and legs aren't part of your body? I'd suggest reading up on Natural Weapons. I believe the entry is in the Monster Manual. You'll see you mistakes in that argument then. WOW! It even says that the fist is INCLUDED as a natural weapon! OMG! That's like... such a coincidence... well, considering that all you said goes against what the SRD says... but oh well, whatever... maybe the SRD is wrong, bleh, who cares about what the rules say? No, it lists fist in with several natural weapons, it doesn't say a fist is one. Again, you'll note it doesn't say unarmed strike, which means even if your horrid interpretation were correct, INA would have to be taken just for fists. Bjorn_Wolfsbane is asking for help to convince is DM. He doesn’t want to know what your guys think. I guess understanding English is not a easy thing. Maybe that is why some people fail to see the truth that improve natural attack are allowed to monk. What do I know, English is a second language to me..? And yet you're wrong. He asked for a link to errata. None exists. He didn't ask for help convincing, just the link. INA is not allowed for a monk. Prerequisites are not effects, nor are the spells. Therefore the monk never meats the natural attack prerequisite. Nice try though. Whether unarmed strikes count as natural weapons for purposes other than this feat combination and Magic Fang is still undecided. It is decided, and it's a NO. A particular DM can houserule otherwise, but it isn't RAW by any means.
Rakor 07-28-07, 11:58 AM	From the SRD: "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." I've always taken this to mean that things like Improved Natural Attack should apply.
zorgling25 07-28-07, 12:24 PM	From the SRD: "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." I've always taken this to mean that things like Improved Natural Attack should apply. As I said, monks are special. But since this is explicitly stated, I assumed that this is not what the OP is looking for. It is also important to note that Improved Natural Attack is neither a spell nor an effect. The OP seems to be looking to apply INA to a non-monk's unarmed strike, otherwise he would have specifically asked about monks. In fact, this statement implies that an unarmed strike by a non-monk does not count as either of those (manufactured or natural) for anything. Dheran, that is a rather nice piece of evidence. If the Fanged Ring were part of the SRD, I probably would have accepted it. However, being non-SRD, it leaves things up to debate, depending on how much weight you give non-core source. Maybe the Rules Compendium will sort this out. :D On a slightly unrelated note, why is it that when unarmed strikes are mentioned, everyone assumes its monks that are being discussed?
Rakor 07-28-07, 12:26 PM	Who else bothers to use unarmed strikes? Why wouldn't you take a level of monk? I'm sorry if I got the question wrong, I would say that non-monk unarmed strikes are not natural weapons.
zorgling25 07-28-07, 12:35 PM	Who else bothers to use unarmed strikes? Why wouldn't you take a level of monk? I'm sorry if I got the question wrong, I would say that non-monk unarmed strikes are not natural weapons. Well, there IS the possibility that there is a feat that you need +18 BAB to qualify for, and therefore can't sacrifice 1 point of BAB progression.
Rakor 07-28-07, 12:38 PM	Weapon Supremacy Unarmed? Fighter 18/Monk 2. It even gets you evasion! How could you go wrong?
Yue Ryong 07-28-07, 08:25 PM	You mean aside from the fact that it's using the two weakest classes in the core books, and very nearly the weakest classes in the entire game? Or that it's sacrificing large portions of the few benefits available to the fighter (armour, shields, decent weaponry) for a very weak return (a scant d6 of unarmed damage)?
Dheran 07-28-07, 08:36 PM	Who else bothers to use unarmed strikes? Why wouldn't you take a level of monk? I've got a reason: because you want more unarmed damage! The Superior Unarmed Strike feat gives you the unarmed damge progression of a small Monk up to level 19. But if you have actual Monk levels it only gives you the unarmed damage of a Monk 4 levels higher than that. So a single Monk level makes your unarmed damage with this feat top out at 1d8 if medium sized. But without any Monk levels you'll do more unarmed damage starting at level 12. And you can add a Fanged Ring to both give you the prerequisite feat for SUS and also bump you up the medium size Monk unarmed damage scale. At level 16+ you'll be hitting for 2d8 unarmed damage with no Monk levels.
J_Vhad 07-28-07, 08:51 PM	From the SRD: "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." I've always taken this to mean that things like Improved Natural Attack should apply. Is a prerequisite a spell? Is it an effect? Improved Natural Attack requires a natural weapon and a BAB of +4 to take. Now, if the monk had the feat, then yes he'd benefit from it, but the problem is getting it. Now, strangely enough, the wording of the feat does not specify that the natural weapon must be the one that qulified the prerequisite. So by my interpretation of it, a monk of say, the minotaur race would be able to take it and apply it to the unarmed strike (as at that point the benefit is an effect) since he has a natural weapon (gore) attack. A human is SOL though.
NoldorForce 07-29-07, 12:18 AM	Feats themselves are generally considered effects, however. That's the reasoning used by the FAQ, as above.
xdahnx 07-29-07, 10:32 AM	I think the adamant disavowal of this feat as a possibility for (even human) monks is a little much. It's pretty clear that a monk is a viable recipient of this feat. It's also pretty clear that WotC uses it as a feat to give to NPC monks they create, or suggest creating (in the PHB II for example)
Arkeas 07-29-07, 03:01 PM	"* A monk's unarmed strikes can be treated as either manufactured or natural weapons when applying spells or effects that enhance either manufactured or natural weapons. For example, either a magic weapon spell or a magic fang spell can enhance a monk's unarmed attacks. This allows a monk access to all manner of weapon enhancements for her unarmed strikes. For example, a monk can use the Improved Natural Attack feat to increase her unarmed strike damage." http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a Here is a reference.
zorgling25 07-29-07, 03:09 PM	"* A monk's unarmed strikes can be treated as either manufactured or natural weapons when applying spells or effects that enhance either manufactured or natural weapons. For example, either a magic weapon spell or a magic fang spell can enhance a monk's unarmed attacks. This allows a monk access to all manner of weapon enhancements for her unarmed strikes. For example, a monk can use the Improved Natural Attack feat to increase her unarmed strike damage." http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a Here is a reference. I agree with the fact that monks can use Improved Natural Attack. I've already been persuaded of that fact. However, the OP does not mention monks, which leads me to believe that he is trying to do it with a non-monk, which is simply NO.
EjoThims 07-29-07, 08:35 PM	Monks can get Improved Natural Attack for their Unarmed Strike. The only thing Monks have over others in this regard is the feat Improved Unarmed Strike and osme flavor text about getting the feat (most of which is a hold over from the 3.0 monk's unarmed strike attack progression, which was just a mess). So as long as you had Improved Unarmed Strike I really don't see why you wouldn't be able to take Improved Natural Attack for it, mainly because while there are some oddities in descriptions of it, there is precadent of non monks gaining the feat's benefits.
risner 07-29-07, 08:38 PM	Is there a link to the errata that shows that it works having some trouble convincing my dm It only works for Monk's and the FAQ is the source for it working. Fanged Ring (Dragon Magic, page 101). Among other things, this item grants the following feats: Improved Unarmed Strike Improved Natural Attack (unarmed strike) No Monk levels are required to benefit from the Fanged Ring. Which would only work for a Monk, since a non Monk would not benefit from the Improved Natural Attack part of the ring. It almost goes out of the way to make this clear.
zorgling25 07-29-07, 08:41 PM	The only thing Monks have over others in this regard is the feat Improved Unarmed Strike and osme flavor text about getting the feat FALSE. What do monks have over other classes on unarmed strikes? Their description says as follows: 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. This is relevant rules information. This is NOT fluff text. A monk gets much more to their unarmed strike than just IUS. This implies that other classes' unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons for anything, since if they did, this passage would not have to mention natural weapons. Now, lets look at the passage for IUS: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed —that is, you do not provoke attacks or opportunity from armed opponents when you attack them while unarmed. However, you still get an attack of opportunity against any opponent who makes an unarmed attack on you. In addition, your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your option. I don't see any text about your attacks being manufactured weapons or natural attacks. This means that non-monk unarmed strikes, even with IUS are NOT natural attacks. Therefore, they CANNOT gain the Improved Natural Attack feat. So as long as you had Improved Unarmed Strike I really don't see why you wouldn't be able to take Improved Natural Attack for it, mainly because while there are some oddities in descriptions of it, there is precadent of non monks gaining the feat's benefits. Precedent for NON-monks? Where? Please cite a source?
EjoThims 07-29-07, 09:09 PM	And all that information is under the ability "Unarmed Strikes" which can be broken down and analyzed similar to other class abilities that bestow feats as: Fluff Text Feat Granted Feat Bonuses and Examples Fluff Text for using Feat as Class In fact, the only time this ability explicitly says that it works any way but how Improved Unarmed Strike works for everyone else is the last paragraph when it begins to talk about damage. As well, we already know that the fluff text in this ability is misleading and poorly worded (read your FAQ). Now, if you turn to page 139 of your PHB: "A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat...and a creature with claws, fangs, and similar natural physical weapons all count as being armed." Now turn your PHB to page 310: "natural weapons: A creature's body part that deals damage in combat. Natural weapons include teeth, claws, horns, tails, and other appendages." Now, look in your3.5 MM glossary on page 312: "Natural Weapons: Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature. A creature making a melee attack with a natural weapon is considered armed." Note that the prerequisite for Improved Natural Attack is "Natural Weapon" and turn back to your PHB in the Equipment Section. Find "Unarmed Strike" on the Weapon table. To me, all this seems to point to the fact that an Improved Unarmed Strike is a natural weapon, since you count as being armed just like other creatures with natural weapons, it uses "other appendages" of a creature to deal damage in combat, and it is a weapon that is physically a part of the creature in question. All that is added to this by the Monk's entry is "manufactured weapon." So, yes, I do apologize in stating that a Monk's Unarmed Strike entry is all flavor text. Clearly there is rules text showing their increased damage and their ability for their Improved Unarmed Strikes to qualify as manufactured weapons. I sitll fail to see how having Improved Unarmed Strike doesn't qualify one for Improved Natural Attack.
zorgling25 07-29-07, 09:12 PM	Now, look in your3.5 MM glossary on page 312: "Natural Weapons: Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature. A creature making a melee attack with a natural weapon is considered armed." Note that the prerequisite for Improved Natural Attack is "Natural Weapon" and turn back to your PHB in the Equipment Section. Find "Unarmed Strike" on the Weapon table. Ah, but there is one, key, crucial difference between unarmed strikes and natural attacks that cannot be resolved by any feat: extra attacks via high BAB. An unarmed strike can use extra attacks from high BAB. Natural attacks can't. The fact that unarmed strikes can make extra attacks from high BAB means they can't be natural weapons, and there is no way to remedy that, which keeps them irrevocably different.
EjoThims 07-29-07, 09:43 PM	By definition (other than iterative attacks) Improved Unarmed Strikes are natural attacks. Yet in the Monk we have precedence stating that Improved Unarmed Attacks can be used as iterative attacks and still qualify as natural weapons. There are three valid ways to interpret this: 1.) Monks are a special case in that unarmed strikes are normally neither manufactured nor natural weapons but they are both for the monk and the monky alone. 2.) Monks are a special case in that unarmed strikes are normally natural weapons yet for the monk they also count as manufactured weapons, and this ability to count them as manufactured weapons allows the Monk to make iterative attacks with them. 3.) The Monk's precedence is a case of the general rule being written for the specific example, and all unarmed strikes are natural weapons that iterative attacks can be made with. With the definitions given in so many entries, I find #1 to be unlikely. I find #2 to be odd at best, but as I cannot find any examples of non-Monks making iterative attacks with Improved Unarmed Strikes, it's not impossible. To me #3 is the most reasonable, especially since Improved Unarmed Strikes are a weapon type dealing a set amount of damage based on size and not on race.
zorgling25 07-29-07, 10:22 PM	By definition (other than iterative attacks) Improved Unarmed Strikes are natural attacks. The argument your making here is a bit asinine in that you're saying that unarmed strikes are the same thing as natural attacks except for their differences (A and B are the same except for the fact that they're different). Yet in the Monk we have precedence stating that Improved Unarmed Attacks can be used as iterative attacks and still qualify as natural weapons. The monk doesn't set a precedent. Since its the minority case, it sets an EXCEPTION. With the definitions given in so many entries, I find #1 to be unlikely. I find #2 to be odd at best, but as I cannot find any examples of non-Monks making iterative attacks with Improved Unarmed Strikes, it's not impossible. To me #3 is the most reasonable, especially since Improved Unarmed Strikes are a weapon type dealing a set amount of damage based on size and not on race. None of the entries you listed actually define unarmed strikes as natural weapons: Now, if you turn to page 139 of your PHB: "A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat...and a creature with claws, fangs, and similar natural physical weapons all count as being armed." Being armed and having a natural weapon are two different things. I noticed how you conveniently skipped over "a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell." If you say this statement implies that characters with IUS have natural weapons, then does a caster with a touch attack spell also count as having a natural weapon? The fact that they are listed together does not imply a subset relationship. Now turn your PHB to page 310: "natural weapons: A creature's body part that deals damage in combat. Natural weapons include teeth, claws, horns, tails, and other appendages." Note that this does not define anything mechanically and is arguably fluff, not a rule. Now, look in your3.5 MM glossary on page 312: "Natural Weapons: Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature. A creature making a melee attack with a natural weapon is considered armed." Your argument here is logically flawed. The fact that a creature attacking with a natural weapon is armed does not imply the inverse or converse. Note that the prerequisite for Improved Natural Attack is "Natural Weapon" and turn back to your PHB in the Equipment Section. Find "Unarmed Strike" on the Weapon table. Unarmed Strike is a kind of weapon. Just because it is not a manufactured weapon doesn't mean that it has to be a natural weapon. There's no point in arguing this when its been fully argued. Look here: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=873097
EjoThims 07-29-07, 10:50 PM	The argument your making here is a bit asinine in that you're saying that unarmed strikes are the same thing as natural attacks except for their differences (A and B are the same except for the fact that they're different). It's more like saying "A and B would be the same except for this difference, and I'm now going to show how I think that difference is an exception to A instead of a reason that A =/= B." The monk doesn't set a precedent. Since its the minority case, it sets an EXCEPTION. It show that it can be done. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/precedent #2 is the relevant definition here. I noticed how you conveniently skipped over "a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell." Well of course. It's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I was not attempting to show that any single passage quoted flat out stated ISU = Natural Attacks, as they clearly don't. I was merely hoping to show through the use of a body of evidence and the application of multiple instances of the term's definitions that a very strong relationship exists. Your argument here is logically flawed. The fact that a creature attacking with a natural weapon is armed does not imply the inverse or converse. "Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature." is the most important part of that quote. Or would you say that ISU is a weapon that is not physically a part of the creature using it??? There's no point in arguing this when its been fully argued. Look here: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=873097 Actually, until we have at the very least a Cust Serv ruling saying that while Monk ISU = Natural Attack everyone else's ISU =/= Natural attack, there is quite a valid point in arguing this. I see nothing in that thread of the sort (The Cust Serv ruling quoted early on that says even a Monk's ISU does not count as a Natural Attack is worthless, as the FAQ shows a Monk's ISU does indeed count). So again, we are back to the three valid ways to interpret the relationship between ISU and natural attacks. 1.) Monks are a special case in that unarmed strikes are normally neither manufactured nor natural weapons but they are both for the monk and the monk alone. 2.) Monks are a special case in that unarmed strikes are normally natural weapons yet for the monk they also count as manufactured weapons, and this ability to count them as manufactured weapons allows the Monk to make iterative attacks with them. 3.) The Monk's precedence is a case of the general rule being written for the specific example, and all unarmed strikes are natural weapons that iterative attacks can be made with. And I sitll believe that #3 is the most likely given all the texts.