Post/Author/DateTime	Post
DrakeLeonclaw 06-04-07, 10:22 PM	This probably has been asked before, but I'm new at DMing. I gotta monk in my campaign that thinks its kosher to use feats listed in the Monster Manual (feats normally reserved for animals, whose requirements really only say "natural weapon") as legitimate monk feats. Namely Improved Natural Weapon. Is this fine? I know a monk's fists (and I suppose the rest of her body parts) are considered natural weapons. Anyone's 2 cents would be appreciated.
Jeriaus 06-04-07, 10:27 PM	No, as Monk feats are a choice between two feats at the given level, it not a list. Now if you mean could he tack it as a character feat(those you gain every 3 levels) the nyes he can.
DrakeLeonclaw 06-04-07, 10:35 PM	Well, yes, that's what I meant, the 2 feats he chooses at 1st level for being a human and a 1st level character, and then again the feat he chooses at 3rd level and every 3 levels beyond. Does anyone else think this is fine?
DrakeLeonclaw 06-05-07, 12:15 AM	I've heard multiple arguments both for and against picking monster manual feats to improve your natural attacks. I'm not really sure what the consensus is.
Nykidemus 06-05-07, 12:20 AM	I've always allowed it, and I dont know anyone who doesnt. As long as they meet the prerequisites there's no reason not to let someone take a feat unless you feel it directly affects the campaign in some way.
KurenaiYami 06-05-07, 12:24 AM	Monks unarmed strikes are treated as both natural and manufactured. It is kosher.
DrakeLeonclaw 06-05-07, 12:30 AM	Groovy, thanks guys, that works for me.
risner 06-05-07, 01:48 AM	as legitimate monk feats. Namely Improved Natural Weapon. Is this fine? Yes, supported by RAW and the FAQ.
Egres 06-05-07, 03:09 AM	I've heard multiple arguments both for and against picking monster manual feats to improve your natural attacks. I'm not really sure what the consensus is. Read the FAQ stickyed on the top of this board, then.;)
Kouk 06-05-07, 07:10 AM	I am one who doesn't allow it. I am not picking on monks in particular, I don't let any of the MM feats open to players. The Imp. Natural attack feat in particular can be quite astounding. A level 8 monk does normally 1d10 damage. If you now treat it as large, his attacks jump up to 2d8 damage each, bigger than a greatsword. At 12th level, his attacks now do 3d6 each, and he can flurry for 4 attacks that don't take flurry penalties anymore. I think the more reasonable feat to allow is Superior Unarmed Strike from the Tome of Battle, which allows a Monk to treat his unarmed damage as 4 levels higher. When (if) the Monk gets to level 20, he could have 3d6 damage (this goes beyond the scope of Sup. Unarmed Strike as-is, but seems to be the logical progression of damage on the monk chart). The sick thing is, the feats stack with each other, if you allow them both. The chapter is "Monster Skills and Feats" in the MM, that is the main reason I don't allow them for PCs (at least the ones that are not monster races, which so far has been all of them). The Imp. Natural Armor also duplicates an Epic Feat (Armor Skin) which seems to imply that these feats are not for general consumption before level 20 (yes, it says prereqs. Natural Armor, but several places in the books it says that normal races have Nat. Armor of +0 bonus, specifically the Amulet Natural Armor. Yes I know that several epic feats have been reprinted as non-epic.). If the Monk is your only melee guy, it probably won't be a problem though.
Ogg 06-05-07, 09:44 AM	Yeah, It would be advised to let him use Superior Unarmed Strike from Bo9S in place of it. It has a better pre-reqs +3 BA, which you're not going to get until 4th level as a straight monk. Now if he wanted to use Improved Natural Attack instead that's fine but note the pre-reqs which I believe is BA+4, he couldn't take it at 1st level. It's fine for him to choose either since the previous version was approved for by RAW & FAQ as has been pointed out by others. As far as being allowed to choose both, well that's your own can of worms. I mean it's 2 feats down the drain but those are some fists of fury!
ekeeb 06-05-07, 09:58 AM	what your DM says is right according to the rules, a human cannot pick up the improved natural attack feat because he is a humaniod. if you were, say, weretiger though it should be allowed because of the weretigers claws for its natural attack because it has the shapeshifter subtype. if it were allowed though, i would advise the DM to make a house rule of only buying it once, it would even out the playing field for other characters and NPCs. Ekeeb :D
Dheran 06-05-07, 11:36 AM	I am one who doesn't allow it. I am not picking on monks in particular Yes, Kouk, you are. Monks are the only standard player class who qualify for Improved Natural Attack, and the only class which is hit with a 3X cost multiplier for enhancing their main weapon (compare the Amulet of Mighty Fists with the weapon enhancement chart: 150,000 gp vs. 50,000 gp for a +5 weapon). Sure, Monks can swing a lot of times with flurry of blows, but they have to hit to inflict any damage. With only 3/4 BAB progression, expense restricting them from getting plusses to hit, and slot conflict getting in the way of STR enhancement (Monk's Belt takes up the same slot as Belt of Giant Strength), most Monks don't hit very often. And a monk must use a full attack action to strike with a flurry of blows, so this unarmored character has to be prepared to endure a full-round counterattack if they flurry. Please stop picking on Monks, Kouk. Improved Natural Attack is not only legal for them, it's almost essential.
runestar 06-05-07, 11:39 AM	The Imp. Natural attack feat in particular can be quite astounding. A level 8 monk does normally 1d10 damage. If you now treat it as large, his attacks jump up to 2d8 damage each, bigger than a greatsword. And that is a problem because...?:confused:
jaelis 06-05-07, 02:44 PM	what your DM says is right according to the rules, a human cannot pick up the improved natural attack feat because he is a humaniod. So's a troglodyte. Is he not eligible either?
Lazigothi 06-05-07, 03:53 PM	What about the feat to craft constructs? Can only non-humanoids create golems? I don't know about other campaign settings, but I allow humans and elves to make golems in my game, and this feat would seem handy. And if they can be eligible for craft constructs, then why not others if they qualify? Elves, Dwarves, and Gnomes are in the core MM, and I find it silly to forbid feats from a book containing core races. If the character meets the prerequisites, I don't see the harm. Unless Elves, Dwarves, and Gnomes are now to be treated as "Monsters," where the only allowable race are humans. Compared with Spellcasters, Monks need something to make them alluring to play, and I don't think the damage they dish out to be outrageous.
Kyoti00 06-05-07, 06:16 PM	As I have been playing a Monk in my current campaign for the last two years, I think I can do a pretty decent job of explaining this in an actual side by side comparison. My Monk, level 14, uses Improved Natural Attack and Superior unarmed strike. He is a dex based monk so I also use weapon finesse. I also have used Greater Magic Fang/Permenancy, which cost me 16k to have that put on both fists for a wopping +2 to hit and damage. Right now my base attack is 19/19/19/14 with flurry of blows and I do 3d8+4 damage per hit and have 107 HP. Now, compare that to the party's Fighter who is also level 14. He uses a Dwarven Great Axe with all of the weapon focus and weapon specialization feats, he has an insane strength and con. He has only three swings, which are 29/24/19 and does 1d10+something in the teens per swing and has over 200 HP. His last swing has just as good of a chance of hitting as my first swing and he is GAURNTEED to do over 15 points of damage a swing. He also crits on way less than the Natural 20 I need with a x3 multiplier. Now, I do know that I have a ton of other cool stuff that I can do as a Monk, which is why I play a monk instead of a fighter, but that isn't the point here. The point is, no matter how insane you think SUS and INA can be, it really isn't anything compared to straight Fighter attack/damage. Oh, and the best part is, in one level my damage will be capped at 4d8 with no way to improve it, and the Fighter will just keep getting nastier. SUS/INA is not broken or overpowered.
Kouk 06-05-07, 06:54 PM	Please stop picking on Monks, Kouk. Improved Natural Attack is not only legal for them, it's almost essential. Hehe, I love monks - I just don't think they are supposed to do fighter equivalent damage on a hit-per-hit basis using Imp. Natural Attack. To me, it seems that monks are not there to do direct damage but to perform trips/grapples/special things. CW and PHBII are great for monks, versatile unarmed strike, fiery fists, ki blast, iron fist, water-splitting stone are all nice feats. A Flurry of Trips(Mwk Kama if you don't have Imp. Trip) and Disarms(Mwk nunchaku for a bonus) can take most enemies down a peg or two. If Improved Natural Attack was given in the PHB, or some other new splatbook then I would probably allow it as well, but mainly because of the existence of Superior Unarmed Strike being weaker than Imp. Natural Attack, (and fiery fists and iron fists being weaker as well) leads me to believe it is not a general-use kind of feat. As for the Amulet of Mighty Fists being expensive, I am not sure what else a Monk is supposed to do with his money? He doesn't have to continually upgrade armor (beyond bracers of armor basically) and multiple magic weapons. He doesn't make magic items, doesn't go through many potions or wands -- it seems like the monk usually has the most money in the groups I have been in (maybe they never bought things but it didn't seem like it). Everyone buys the stat boosting items so it isn't a cost unique to a monk, if he has slot conflicts he can put an item on a different type of slot for a boost in the price. I am curious what exactly the damage would be on that level 14 monk if you switched your DEX with STR and used some other kinds of accuracy or damage boosting feats?
Iarmeister 06-05-07, 07:04 PM	If Improved Natural Attack was given in the PHB, or some other new splatbook then I would probably allow it as well, but mainly because of the existence of Superior Unarmed Strike being weaker than Imp. Natural Attack, (and fiery fists and iron fists) leads me to believe it is not a general-use kind of feat. Just fyi...INA was included in the Eberron Campaign Setting Hardcover as feat for Player Characters to use. I know it's not a splat book in the tradional sense...but it does add validity to the point that INA was and is intended as a viable feat option for monk-ish characters.
Kyoti00 06-05-07, 07:11 PM	I am curious what exactly the damage would be on that level 14 monk if you switched your DEX with STR and used some other kinds of accuracy or damage boosting feats? I put most of my points into DEX for the AC, since bracers of armor are expencive and with low hit points I need a good AC. But it still wouldn't make a huge difference since all of the fighter feats like weapon focus and weapon specialization are not availble to Monks. I think one of your main arguments for this is countered in the WoTC FAQs. My DM did not want to allow INA either until I found it, but the FAQs do specificly address Monks and Imporved Natural Attack. Our group has adopted the philosophy that if it is addressed by WoTC it is correct. I wish more people would. These guys spend hundreds of hours testing this stuff for balance, they invented it, they update it, it should be faily safe to assume that they know more about it than us.
Kouk 06-05-07, 07:34 PM	I think one of your main arguments for this is countered in the WoTC FAQs. My DM did not want to allow INA either until I found it, but the FAQs do specificly address Monks and Imporved Natural Attack. I am aware of that ruling and I don't dispute it. The question was about qualifying for the feat, and since a monk's fists are natural weapons then they certainly qualify. If you were to allow that feat to be taken by a PC, then a monk qualifies, no question about it. The Eberron Campaign Setting thing is interesting, but I took it as being for Shifters and/or Warforged. Strictly speaking you are right in that it does not place those races as a requirement, but even running Eberron (which I don't happen to) I wouldn't let a human monk take that feat. My interpretation, whether it may be wrong for your game aside, is that the intention of Imp. Natural Attack was to improve actual natural attacks like claws and bites and slams. I see the monk granted damage as being from training and not something he actually "naturally" possesses. Imp. Natural Attack in this interpretation would work on a fist or claw, making it bigger and harder, to 1d4 or something, but it wouldn't stack with a monks unarmed strike damage because that doesn't work with actual in-born natural weapons such as a lizarman's claws.
Zaver 06-05-07, 07:44 PM	I am aware of that ruling and I don't dispute it. The question was about qualifying for the feat, and since a monk's fists are natural weapons then they certainly qualify. If you were to allow that feat to be taken by a PC, then a monk qualifies, no question about it. The Eberron Campaign Setting thing is interesting, but I took it as being for Shifters and/or Warforged. Strictly speaking you are right in that it does not place those races as a requirement, but even running Eberron (which I don't happen to) I wouldn't let a human monk take that feat. My interpretation, whether it may be wrong for your game aside, is that the intention of Imp. Natural Attack was to improve actual natural attacks like claws and bites and slams. I see the monk granted damage as being from training and not something he actually "naturally" possesses. Imp. Natural Attack in this interpretation would work on a fist or claw, making it bigger and harder, to 1d4 or something, but it wouldn't stack with a monks unarmed strike damage because that doesn't work with actual in-born natural weapons such as a lizarman's claws. INA isn't some mystical effect that makes things bigger. Feats are training. Same as the monks training to hit harder then a normal person. I also don't think it's right to disallow something based off what you feel a class should do. But I don't play in your group so that's just my two cents.
ekeeb 06-05-07, 11:23 PM	So's a troglodyte. Is he not eligible either? cprrect, a troglodyte's attack is classed as an unarmed attack, i presume the rules are for those creatures with claws and such as a natural attack. thats just my interpretation of the rules, so dont quote me on that. Ekeeb :D
Jeriaus 06-05-07, 11:28 PM	The feats in the MM are all General feats, not Monstrous. Depending on weather you count anyone with Improved Unarmed Strike as having a Natural Attack (which given the decription of both, you should), they do qualify for the feat.
Kouk 06-05-07, 11:45 PM	The feats in the MM are all General feats, not Monstrous. There is absolutly no reason not to let Monks have it. There are no feats, besides Craft Construct, that are not [General] in the Monster Manual at all. Many people don't allow Psionics, or Incarnum, or other feats or books that are not classified as "monster only" either. If I do not allow Psionics, or things from Complete Scoundrel, it wouldn't mean I am breaking the rules right? People frequently disallow campaign specific books as well, despite many feats in those books being [General]. If I don't allow anyone to take the Leadership feat, which is ostensibly "Core" now I am being a jerk DM? It depends on the campaign that a DM is running. I am not singling out that one feat, I am simply not allowing the "Monster Manual" as a resource for character creation, same as any other book that doesn't fit in my campaigns. Even the SRD lists it as a "Monster Feat". If the designers did not deign to put that feat in the PHB (or any book that did not start with the words "Monster" and "Manual" with the exception of that Eberron Setting book), which includes not putting it as a Monk bonus feat, or a granted ability of about any Prestige Class I am aware of, then I will interpret that to mean it is for monsters in most cases. If you want to make a monk who hits like an elephant, fine it is between you and your DM. With Imp. Unarmed Strike being allowed, would that not be something a monk would feel "required" to take?
Zaver 06-06-07, 12:01 AM	If the designers did not deign to put that feat in the PHB (or any book that did not start with the words "Monster" and "Manual" with the exception of that Eberron Setting book), which includes not putting it as a Monk bonus feat, or a granted ability of about any Prestige Class I am aware of, then I will interpret that to mean it is for monsters in most cases. I feel it's worth pointing out that I only learned monks could take the feat because of this article: http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a
Kouk 06-06-07, 12:12 AM	I feel it's worth pointing out that I only learned monks could take the feat because of this article: http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20070403a Yes, it is duly noted and I am well aware that monks still qualify for that feat. Please don't take my position as being against other people using this feat. An earlier poster said "I don't know of anyone who doesn't allow this feat" so I raised my hand.
jaelis 06-06-07, 12:29 AM	Saying you don't allow the feat is fine and respectable. I think people are on your case a bit because on it on account of it's in the MM seems like a strange justification. I'd be perfectly accepting of an argument that you don't just buy that monk's unarmed strikes can be treated as natural weapons for that purpose. I guess a good question is, would you let a character like a warforged or shifter, who really does have a natural weapon, take it?
Majick 06-06-07, 12:39 AM	On a side note: Would a Monk's Belt and Superior Unarmed Strike stack? considering both say they make you count as a monk of 4 levels higher? Would it be similar to the whole Monkey Grip and Powerful Build not stacking?
Kouk 06-06-07, 01:29 AM	I guess a good question is, would you let a character like a warforged or shifter, who really does have a natural weapon, take it? Yes. It is part of my interpretation that the feat refers to "natural" natural attacks, and simply counting as natural for the sake of spells and effects does not act as a qualifier for that feat. So if you have claws or a bite attack from birth, or some PrC specifically says you "gain a natural claw/bite/slam attack" (because of your physiology changing, presumably) you can take the feat.
risner 06-06-07, 01:35 AM	On a side note: Would a Monk's Belt and Superior Unarmed Strike stack? considering both say they make you count as a monk of 4 levels higher? Would it be similar to the whole Monkey Grip and Powerful Build not stacking? If you are not a Monk, then Monk's Belt makes your unarmed "as if" a 5th level Monk. I'd rule SUS would stack with this and make it as a 9th level Monk, since they are not coming from the same source. It is significantly (night and day) different than MG and PB. MG and PB both say "you can use a weapon exactly one size larger than your size." There is no way to stack these in any meaningful way. If you are medium, then MG says precisely "you can use a large weapon" and PB says "you can use a large weapon." Nothing to stack, since they both say you can use a large weapon.
Kouk 06-06-07, 01:36 AM	On a side note: Would a Monk's Belt and Superior Unarmed Strike stack? considering both say they make you count as a monk of 4 levels higher? Would it be similar to the whole Monkey Grip and Powerful Build not stacking? Neither states that they don't stack with other things, and though it seems to be a similar effect it has no name. Monk's Belt seems to actually be 5 levels higher though, the feat is only 4.
Majick 06-06-07, 01:42 AM	So you could (theoretically) have a monk of, say, 11th level, with Improved Natural Attack, Superior Unarmed Strike and A Monk's Belt essentially functioning (for the purposes of damage at least) as a 20th level monk who is one size bigger than usual? HOT DAMN :eek:
Kouk 06-06-07, 02:06 AM	So you could (theoretically) have a monk of, say, 11th level, with Improved Natural Attack, Superior Unarmed Strike and A Monk's Belt essentially functioning (for the purposes of damage at least) as a 20th level monk who is one size bigger than usual? HOT DAMN :eek: Don't forget your Amulet of Mighty Fists, Rapid Stunning and Iron Fists feats. Hammer Fist does well when you have to move too.
Majick 06-06-07, 08:10 AM	Rapid Stunning? Iron Fist? Hammer fist? Where? How? WHen? Which? :eek:
Kouk 06-06-07, 09:37 AM	Rapid Stunning? Iron Fist? Hammer fist? Where? How? WHen? Which? :eek: Fists of Iron (I got the order of words mixed up) lets you do an extra 1d6 untyped damage when you burn a Stunning Fist for the day. Rapid Stunning lets you do more than one Stunning Fist related ability in a round, and you can take it multiple times. Both of those are in Complete Warrior. Hammer Fist lets you do 1.5 times STR damage (like you wield your fists two-handed). In Races of Faerun, it requires that you be a dwarf and replaces a normal melee attack, but you can't use it if you Flurry. In Dragon Compendium, (no dwarf req.) it says you make a single attack, which may or may not be interpreted as meaning you can only make a single attack or if they mean it to work like in RoF.
Dheran 06-06-07, 02:03 PM	Would a Monk's Belt and Superior Unarmed Strike stack? considering both say they make you count as a monk of 4 levels higher? Let's examine them and see:Belt, Monk’s The wearer’s AC and unarmed damage is treated as a monk of five levels higher.Superior Unarmed Strike Special: If you are a monk, you instead deal unarmed damage as a monk four levels higher. They both use the same language, differing only in the number of levels. But it's "as a monk X levels higher", which requires a base level to be heightened. This means both the item and the feat are based on your actual monk level, so you'll get either level + 5 or level + 4, not level + 9. Compare this to caster level boosts: Orange Ioun stone: +1 caster level Spell Penetration feat: You get a +2 bonus on caster level checks (1d20 + caster level) made to overcome a creature’s spell resistance. Chaos Domain Granted Power: You cast chaos spells at +1 caster level. Bead of karma: Wearer casts his spells at +4 caster level. If the feat and item said "You gain +X monk levels for unarmed damage" then they'd stack. But they're not written the way the caster level boosts are, so they overlap instead of stacking.
risner 06-06-07, 05:54 PM	Let's examine them and see: They both use the same language, differing only in the number of levels. But it's "as a monk X levels higher", which requires a base level to be heightened. This means both the item and the feat are based on your actual monk level, so you'll get either level + 5 or level + 4, not level + 9. Monk's Belt has "if not a monk, you gain the unarmed damage of a 5th-level monk." If you are a fighter wearing a Monk's Belt with no Monk levels, you are considered a 5th level Monk by the belt and the SUS enhances that to 9th level. You are right if you are wearing the Belt and SUS with Monk levels.
Dheran 06-07-07, 03:40 AM	If you are a fighter wearing a Monk's Belt with no Monk levels, you are considered a 5th level Monk by the belt and the SUS enhances that to 9th level. No, actually you only get the 5th level Monk's unarmed damage and AC bonus from the Belt; you don't get 5 Monk levels. Since you don't have any actual Monk levels, SUS instead gives you its non-Monk unarmed damage progression. You still get the 5th level Monk's AC bonus (assuming you're unarmored) from the Belt.
pupilofyah 06-07-07, 11:42 PM	what your DM says is right according to the rules, a human cannot pick up the improved natural attack feat because he is a humaniod. if you were, say, weretiger though it should be allowed because of the weretigers claws for its natural attack because it has the shapeshifter subtype. if it were allowed though, i would advise the DM to make a house rule of only buying it once, it would even out the playing field for other characters and NPCs. Ekeeb :D your logic is foul. first of all there is no type restriction(it is a general feat not a monsterous) second the feat itself clearly states that it can not be applied to the same natural attack. monks only have one kind (unless they are indeed monsterous). as far as evening the playing field they have to b/c kensi's to add things like frost to magically enhance their weapons.
Kouk 06-08-07, 01:12 AM	Let's examine them and see: They both use the same language, differing only in the number of levels. But it's "as a monk X levels higher", which requires a base level to be heightened. This means both the item and the feat are based on your actual monk level, so you'll get either level + 5 or level + 4, not level + 9. A good catch, that they both say "treated as" and "for the purposes of" etc. which shows that nothing is actually being modified. With that interpretation, then the belt and superior unarmed would not stack for a monk after all. The belt still does other things as well, so this now makes Superior Unarmed Strike almost useless for monks once they get a belt... unless you decide that the level is being treated higher than it currently is being treated as? Tricky.
Jandulh 06-11-07, 01:16 PM	Fists of Iron (I got the order of words mixed up) lets you do an extra 1d6 untyped damage when you burn a Stunning Fist for the day. Rapid Stunning lets you do more than one Stunning Fist related ability in a round, and you can take it multiple times. Both of those are in Complete Warrior. Hammer Fist lets you do 1.5 times STR damage (like you wield your fists two-handed). In Races of Faerun, it requires that you be a dwarf and replaces a normal melee attack, but you can't use it if you Flurry. In Dragon Compendium, (no dwarf req.) it says you make a single attack, which may or may not be interpreted as meaning you can only make a single attack or if they mean it to work like in RoF. What about fiery fist from PHB 2? I feel it's better since you geta d6 per attack you make for 1 round for the 1 SF use. And it's nets you that sweet fireball which does force damage. A good back up for fighting ghosts and apparitions.
Kouk 06-11-07, 01:46 PM	Yeah, for some reason that particular one slipped my mind that it applied to all attacks in the round.