Post/Author/DateTime	Post
GraveDigger 04-08-07, 12:36 AM	Ok so with monks and the feat from MM3 you meat all the prereqs for the feat as long as you get a bab of +4. Well with superior unarmed strike (+4 levels higher for determining unarmed dmg) and a belt, monk by lvl 10 I do 2d8 unarmed dmg as if I was lvl 19. But with improved natural attack feat taken twice I do 4d8. Am I doing this correct?
Lord Nat 04-08-07, 12:51 AM	Ok so with monks and the feat from MM3 you meat all the prereqs for the feat as long as you get a bab of +4. Well with superior unarmed strike (+4 levels higher for determining unarmed dmg) and a belt, monk by lvl 10 I do 2d8 unarmed dmg as if I was lvl 19. But with improved natural attack feat taken twice I do 4d8. Am I doing this correct? The feat can only be taken once for each attack. So you can not take it twice. I THINK superior unarmed strike only goes up to your hitdie (so useful if you have more then one class, not so much if full monk). So at level 10 your damage IS 2d8 but is only from Improved Natural Attack and your levels.
Garonak 04-08-07, 01:58 PM	Monks unarmed strike isn't a natural weapon.
NoldorForce 04-08-07, 02:07 PM	Monks unarmed strike isn't a natural weapon.In the monk's entry: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.And WotC has ruled that Improved Natural Attack is an effect that improves natural weapons, and thus can be used on the monk's unarmed strike.
Fireclave 04-08-07, 02:07 PM	Monks unarmed strike isn't a natural weapon. An unarmed strike is a natural weapon. I'd quote the d20srd, but I can't access it right now.
WolfHati 04-08-07, 03:30 PM	Honestly, this is something you'd have to ask your DM. I wouldn't let a monk take improved natural attack, myself, just because that's not what it's intended for, and it's a shaky chain of reasoning that let's you get to that conclusion. I'd say that improved natural attack can affect a monks strike, however you cannot choose monk strike for the feat as that is not actually a natural attack form, so the first point is moot. This is not anything conclusive, just how I would rule it, and that's why I sy ask first.
Merestil Haye 04-08-07, 04:21 PM	The designers answer to this question.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.(March 2007 page 29). The issue is whether the OPs DM wishes to houserule that Monks cannot. Designer's intent is quite clear.
Tsuul 04-08-07, 05:08 PM	An unarmed strike is a natural weapon.That depends on what your definition of 'is' is. It isn't, but is treated as one for certain things, like INA.
ClementWillowbreaker 04-08-07, 07:01 PM	Designer's intent is quite clear. So clear that it took them four years to answer a question that was raised the first day anyone looks at the MM and PHB. WotC likes to pretend rules were always obviously one way when they never were, mostly because monks were underpowered. The more sensible solution would be to continue to scale monk unarmed damage past lvl20 so that Superior Unarmed Strike and a Monk's Belt have actual use for monks in the long term.
Raymond_Luxury_Yacht 04-08-07, 09:02 PM	An unarmed strike is a natural weapon. I'd quote the d20srd, but I can't access it right now. Nope. An unarmed strike is not a natural weapon. A monk can treat his unarmed strike as a natural weapon for spells and effects, but it's not a natural weapon.
G_Mancer 04-08-07, 09:51 PM	PHB2 has a sample half orc monk with the Imp Nat Attack. i know samples often are flawed, but it's proof that wotc has thought about it. you can all argue that it CANT be because monks are not 100% natural weapons. but they are. fists are natural weapons. as natural as they come. ever punched anyone? by RAW, they are treated as nat weapons. does it say "..as nat weapons when determinging everything except feats." no it doesn't. i can count as Nat weapons whenever the PC wants, and all the times he wishes they weren't. even the Sage and stuff have answered this question. when it comes down to it, you have to judge by whats in text. if A can be treated as B, and a pre-req for C is B, then A can satisfy the pre-req of C. if [monks fists] cab be treated as [natural weapons], abd a pre-req for [imp nat attack] is [natural attacks], then [monks fists] can satisfy the pre-req for [imp nat attack] a=b,b=c. then a=c.
Frugal 04-08-07, 10:09 PM	It's been in the FAQ for some time I believe that monks can take improved natural attack, but every time someone even mentions it there's a host of replies saying they can't. Anyway, to get back to the OP's original question, every time you take Improved Natural Attack you have to select a different natural attack. Yes, it doesn't explicitly say that in the feat description but it is in the errata for MM (which was the original place the feat was published). Also, the normal rule is that if a feat doesn't say you can take it more than once you can't take it more than once, well you could be the effects would overlap, not stack. So you can only take improve natural attack (unarmed strike) once.
Merestil Haye 04-09-07, 04:59 AM	So clear that it took them four years to answer a question that was raised the first day anyone looks at the MM and PHB. WotC likes to pretend rules were always obviously one way when they never were, mostly because monks were underpowered. The more sensible solution would be to continue to scale monk unarmed damage past lvl20 so that Superior Unarmed Strike and a Monk's Belt have actual use for monks in the long term.What makes you think it took four yeears to answer this? I cited the March 07 document because that is the one currently available. It's moved a few times as the FAQ has grown, which is why I always try and refer to the FAQ date when I refer to page number. Although I agree that they did take too long, they didn't take four years to get round to it. (It took 2 years or so.) Personally I think that a Monk should have better things to wear around the waist at 20th level, like a Belt of Magnificence.
Dheran 04-09-07, 12:26 PM	It isn't just monks who can get Improved Natural Attack to apply to unarmed strikes. The Fanged Ring (Dragon Magic, page 101) grants (among other things): Improved Unarmed Strike Improved Natural Attack (unarmed strike) So you can get a boost to your unarmed attack either through monk levels, or through a magic item. The jury's still out on whether someone with neither of these can take Improved Natural Attack (unarmed strike).
Frugal 04-09-07, 12:53 PM	Yeah, I don't really get why they made unarmed strikes kind of like a natural weapon and kind of not. I mean why not just say they're natural attacks that provoke an AoO and then have improved natural attack allow you to make iterative attacks with them (like a manufactured weapon) as well as removing the AoO? Just seems like it'd be a lot simpler.
NoldorForce 04-09-07, 01:23 PM	While (depending on one's opinion) unarmed strikes may not truly be natural attacks, the blanket "for the purpose of spells and effects" line makes them natural attacks in nearly all cases where the distinction is relevant.
Frugal 04-09-07, 01:53 PM	While (depending on one's opinion) unarmed strikes may not truly be natural attacks, the blanket "for the purpose of spells and effects" line makes them natural attacks in nearly all cases where the distinction is relevant. I do agree that that's the way it's been interpreted but man they could've phrased that better or more clearly.
DMsDelight 04-09-07, 02:02 PM	Monks unarmed strike isn't a natural weapon. This is going to probably sound very stupid...but... How is an unarmed strike NOT a natural attack? He was born with it! Not quite sure how this was a problem. It's not an unnatural attack...unless he somehow sprouts tentacles... Don't mind me, I didn't have anything intelligent to add. I just read that quote up there and laughed for a good minute with a mental image, so I had to say something. I do realize that mechanically and technically it isn't quite a "Natural Attack", but that didn't quite sound right.
Frugal 04-09-07, 02:09 PM	This is going to probably sound very stupid...but... How is an unarmed strike NOT a natural attack? He was born with it! Not quite sure how this was a problem. It's not an unnatural attack...unless he somehow sprouts tentacles... Don't mind me, I didn't have anything intelligent to add. I just read that quote up there and laughed for a good minute with a mental image, so I had to say something. I do realize that mechanically and technically it isn't quite a "Natural Attack", but that didn't quite sound right. A monk definitely gets to treat his unarmed strike as a natural attack for the purposes of feats and magical enhancements. However, for non-monks your unarmed strike is not considered a natural attack.
DMsDelight 04-09-07, 02:16 PM	I know...it's just...It's how it sounds. They should call it something different. Last time I checked, my fists were all natural...unlike Pam Andersons boobies :p
Frugal 04-09-07, 02:28 PM	I know...it's just...It's how it sounds. They should call it something different. Last time I checked, my fists were all natural...unlike Pam Andersons boobies :p I think it's that they're natural but the ability to use them as an effective weapon isn't. They're doing a Rules of the Game series right now that clears up a lot of questions on unarmed strikes which is pretty good.
Tsuul 04-09-07, 03:31 PM	I know...it's just...It's how it sounds. They should call it something different. Last time I checked, my fists were all natural... A large cat can attack you with unarmed strikes in the d20 world and the effect would be comical, not natural. It takes training to make unarmed strikes into lethal weapons. Either a class skill or a feat. Something that takes training isn't natural.
starfire311 04-09-07, 03:35 PM	The more sensible solution would be to continue to scale monk unarmed damage past lvl20 so that Superior Unarmed Strike and a Monk's Belt have actual use for monks in the long term. here is something that is needed IMO, there should be an epic progression for monks unarmed strike passed level 20, even if it is just +1 damage per 2 levels passed level 20.
ClementWillowbreaker 04-09-07, 08:39 PM	What makes you think it took four yeears to answer this? Because no book or FAQ before the period of the PHBII and Dragon Magic made a statement on the issue. I've been around. I've read older versions of the FAQ. It is new. The reason why fists are not "natural attacks" is because they do not use the natural attack routine. You get iterative attacks with them. The definition that everyone likes to bandy about goes on longer than, "weapons the creature was born with", going on about how they function, and in all ways that relate to combat, they are drastically different from unarmed strikes. So no one is going to agree, because the PHB is too vague and new WotC material is very iffy. If they really wanted people to use one ruling, they would errata the PHB. And no, that is not a hard thing to do. It is a difficult choice when you have no freaking clue if the decision you just pulled out of your ass when trying to fix monks for the PHBII is a good one or not. You can forget mistakes you make in supplements. You can't ignore what you put in the PHB. That is why I don't consider it valid- if it was any good, it would be errata'ed. Until then, it is a suggestion. A bad one, too.
Merestil Haye 04-09-07, 09:46 PM	Because no book or FAQ before the period of the PHBII and Dragon Magic made a statement on the issue. I've been around. I've read older versions of the FAQ. It is new.Nonsense. This question was first included in the October 2005 issue of the FAQ. That's some time before either book you cite.
Frugal 04-09-07, 10:59 PM	Nonsense. This question was first included in the October 2005 issue of the FAQ. That's some time before either book you cite. I was going to say, I've only been playing since fall/winter 2005 and I was pretty sure I'd seen it in the FAQ back then but since I don't have older copies I couldn't check.
Frugal 04-09-07, 11:04 PM	You can't ignore what you put in the PHB. That is why I don't consider it valid- if it was any good, it would be errata'ed. Until then, it is a suggestion. A bad one, too. The thing is, it's not a change in the rules. The rule was always to that effect, the FAQ just clarified that it is the case. No errata is needed. Errata is for rules corrections (or outright revisions with the whole polymorph thing), not for just clarifying that the rule does in fact cover what it says it covers.
NoldorForce 04-10-07, 12:06 AM	The thing is, it's not a change in the rules. The rule was always to that effect, the FAQ just clarified that it is the case. No errata is needed. Errata is for rules corrections (or outright revisions with the whole polymorph thing), not for just clarifying that the rule does in fact cover what it says it covers.More precisely, the FAQ serves to convey the intent of a rule when things are unclear. And the fact that we're arguing about whether unarmed strikes are normally natural weapons makes it clear that the FAQ entry was a necessary thing.
Vloorshad 04-10-07, 04:51 AM	Because no book or FAQ before the period of the PHBII and Dragon Magic made a statement on the issue. I've been around. I've read older versions of the FAQ. It is new. The reason why fists are not "natural attacks" is because they do not use the natural attack routine. You get iterative attacks with them. The definition that everyone likes to bandy about goes on longer than, "weapons the creature was born with", going on about how they function, and in all ways that relate to combat, they are drastically different from unarmed strikes. So no one is going to agree, because the PHB is too vague and new WotC material is very iffy. If they really wanted people to use one ruling, they would errata the PHB. And no, that is not a hard thing to do. It is a difficult choice when you have no freaking clue if the decision you just pulled out of your ass when trying to fix monks for the PHBII is a good one or not. You can forget mistakes you make in supplements. You can't ignore what you put in the PHB. That is why I don't consider it valid- if it was any good, it would be errata'ed. Until then, it is a suggestion. A bad one, too. The line I like to focus on is the "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.", with emphasis on manufactured. Can you make multiple attacks based on BAB with manufactured weapons? Intent seems pretty clear to me. Twist it all you want, but the intent is fairly obvious to many, if not most, that Monks taking INA was allowed from the get-go.
Egres 04-10-07, 04:52 AM	If you are interested in the Monk/Natural Weapon debate, just read here, (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=482998&page=1&pp=30) here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=315832) and here. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=522283&page=1&pp=30)
Frugal 04-10-07, 08:39 AM	More precisely, the FAQ serves to convey the intent of a rule when things are unclear. And the fact that we're arguing about whether unarmed strikes are normally natural weapons makes it clear that the FAQ entry was a necessary thing. Exactly, but for some reason whenever someone doesn't like a particular interpretation they like to jump on the whole argument that the FAQ isn't "official" and that if they wanted that to be an "official" ruling they would've put it in the "official" errata. As I mentioned, the errata is for corrections of mistakes and/or outright changes to the rules. It's for things like, "we said the prerequisites are a +4 BAB in this table but the main entry says +6, the table should read +6," or, "we're changing the way polymorph works, this is the new spell, change all the monster entries with abilities that say they work as the spell polymorph to...." The FAQ is for questions about how the current rules work. Sometimes it's a question of, "do the rules really mean....?" That's how I see the INA issue, it's always been in the rules, it's just that some people like to think that it wasn't. In those situations I see no problem with following what the FAQ says. If you don't like it, well you can always house rule it but realise that is a house rule. Now the one area I'd say that the FAQ is more questionable on is regarding questions which the rules are completely silent on. A good example of this is a fairly recent judgement on how the sizing of bastard swords and dwarven war axes works where they're treated as a one handed exotic or a 2 handed martial. Now there's absolutely nothing in the rules about how this should work so that's where I can see arguing over whether the FAQ's ruling is official or not as it's not clarifying a rule it's basically creating a brand new rule, and for that type of thing I agree it should be in the errata, not the FAQ.
ClementWillowbreaker 04-10-07, 04:38 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.", with emphasis on manufactured. Can you make multiple attacks based on BAB with manufactured weapons? Intent seems pretty clear to me. Everyone can take iterative attacks with their unarmed strikes, so your argument is meaningless. That just highlights that unarmed strikes do not follow the rules for claws and bites, and the difference between monks and everyone else is they get the benefit of magic that enhances manufactured weapons.
starfire311 04-10-07, 07:02 PM	Everyone can take iterative attacks with their unarmed strikes, so your argument is meaningless. That just highlights that unarmed strikes do not follow the rules for claws and bites, and the difference between monks and everyone else is they get the benefit of magic that enhances manufactured weapons. it also says they get teh benefit of effects that enhance natural weapons, INA enhances a natural weapon.
ClementWillowbreaker 04-10-07, 09:20 PM	it also says they get teh benefit of effects that enhance natural weapons, INA enhances a natural weapon. Only if you buy WotC's newest claim that feats are effects. Instead of taking the long-standing meaning of the phrase, "spells and effects" in DnD, which has always only meant spells, spell-like, and supernatural abilities.
Frugal 04-10-07, 09:40 PM	Only if you buy WotC's newest claim that feats are effects. Instead of taking the long-standing meaning of the phrase, "spells and effects" in DnD, which has always only meant spells, spell-like, and supernatural abilities. New claim? That's been in the FAQ for almost 2 years now.
Vloorshad 04-10-07, 11:57 PM	Everyone can take iterative attacks with their unarmed strikes, so your argument is meaningless. That just highlights that unarmed strikes do not follow the rules for claws and bites, and the difference between monks and everyone else is they get the benefit of magic that enhances manufactured weapons. And natural weapons. You can't forget that little fact, unless you're trying to conveniently ignore it in hopes of bolstering your claim that Monks can't take INA. Only if you buy WotC's newest claim that feats are effects. Instead of taking the long-standing meaning of the phrase, "spells and effects" in DnD, which has always only meant spells, spell-like, and supernatural abilities. So what is a feat if it isn't an effect? By the by, what "long standing meaning" that excludes feats as effects? You mean your personal interpretation of a line clarified in the FAQ?
starfire311 04-11-07, 08:54 AM	Only if you buy WotC's newest claim that feats are effects. Instead of taking the long-standing meaning of the phrase, "spells and effects" in DnD, which has always only meant spells, spell-like, and supernatural abilities. long standing? This gets me confused, I thought spell and spell effect were mainly MtG terms used when it 1st came out through abuot 6th ed. if it meant spells, spell-like and supernatural abilities, then it could jsut say spells and supernatural abilities. since spell-like is covered by spells, so you mean to say that effect is a means supernatural ability. I don't have any books with me, but is this how effect is defines in the glossary, if it is even in there.
Dheran 04-11-07, 10:42 AM	I don't have any books with me, but is this how effect is defines in the glossary, if it is even in there. "Effect" is not defined in the glossary. In the rules, "effect" is used to refer to spells psionic powers extraordinaryl abilities supernatural abilities spell-like abilities magic item properties environmental conditions (acid, ice, lava, smoke) feats
Frugal 04-11-07, 10:51 AM	I think the main reason for confusion is that unarmed strikes were always considered natural weapons for the purposes of spells, so a lot of people read the monk ability as simply allowing them to be treated as manufactured weapons for spells and effects, so they don't realise that it's also expanding their treatment as natural weapons as well (now covered by spells and effects, including feats like INA).