Monks and Monster Feats


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 141 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack to increase his unarmed strike damage? Could he take Ability Focus (Stunning Fist, Scorpion Style, or Gorgon's Fist)?

Shadow Lodge

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

No problem with a monk taking those feats. That'd be like not allowing the wizards to gain Craft Construct.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Order Coleoptera wrote:
Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack to increase his unarmed strike damage? Could he take Ability Focus (Stunning Fist, Scorpion Style, or Gorgon's Fist)?

Yes, but this is really an "Ask your DM" question.


Order Coleoptera wrote:
Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack to increase his unarmed strike damage? Could he take Ability Focus (Stunning Fist, Scorpion Style, or Gorgon's Fist)?

I agree with James Risner on this.

Technically there is nothing against it. But the feats are from the bestiary and the bestiary is primarily GM turf.


The Grandfather wrote:
Order Coleoptera wrote:
Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack to increase his unarmed strike damage? Could he take Ability Focus (Stunning Fist, Scorpion Style, or Gorgon's Fist)?

I agree with James Risner on this.

Technically there is nothing against it. But the feats are from the bestiary and the bestiary is primarily GM turf.

It would be nice to see something more official. It seems allowed. The only reason I even care about the official ruling is to properly handle this in organized play. As it stands it seems like it is allowed.


Well in organized play it would be out as it is from a book not currently on the approved list. That simple.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Order Coleoptera wrote:
Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack to increase his unarmed strike damage? Could he take Ability Focus (Stunning Fist, Scorpion Style, or Gorgon's Fist)?

Actually...

An unarmed strike is not a natural attack. It's using an appendage to make an attack even though the natural features of that appendage do not make it a viable natural attack in the same way that claws or teeth work.

Unarmed strike is therefore a "weapon" that's listed on the list of weapons in the Core rules.

Improved Natural Attack applies ONLY to natural attacks like bites, claws, slams, tentacles, etc; the list of natural attacks appears on our around page 301 or 302 in the Bestiary. Unarmed strike is NOT on that list.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Order Coleoptera wrote:
Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack to increase his unarmed strike damage? Could he take Ability Focus (Stunning Fist, Scorpion Style, or Gorgon's Fist)?

Actually...

An unarmed strike is not a natural attack. It's using an appendage to make an attack even though the natural features of that appendage do not make it a viable natural attack in the same way that claws or teeth work.

Unarmed strike is therefore a "weapon" that's listed on the list of weapons in the Core rules.

Improved Natural Attack applies ONLY to natural attacks like bites, claws, slams, tentacles, etc; the list of natural attacks appears on our around page 301 or 302 in the Bestiary. Unarmed strike is NOT on that list.

So much for all that discussion in the Beta where it was agreed Monks were supposed to be able to get Improved Natural Attack.

*sigh* another houserule. I had so much faith in you guys too. I mean I still love Pathfinder, but it gets hard to believe in it when alot of things that were promised get yanked away.


Promised? hmmm.

The whole point of the beta test is to /test/ things.. and remove things that aren't necessarily appropriate.

Given some of the other changes to the monk class and their gear, it may just be that it was seen to be inappropriate for them to get that And also get this buff too.

-S


James Jacobs wrote:
Order Coleoptera wrote:
Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack to increase his unarmed strike damage? Could he take Ability Focus (Stunning Fist, Scorpion Style, or Gorgon's Fist)?

Actually...

An unarmed strike is not a natural attack. It's using an appendage to make an attack even though the natural features of that appendage do not make it a viable natural attack in the same way that claws or teeth work.

Unarmed strike is therefore a "weapon" that's listed on the list of weapons in the Core rules.

Improved Natural Attack applies ONLY to natural attacks like bites, claws, slams, tentacles, etc; the list of natural attacks appears on our around page 301 or 302 in the Bestiary. Unarmed strike is NOT on that list.

Mmmm, well, depends on how you read the rules.

1. Improved Natural Attack says it can be applied to any natural attack.
2. The definition of natural attack on page 182 of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook says that a natural attack is any attack made with a natural weapon. Furthermore, page 301 of the Bestiary states that a natural attack is any attack made without a weapon and page 302 lists an "Other" category on the natural attacks chart.
3. The monk's Unarmed Strike class feature states that "a monk's unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for the purpose of effects that enhance or improve natural weapons".
4. Thus, a monk's Unarmed Strike is a natural weapon.
5. Thus, any attack made with a monk's Unarmed Strike is a natural attack.
6. Thus, Improved Natural Attack applies to a monk's Unarmed Strike.


James Jacobs wrote:

An unarmed strike is not a natural attack. It's using an appendage to make an attack even though the natural features of that appendage do not make it a viable natural attack in the same way that claws or teeth work.

Unarmed strike is therefore a "weapon" that's listed on the list of weapons in the Core rules.

Improved Natural Attack applies ONLY to natural attacks like bites, claws, slams, tentacles, etc; the list of natural attacks appears on our around page 301 or 302 in the Bestiary. Unarmed strike is NOT on that list.

Personally I am confused as the same wording that allowed a monk in 3.5 to take Improved Natural Attack is still in PFRPG.

D&D FAQ v3.5 6/30/09 page41 wrote:


Q: Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack (MM 304) to improve his unarmed strike?
A: Yes. As stated on page 41 of the PH, 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.

From the PRD Monk Class we see that its worded exactly the same. "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 manufactured weapons or natural weapons."

I looked at the Improved Natural Attack feat from 3.5 and the PRD and their is only one difference which is the last sentence. Monsters in PFRPG can no longer take this feat more than once.

I am in no way saying your wrong James, but just wondering how if the above wording has not changed how come it no longer works?

Thanks

Paizo Employee Creative Director

I think folks get too worked up about exact interpretations of rules, to be honest. If you want monks to be able to do this in your game, by all means go for it! It's not something that I think they should be able to do, though, because I feel that it violates the rules as intended. Monks already have a method by which their unarmed strike damage improves as they level up... if that's not enough, then go ahead and let them take Improved Natural Weapon, I guess. I'm not interested in combing through the rules to "prove" this is right. It's the way I'd call it in my games, and it's the way I'll call it in Pathfinder products, but that doesn't have to be the same as anyone else's game.


James Jacobs wrote:
I think folks get too worked up about exact interpretations of rules, to be honest. If you want monks to be able to do this in your game, by all means go for it! It's not something that I think they should be able to do, though, because I feel that it violates the rules as intended. Monks already have a method by which their unarmed strike damage improves as they level up... if that's not enough, then go ahead and let them take Improved Natural Weapon, I guess. I'm not interested in combing through the rules to "prove" this is right. It's the way I'd call it in my games, and it's the way I'll call it in Pathfinder products, but that doesn't have to be the same as anyone else's game.

Since many people favor this method of enhancing the capabilities of the monk I would suggest GMs to introduce a separate feat that does that, if they want monks to have that option. The new feat should probably be in line (requirement-wise) with oversized two-weapon fighting or monkey grip.


A slightly off topic question, would sorcerers with claws be able to use the improved natural weapon feat?


The 8th Dwarf wrote:
A slightly off topic question, would sorcerers with claws be able to use the improved natural weapon feat?

I would allow them to take the feat without a doubt.

Then again, I'm already on the boat of the people who say 'Monks can take Improved Natural Attack' too, so maybe my view is a little biased...


The 8th Dwarf wrote:
A slightly off topic question, would sorcerers with claws be able to use the improved natural weapon feat?

Definitely. And the DD bite can also be enhanced with INW feat. As can the barbarians Animalistic fury bite.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

James Jacobs wrote:
I think folks get too worked up about exact interpretations of rules, to be honest. If you want monks to be able to do this in your game, by all means go for it!

It just doesn't work that way, at least in no game I've ever played and I play/run 5 different games a week with different 4 DMs.

The biggest issue my groups had with WotC was the ambiguous rules coupled with FAQ that while "official" wasn't Errata. I am hoping Paizo solves this problem by publishing FAQ (said to be coming), by having this FAQ be Official rulings (how a DM is required by the rules to adjudicate) and then allowing the DM to deviate.

In other words, please don't say "if you want X like this in your game go for it." That is the absolutely worse thing you could do for the health of the game. The one line "Rule 0 means a DM can change a rule at will" is all you need to convey the "do as you wish in your game" but the rules need to be the rules, hard set in stone with official errata (called FAQ) to back it up.

Otherwise you end up with a quarter of your game sessions soaked up with debates on what the rules say that frustrate both parties (the DM and the players because both thing the other is being dense.)


I've always thought it was this way, but the 3.5 FAQ overruled me. It's clearly the *intent* of the developers to make monk's unarmed strikes benefit from various "spells and effects" that improve natural weapons -- not feats. I've always argued that a feat isn't an "effect" as used in the monk's class description. "Effects" cover spell-like abilities and supernatural/extraordinary abilities but not feats. Even feats themselves produce effects, but they aren't effects themselves. But the 3.5 FAQ defined a feat as an effect -- Power Attack is an effect (not the bonus granted from the feat, the feat itself is the effect) -- Craft Wondrous Item is an effect -- that just sounds silly to me.

Besides, any competent DM who has priced out the benefits of taking Improved Natural Attack as a monk compared to any other feat would quickly find out it's an absolutely essential feat to take in terms of overall combat benefit. Anything that is absolutely essential to take is most likely broken.

Scarab Sages

Campaing Setting p. 248 wrote:


Feats: Deflect Arrows, Improved Grapple, Improved Natural
Attack (unarmed strike), One Finger*, Scribe Scroll,
Stunning Fist, Weapon Finesse

That's from the monk character used as NPC in that book....


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Risner wrote:
In other words, please don't say "if you want X like this in your game go for it." That is the absolutely worse thing you could do for the health of the game.

Actually, I think the worst would be to have conflicting official rulings. But I agree that ambiguity in the rules is usually a bug, not a feature.


meabolex wrote:

I've always thought it was this way, but the 3.5 FAQ overruled me. It's clearly the *intent* of the developers to make monk's unarmed strikes benefit from various "spells and effects" that improve natural weapons -- not feats. I've always argued that a feat isn't an "effect" as used in the monk's class description. "Effects" cover spell-like abilities and supernatural/extraordinary abilities but not feats. Even feats themselves produce effects, but they aren't effects themselves. But the 3.5 FAQ defined a feat as an effect -- Power Attack is an effect (not the bonus granted from the feat, the feat itself is the effect) -- Craft Wondrous Item is an effect -- that just sounds silly to me.

Besides, any competent DM who has priced out the benefits of taking Improved Natural Attack as a monk compared to any other feat would quickly find out it's an absolutely essential feat to take in terms of overall combat benefit. Anything that is absolutely essential to take is most likely broken.

I am not a math wiz, but I'm not terrible at it either. With a quick glance I think you'll find power attack > improved natural attack and a monk power attacking with a quarter staff will do more damage and have more options for weapon enhancement than a monk using improved natural attack, and the enhancements will cost less.


grasshopper_ea wrote:
I am not a math wiz, but I'm not terrible at it either. With a quick glance I think you'll find power attack > improved natural attack and a monk power attacking with a quarter staff will do more damage and have more options for weapon enhancement than a monk using improved natural attack, and the enhancements will cost less.

Are you looking at the progressions for large monks?

At the level 7, a monk deals 2d6 damage instead of 1d8. This is an average damage increase of 2.5, which is better than Weapon Specialization. Power Attack confers a hit penalty for damage -- this is just pure damage with no penalty. At level 16, the feat gives 1d8 (4.5) extra base weapon damage -- that's more damage than Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Specialization combined. . . for a single feat taken at level 7. When is one feat better than two that do essentially the same thing and have higher prerequisites? Does the monk really need this "help"?

Also, don't forget the monk's robe (used to be monk's belt). This item is relatively easy to get at level 10, and it increases damage by an increased amount relative to the feat. So the feat and the item increase in effectiveness because of each other. At 12th level, if you have the robe and the feat, the damage goes from 2d6 (7) to 3d8 (13.5) - a damage increase of 6.5 -- a d12 of extra base weapon damage. As levels increase, both the item and the feat provide more damage.

This feat also works quite well with the Vital Strike feats.

We're not even counting things like permanent enlarge person, which makes damage output significantly greater (and increases the effectiveness of both the feat and the robe). Yes, it can be dispelled. . . but it's relatively easy/cheap to recast at the level you can use it.

In short, it's just too good as one feat and officially it's unintended in PF.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

James Risner wrote:

It just doesn't work that way, at least in no game I've ever played and I play/run 5 different games a week with different 4 DMs.

The biggest issue my groups had with WotC was the ambiguous rules coupled with FAQ that while "official" wasn't Errata. I am hoping Paizo solves this problem by publishing FAQ (said to be coming), by having this FAQ be Official rulings (how a DM is required by the rules to adjudicate) and then allowing the DM to deviate.

In other words, please don't say "if you want X like this in your game go for it." That is the absolutely worse thing you could do for the health of the game. The one line "Rule 0 means a DM can change a rule at will" is all you need to convey the "do as you wish in your game" but the rules need to be the rules, hard set in stone with official errata (called FAQ) to back it up.

Otherwise you end up with a quarter of your game sessions soaked up with debates on what the rules say that frustrate both parties (the DM and the players because both thing the other is being dense.)

Gamers will debate the intent of rules no matter what.

In any event, we'll have an "official" answer to this and all the other questions eventually, but it's worth remembering that Paizo is NOT WotC, both in rules philosophy AND in number of employees. Expecting Paizo to handle things the same way as WotC does is unrealistic.

I'm not the top expert on the rules here at Paizo (that'd be Jason, who's busy getting the Advanced Player's Guide stuff ready for playtesting, and who will sooner or later have the time to address errata publicly), but as far as I'm concerned, unarmed strikes (be they from monks or anything else) are not natural weapons and thus cannot benefit from the Improved Natural Weapon feat. A wildshaped druid or a dragon sorcerer taking the feat for one of it's natural weapons works for me, though... if only because the druid or sorcerer won't have his natural weapons every second of the day (like a monk) and can't make a huge number of attacks with a single natural weapon (like a monk does with unarmed strike).


James Jacobs wrote:
but as far as I'm concerned, unarmed strikes (be they from monks or anything else) are not natural weapons and thus cannot benefit from the Improved Natural Weapon feat.

Even though the rules explicitly state that a monk's Unarmed Strikes are natural weapons?


Zurai wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
but as far as I'm concerned, unarmed strikes (be they from monks or anything else) are not natural weapons and thus cannot benefit from the Improved Natural Weapon feat.
Even though the rules explicitly state that a monk's Unarmed Strikes are natural weapons?

For the purposes of spells and effects. . .

Only the 3.5 FAQ labeled feats as effects q:


meabolex wrote:
Zurai wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
but as far as I'm concerned, unarmed strikes (be they from monks or anything else) are not natural weapons and thus cannot benefit from the Improved Natural Weapon feat.
Even though the rules explicitly state that a monk's Unarmed Strikes are natural weapons?

For the purposes of spells and effects. . .

Only the 3.5 FAQ labeled feats as effects q:

If we're not considering feats to be effects, then half-elves and half-orcs cannot take any feats that require them to be elves or orcs, which is clearly not intended.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Zurai wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
but as far as I'm concerned, unarmed strikes (be they from monks or anything else) are not natural weapons and thus cannot benefit from the Improved Natural Weapon feat.
Even though the rules explicitly state that a monk's Unarmed Strikes are natural weapons?

Again... I'm not the guy who's the most familiar with the rules. I'm CLOSE, but Jason's the one who's the expert. He might rule differently, and might use those rules as an example, but that's not how I interpreted things. Given time and thought about the matter, I might change my tune.

In any event, I apologize for trying to clear things up. Sounds like the best bet is to simply be patient and wait for the official errata or rules FAQ to address the issue if you're not comfortable using my suggestions or grandfathering in 3.5 rulings.


Zurai wrote:
meabolex wrote:
Zurai wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
but as far as I'm concerned, unarmed strikes (be they from monks or anything else) are not natural weapons and thus cannot benefit from the Improved Natural Weapon feat.
Even though the rules explicitly state that a monk's Unarmed Strikes are natural weapons?

For the purposes of spells and effects. . .

Only the 3.5 FAQ labeled feats as effects q:

If we're not considering feats to be effects, then half-elves and half-orcs cannot take any feats that require them to be elves or orcs, which is clearly not intended.

Do you have any examples? Looking at the Races of the Wild and Races of Destiny from the 3.5 perspective, if a feat requires you to be an elf, you have to be an elf -- you can't be a half-elf and qualify unless it says so.


James Jacobs wrote:
Zurai wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
but as far as I'm concerned, unarmed strikes (be they from monks or anything else) are not natural weapons and thus cannot benefit from the Improved Natural Weapon feat.
Even though the rules explicitly state that a monk's Unarmed Strikes are natural weapons?

Again... I'm not the guy who's the most familiar with the rules. I'm CLOSE, but Jason's the one who's the expert. He might rule differently, and might use those rules as an example, but that's not how I interpreted things. Given time and thought about the matter, I might change my tune.

In any event, I apologize for trying to clear things up. Sounds like the best bet is to simply be patient and wait for the official errata or rules FAQ to address the issue if you're not comfortable using my suggestions or grandfathering in 3.5 rulings.

James, you shouldn't have to apologize on your own board about trying to help. Sheesh, I haven't always agreed with what you've said, but it's *rough* being the "sage" role (intentionally or unintentionally) and I respect that.

In this case, the 3.5 FAQ is working against you -- as it has worked against a lot of players -- by "clarifying" rules with definitions and pronouncements that are at best logical and at worst arbitrary. The FAQ and Rules of the Game articles are practically essential reading to playing 3.5 over long periods of time. . . which I think is terrible. Why should I have to read a huge, messy document in combination with a large article series to have a good command of the rules?


meabolex wrote:
Do you have any examples? Looking at the Races of the Wild and Races of Destiny from the 3.5 perspective, if a feat requires you to be an elf, you have to be an elf -- you can't be a half-elf and qualify unless it says so.

I have to turn that back on you: Do you have any examples? There's nothing in RotW that says half-elves don't qualify as elves for the elven feats, and IIRC there's a 3.5 FAQ ruling that half-elves qualify as elves and half-orcs qualify as orcs for feats (just as there's a 3.5 FAQ ruling that Improved Natural Attack works for monks). This isn't a failing of the system; it's intended design that half-foos qualify as foos for all purposes.


Zurai wrote:
meabolex wrote:
Do you have any examples? Looking at the Races of the Wild and Races of Destiny from the 3.5 perspective, if a feat requires you to be an elf, you have to be an elf -- you can't be a half-elf and qualify unless it says so.
I have to turn that back on you: Do you have any examples? There's nothing in RotW that says half-elves don't qualify as elves for the elven feats, and IIRC there's a 3.5 FAQ ruling that half-elves qualify as elves and half-orcs qualify as orcs for feats (just as there's a 3.5 FAQ ruling that Improved Natural Attack works for monks). This isn't a failing of the system; it's intended design that half-foos qualify as foos for all purposes.

I can't find the FAQ ruling you're mentioning -- in the 3.5 FAQ or in the 3.0 FAQ or in the 3.5 monster FAQ.

Since there's very little to go in the PF world in regard to racial feats, there's simply not enough information either way.

However, without argument, the 3.5 FAQ defined feats AS effects. A feat can have effects. But the FAQ 3.5 implies it is an effect itself. Here's how:

1) To get Improved Natural Attack, you must have a natural weapon to apply it to.

2) The monk description says that unarmed strikes are natural weapons for the purposes of spells or effects.

3) The 3.5 FAQ says a monk's unarmed strike qualifies for the feat (implying the unarmed strike satisfies the prerequisites and considers the unarmed strike as a natural weapon to work on).

4) For the monk's unarmed strike to qualify, it must be a natural weapon.

5) Since a monk's unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for the purposes of spells or effects, the feat must be either a spell or effect.

6) A feat is not a spell (A spell is a one-time magical effect).

7) A feat is an effect.

A feat can produce effects, but is it an effect itself? Just searching through the listing of feats in the PRD, it doesn't seem like a feat is an effect. Feats can produce effects, but they aren't effects themselves.

Looking at the text from Weapon Focus:

PRD wrote:
Special: You can gain this feat multiple times. Its effects do not stack. Each time you take the feat, it applies to a new type of weapon.

A feat's effects are distinct from a feat itself; a producer isn't necessarily what it produces. There's nothing to indicate in any rules that a feat is an effect *EXCEPT* in the FAQ.


meabolex wrote:
grasshopper_ea wrote:
I am not a math wiz, but I'm not terrible at it either. With a quick glance I think you'll find power attack > improved natural attack and a monk power attacking with a quarter staff will do more damage and have more options for weapon enhancement than a monk using improved natural attack, and the enhancements will cost less.

Are you looking at the progressions for large monks?

At the level 7, a monk deals 2d6 damage instead of 1d8. This is an average damage increase of 2.5, which is better than Weapon Specialization. Power Attack confers a hit penalty for damage -- this is just pure damage with no penalty. At level 16, the feat gives 1d8 (4.5) extra base weapon damage -- that's more damage than Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Specialization combined. . . for a single feat taken at level 7. When is one feat better than two that do essentially the same thing and have higher prerequisites? Does the monk really need this "help"?

Also, don't forget the monk's robe (used to be monk's belt). This item is relatively easy to get at level 10, and it increases damage by an increased amount relative to the feat. So the feat and the item increase in effectiveness because of each other. At 12th level, if you have the robe and the feat, the damage goes from 2d6 (7) to 3d8 (13.5) - a damage increase of 6.5 -- a d12 of extra base weapon damage. As levels increase, both the item and the feat provide more damage.

This feat also works quite well with the Vital Strike feats.

We're not even counting things like permanent enlarge person, which makes damage output significantly greater (and increases the effectiveness of both the feat and the robe). Yes, it can be dispelled. . . but it's relatively easy/cheap to recast at the level you can use it.

In short, it's just too good as one feat and officially it's unintended in PF.

Dag nabbit I knew I shouldn't have said anything cause the minute I do I'll have to do math. I'm using your numbers for the monk Level 12 2d6 (7) 3d8 (13.5) level 12 monk with regular quarterstaff powerattacking 1d6 + 6(9 on flurry if you read it as flurry ups a monks BAB for purposes of power attack) so that's an average of 9.5 or 12.5 without any strength added or magic enhancements, and it's cheapter to enhance a weapon than to get a amulet of mighty fists. Add a 50 gp oil of shillelagh and the regular quarterstaff becomes 2d6+1 and damage goes to ave 14(17 flurry) and you have the added benefit of being able to use power attack with kama's or other weapons to overcome different DR's where your investment in natural weapons sticks you with just your unarmed strikes. Also there are enemies you just don't want to touch, because you don't want them all over your hand.

he also doesn't have to purchase the robes and could put another item in that slot or enhance his weapon more. You will also notice on the monk unarmed table everywhere his damage increases, it's typically about when he could afford to further enhance his weapon.

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

meabolex wrote:
Anything that is absolutely essential to take is most likely broken.

It certainly wasn't broken. I built a spreadsheet in 3.5 using every available option for a Monk to improve his combat, and even with INA, FotF, SUS, Monk's Belt, FoB he still didn't exceed the average damage of a generic Greatsword Fighter with a +1 Greatsword until 11th level.

INA contributed very little to the Monk is actual average damage.

James Jacobs wrote:

1) Gamers will debate the intent of rules no matter what.

2) Expecting Paizo to handle things the same way as WotC does is unrealistic.

3) as far as I'm concerned, unarmed strikes (be they from monks or anything else) are not natural weapons and thus cannot benefit from the Improved Natural Weapon feat.

You missed all my points.

1) Gamers don't debate when the Errata disagrees with them.

2) I sure hope Paizo doesn't handle things like WotC, which is to say does nothing. (WotC didn't do anything to fix these issues.)

3) I don't care how it is ruled in errata or in "FAQ that says it should be considered Errata." I just care that it is ruled one way or another and which ever way it is rules is how I will use it in games I play/run.

meabolex wrote:
A feat's effects are distinct from a feat itself; a producer isn't necessarily what it produces. There's nothing to indicate in any rules that a feat is an effect *EXCEPT* in the FAQ.

Devil's Argument, the Monk class ability makes Unarmed Strikes a type of Natural Weapon so when you take the Feat INA Unarmed Strikes, it applies to a Natural Weapon just like Claws. So it isn't the INA noticing the Feat is an effect as much as the Class ability creating a new never before seen Natural Weapon.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
James Risner wrote:
1) Gamers don't debate when the Errata disagrees with them.

Said as the two of you debate. :)

Remember, there are people that go by the book and only the book, errata be damned.

Dark Archive

Zurai wrote:


Mmmm, well, depends on how you read the rules.

1. Improved Natural Attack says it can be applied to any natural attack.
2. The definition of natural attack on page 182 of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook says that a natural attack is any attack made with a natural weapon. Furthermore, page 301 of the Bestiary states that a natural attack is any attack made without a weapon and page 302 lists an "Other" category on the natural attacks chart.
3. The monk's Unarmed Strike class feature states that "a monk's unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for the purpose of effects that enhance or improve natural weapons".
4. Thus, a monk's Unarmed Strike is a natural weapon.
5. Thus, any attack made with a monk's Unarmed Strike is a natural attack.
6. Thus, Improved Natural Attack applies to a monk's Unarmed Strike.

going from 3 to 4 seems a bit tricky.

How one can state that a feat is an effect that "enhance or improve natural weapons" ?

Anyhow ... Mr Jacobs kindly gives us an idea of how it SHOULD be.

and "This is it". MErci Mister Jacobs !

Now play as you like...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Chewbacca wrote:

going from 3 to 4 seems a bit tricky.

How one can state that a feat is an effect that "enhance or improve natural weapons" ?

I wonder how you can state that a feat does not improve a natural weapon when it increases the damage die of the natural weapon.

It is a minor issue we could argue forever I'm sure. :)

Dark Archive

I have to say that the rules as intended seem to lean towards not counting a monk's unarmed strike as a natural weapon for the purposes of taking feats. If it intended that it should, I believe it would have not included the spells and effects qualifier. Feats may be an "effect" on your character. However, taking a feat is not an "effect" on your character. It is outside the rp'd game. It's like saying that rolling a die is an effect on your character. While the feat has an in game effect on your char, the feat itself is not an effect.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I feel your argument is a bit shaky. The feat states you can take it if you have a natural weapon. The monk's unarmed strike is considered a natural weapon for effects that improve it. The only argument I see is that the strike is not an actual natural attack, so therefore you do not qualify.

Of course, the easiest way to rule against this feat is, 'I am not allowing it in my game.' :)


James Risner wrote:
INA contributed very little to the Monk is actual average damage.

Using that reasoning, I suppose Weapon Specialization and Improved Weapon Specialization contribute very little to a dual-wielding fighter's average damage? What's the justification that a low-prereq single feat contributes more over time to a single value than 2 high-prereq feats that contribute to the same value?

Quote:
Devil's Argument, the Monk class ability makes Unarmed Strikes a type of Natural Weapon so when you take the Feat INA Unarmed Strikes, it applies to a Natural Weapon just like Claws. So it isn't the INA noticing the Feat is an effect as much as the Class ability creating a new never before seen Natural Weapon.

If you're treated as a ghoul for the purposes of Halloween, does that mean you are actually a ghoul?

Unarmed strikes are never called a natural weapon at any point. Claws are definitely called natural weapons. For the purposes of spells and effects, if there is a question that asks "is this a natural weapon?" then the answer is yes. For *ALL OTHER PURPOSES*, it is not a natural weapon. For the purposes of qualifying for feat prerequisites, the monk's unarmed strike doesn't count as a natural weapon. Would you argue that feat prerequisites are effects? q:


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Of course, the easiest way to rule against this feat is, 'I am not allowing it in my game.' :)

That's the general way it's done. Most DMs ask themselves the very basic question: "If this feat was really intended to be taken by PCs, why is it in the MM?" Perhaps because the feat wasn't intended for PCs? q:

Dark Archive

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Chewbacca wrote:

going from 3 to 4 seems a bit tricky.

How one can state that a feat is an effect that "enhance or improve natural weapons" ?

I wonder how you can state that a feat does not improve a natural weapon when it increases the damage die of the natural weapon.

It is a minor issue we could argue forever I'm sure. :)

For sure yes :D but I would stop much before because I don't like arguments ... I am just being picky because I thought the way of thinking was not very good. but hey ... That's probably just me.

Anyhow, Mister JAcobs said NO you can't. And even for a non-english speaker, that is pretty straight-forward ;o)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

SO!

After taking a day or so to think it over, reading over the rules, and chatting with Jason, I'm FLIP FLOPPING!

It looks like, yes indeed, a monk can take the Improved Natural Attack feat to boost his unarmed strike damage. This isn't yet OFFICIAL errata; Jason's still got to mull it over in his head a bit and run some numbers or something.

My only real lingering problem with this feat is that it kind of feels the same way that Natural Spell does for druids... only even more so. It's a feat that a monk more or less HAS to take because it's so easy to qualify for and so perfect for a monk. A single-classed monk qualifies for the feat at 6th level... so he'll take it at 7th level and, basically, go from 1d8 damage to 2d6 damage at 7th level, then at 8th level goes up to 2d8 damage... which other monks don't get access to until 16th level. It skews the unarmed damage numbers pretty potently, in other words, sine the damage progression for a monk's unarmed damage does not precisely follow that for the Improved Natural Attack (because it was designed not for monks but for monsters).

So, if your comfortable with an 8th level monk doing unarmed damage that he'd normally have to wait until 16th level to achieve, go for it. I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with that in my games, is all.


James Jacobs wrote:

SO!

After taking a day or so to think it over, reading over the rules, and chatting with Jason, I'm FLIP FLOPPING!

It looks like, yes indeed, a monk can take the Improved Natural Attack feat to boost his unarmed strike damage. This isn't yet OFFICIAL errata; Jason's still got to mull it over in his head a bit and run some numbers or something.

My only real lingering problem with this feat is that it kind of feels the same way that Natural Spell does for druids... only even more so. It's a feat that a monk more or less HAS to take because it's so easy to qualify for and so perfect for a monk. A single-classed monk qualifies for the feat at 6th level... so he'll take it at 7th level and, basically, go from 1d8 damage to 2d6 damage at 7th level, then at 8th level goes up to 2d8 damage... which other monks don't get access to until 16th level. It skews the unarmed damage numbers pretty potently, in other words, sine the damage progression for a monk's unarmed damage does not precisely follow that for the Improved Natural Attack (because it was designed not for monks but for monsters).

So, if your comfortable with an 8th level monk doing unarmed damage that he'd normally have to wait until 16th level to achieve, go for it. I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with that in my games, is all.

I still think a monk with a quarterstaff power attacking is going to do more damage if they are even close to proper wealth. And like I said earlier, you don't want to touch every enemy because some of them are gross, and you're locked into one damage type with this feat unless you allow splatbook stuff to get slashing/piercing. You also don't have access to cold iron/silver though adamantine can be achieved. All in all I would say it is pretty balanced. For a weapon finesse monk this would be definately worth it.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 2 people marked this as a favorite.

HA!

And I'm flip flopping AGAIN!

Jason crunched his numbers and the official errata is this—the Improved Natural Attack feat can not be applied to unarmed strike. We'll be issuing an errata for that feat that adds this sentence to the feat:

"Improved Natural Attack can not be applied to unarmed strikes."

Unarmed strikes ARE still treated as natural weapons for most effects (particularly for the spell magic fang and for amulets of magic fang), but the Improved Natural Attack feat is an exception to that rule.

So! There ya go! Official errata! Sorry it took so long to nail it down.


grasshopper_ea wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

SO!

After taking a day or so to think it over, reading over the rules, and chatting with Jason, I'm FLIP FLOPPING!

It looks like, yes indeed, a monk can take the Improved Natural Attack feat to boost his unarmed strike damage. This isn't yet OFFICIAL errata; Jason's still got to mull it over in his head a bit and run some numbers or something.

My only real lingering problem with this feat is that it kind of feels the same way that Natural Spell does for druids... only even more so. It's a feat that a monk more or less HAS to take because it's so easy to qualify for and so perfect for a monk. A single-classed monk qualifies for the feat at 6th level... so he'll take it at 7th level and, basically, go from 1d8 damage to 2d6 damage at 7th level, then at 8th level goes up to 2d8 damage... which other monks don't get access to until 16th level. It skews the unarmed damage numbers pretty potently, in other words, sine the damage progression for a monk's unarmed damage does not precisely follow that for the Improved Natural Attack (because it was designed not for monks but for monsters).

So, if your comfortable with an 8th level monk doing unarmed damage that he'd normally have to wait until 16th level to achieve, go for it. I'm not sure I'd be comfortable with that in my games, is all.

I still think a monk with a quarterstaff power attacking is going to do more damage if they are even close to proper wealth. And like I said earlier, you don't want to touch every enemy because some of them are gross, and you're locked into one damage type with this feat unless you allow splatbook stuff to get slashing/piercing. You also don't have access to cold iron/silver though adamantine can be achieved. All in all I would say it is pretty balanced. For a weapon finesse monk this would be definately worth it.

What he said. Without Improved Natural Attack (which, honestly, IS like natural spell for druids, they just don't work well without it, but druids can survive better without their equivalent) a Monk really can't impact level appropriate challenges.

My experience with PF isn't that great, but I can assure you from my 3.5 days, if you're using a monk and by level 20 aren't dishing out at least 6d8 damage (improved natural attack + enlarge person = easy and core) you really aren't doing your job in combat.


James Jacobs wrote:

HA!

And I'm flip flopping AGAIN!

Jason crunched his numbers and the official errata is this—the Improved Natural Attack feat can not be applied to unarmed strike. We'll be issuing an errata for that feat that adds this sentence to the feat:

"Improved Natural Attack can not be applied to unarmed strikes."

Unarmed strikes ARE still treated as natural weapons for most effects (particularly for the spell magic fang and for amulets of magic fang), but the Improved Natural Attack feat is an exception to that rule.

So! There ya go! Official errata! Sorry it took so long to nail it down.

LOL,

No worries, as long as we get official errata instead of vague handwaving 'well, it's this, except that's not an official response so don't ask us again' sort of stuff like we got from WoTC everyone can live with it taking awhile. Better a good thought out answer than an off the cuff game muckerupper. :)

That having been said, you could have also fixed it by adding the line :

If this feat is applied to unarmed attacks, increase the damage instead using the Monk's unarmed progression. Which would have allowed the monk to take it and only boosted his damage dice one level on his chart instead of 2-3. :)

Sorry, had to throw some liquid on the fire. Just not sure if it was water or napalm. ;)


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
mdt wrote:
No worries, as long as we get official errata instead of vague handwaving 'well, it's this, except that's not an official response so don't ask us again' sort of stuff like we got from WoTC everyone can live with it taking awhile. Better a good thought out answer than an off the cuff game muckerupper. :)

+1. I'm fine with it. I'll be houseruling it in my games, but it's good to have an actual official answer regardless. It's also worth noting that the official answer does seem to imply that feats are considered effects, because otherwise INA wouldn't need errata (it would be a rules clarification that feats are not considered effects, instead).


lmao, yeah, I'm with James, MDT, and Zurai, it's better to have an official concrete answer I dissagree with than not to have one at all and have all the arguments that follow.

Also, that line MDT proposed does work, but you would need to give a value for it to effect level 20 monks, or we just exacerbate the monk's robe problem (that is, a monk having little incentive to go to high levels because most of their value is given by an item/feat)

Honestly, from where I'm sitting the feat doesn't do anything bad for a monk, if you guys like I could run some numbers comparing a monk with it to a TWF Fighter of equivalent level.

1 to 50 of 141 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Monks and Monster Feats All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.