So, definite answer to the improved natural attack / monk question?

Hi all,
Is there a definite answer to the question of whether or not a monk can take the improved natural attack feat? I know there was a definite answer for 3.5 that said a monk could.
Thanks.

The answer from the staff at paizo was a "no you may not." This is a complete reversal from the RAW, and a stated point back in the Beta, but what can you do?

Oh yeah, ignore it and house rule it... problem solved! :D

Yah; the monk's damage progression is its own thing, and allowing Improved Natural Weapon to mess with it kinda throws balance off.

On top of that, an unarmed strike isn't technically a natural weapon anyway; it's merely the training to attack with some part of your body not intended to be a weapon.

Anyway, if you don't like the ruling, houserule away! :-)

Thanks. Much appreciated. I was inclined to say no, but one of my players was getting a bit stubborn about it and was getting irritating pushing his point.

I don't agree with the ruling, and the monk needs all the help it can get. It is not overpowering for a monk to have it.

PS:Thanks James for clarifying it again though. You guys need a vacation.

Wow.

A monk taking this Feat once would be bad... two would be off the chain levels of ugly.

Wow.

A monk taking this Feat once would be bad... two would be off the chain levels of ugly.

it doesn't stack with itself, but yeh...i'm with you on that.

In the same vein, as I read the rules, a monk/druid abomination cannot flurry of blows with the natural attacks gained while wild shaping.

In the same vein, as I read the rules, a monk/druid abomination cannot flurry of blows with the natural attacks gained while wild shaping.

agreed.

Core p.58 wrote: nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his
flurry of blows attacks.

Core p.149 wrote: Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Chapter 8).

Core p.182 wrote: You can make attacks with natural weapons in
combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes...

Bruno Kristensen wrote:

In the same vein, as I read the rules, a monk/druid abomination cannot flurry of blows with the natural attacks gained while wild shaping.

agreed.

Core p.58 wrote: nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his
flurry of blows attacks.

Core p.149 wrote: Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Chapter 8).

Core p.182 wrote: You can make attacks with natural weapons in
combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes...

Page 58 and 182 seem to contradict each other. I never noticed that. A monk's unarmed strike was removed from being a natural weapon, but how is a monk supposed to bypass DR. He can go to monk weapons, but they are subpar. The monk has enough gimpness that this change was not necessary. Oh well. Maybe the advanced player's guide can make things better.

Core p.149 wrote: Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Chapter 8).

MOST unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons, monk is the exception.

Core P.58 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.

Regular Unarmed Strikes are not Natural attacks, Monks Unarmed Strikes are.

Now if James had not specifically said NO to improved natural attack it would be fine. I disagree with his ruling but his rulings are official.

And Improved Natural Attack is minor... Greater Mighty Wallop is where it is at :) (which due to the line I quoted would still be legal)

No it is not. Treated as a natural weapon and is a natural weapon are not the same thing.

No it is not. Treated as a natural weapon and is a natural weapon are not the same thing.

My point is there is a difference between a monks unarmed strike and a fighter's unarmed strike even if he buys Improved unarmed strike.

For example the spell "Magic Weapon" or "Magic Fang" will work on a monk where for a fighter only "Magic Fang" would work.

Now Improved natural attack is an effect (A permanent effect caused by a feat but still an effect) and the monks unarmed strikes are counted as natural weapons for effects that increase them.

However James has alread offically stated that in this case it will not work.

Can always fall back on 'its in the Monstrous Compendium, so its for monsters' line :p

Tanis wrote:

Core p.58 wrote: nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his
flurry of blows attacks.

Core p.149 wrote: Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Chapter 8).

Core p.182 wrote: You can make attacks with natural weapons in
combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes...

Page 58 and 182 seem to contradict each other. I never noticed that. A monk's unarmed strike was removed from being a natural weapon, but how is a monk supposed to bypass DR. He can go to monk weapons, but they are subpar. The monk has enough gimpness that this change was not necessary. Oh well. Maybe the advanced player's guide can make things better.

I don't think so, a monk could make attacks combining ordinary unarmed attacks and natural attacks. But he can't combine his flurry of blows special attack (class feature, specific rules beat general rules) with natural attacks. And a monk not using flurry of blows or grappling is like an archer throwing rocks :( .

A house rule I use for allowing natural weapons to be used with flurry of blows:

Flurry of Blows (Ex): Starting at 1st level, a monk can make a flurry of blows as a full-attack action. When doing so he may make one additional attack using any combination of unarmed strikes or attacks with a special monk weapon (kama, nunchaku, quarterstaff, sai, shuriken, and siangham) as if using the Two-Weapon Fighting feat (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat). For the purpose of these attacks, the monk's base attack bonus is equal to his monk level. For all other purposes, such as qualifying for a feat or a prestige class, the monk uses his normal base attack bonus.

At 8th level, the monk can make two additional attacks when he uses flurry of blows, as if using Improved Two-Weapon Fighting (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat).

At 15th level, the monk can make three additional attacks using flurry of blows, as if using Greater Two-Weapon Fighting (even if the monk does not meet the prerequisites for the feat).

A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands. A monk may substitute disarm, sunder, and trip combat maneuvers for unarmed attacks as part of a flurry of blows. A monk cannot use any weapon other than an unarmed strike or a special monk weapon as part of a flurry of blows unless the weapon has the Ki-Focus enhancement and the monk has taken the Weapon Focus feat in the chosen weapon's type. A monk with natural weapons cannot make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows attacks.

Italics are the modifications. My intention here is to allow a monk with a Amulet of Mighty Fists (Ki-Focus) and Weapon Focus (Claws) to use their Claw natural attack in a flurry of blows. This also opens up the monk to being able to Flurry of Blows with a variety of non-monk weapons that have the Ki-Focus enhancement.

So, if one were to houserule that Improved Natural Attack affected monk's flurry of blows damage, what would the progression look like? Just curious. Thanks!

So, if one were to houserule that Improved Natural Attack affected monk's flurry of blows damage, what would the progression look like? Just curious. Thanks!

Flurry of Blows affects BAB (To Hit), the Improved Natural Attack Feat affects damage dice (how much damage is dealt). I'm sure someone has done DPS calculations determining what the effective DPS increase against a standardized test target is.

So, if one were to houserule that Improved Natural Attack affected monk's flurry of blows damage, what would the progression look like? Just curious. Thanks!

Progression:

Awesome. Thanks, Majuba!

Dosgamer wrote:

So, if one were to houserule that Improved Natural Attack affected monk's flurry of blows damage, what would the progression look like? Just curious. Thanks!

Progression:

** spoiler omitted **

That is just...UGLY!

Now I see why Jams says no.

So the Monk spending three of his feats to deal 12d8, or 18d8 if the DM is nice, once per round at 19th level is broken?

Majuba wrote:

Dosgamer wrote:

So, if one were to houserule that Improved Natural Attack affected monk's flurry of blows damage, what would the progression look like? Just curious. Thanks!

Progression:

** spoiler omitted **

That is just...UGLY!

Now I see why Jams says no.

4d8 is only 17.6 points of damage per hit. A low level fighter can do that, and improved vital strike would bring it up to 52ish for only one hit since vital strike only allows for on attack.

Maybe.

I think it looks 'too good' to be honest, but if there was suggestion that this was to be allowed I would have to allow it the benefit of a close side by side DPS shootout or similar.

Just the 4d8 base to work off seems nasty.

4d8 seven times might be for most games , not counting all the other goodies they get. Just a bit unbalanced and would not be allowed in games I run

Maybe.

I think it looks 'too good' to be honest, but if there was suggestion that this was to be allowed I would have to allow it the benefit of a close side by side DPS shootout or similar.

Just the 4d8 base to work off seems nasty.

It looks really good until you do the average on damage, and you realize its not all that great. You have to remember most monks go with dex so there is no strength mod to back it up, and those that dump dex will have a much lower AC, and after getting smacked a few time will not want to be in combat anymore. I have no idea how I got 17.6 in the previous post. It should be 18, not that it matters all that much.

4d8 seven times might be for most games , not counting all the other goodies they get. Just a bit unbalanced and would not be allowed in games I run

Not all those attacks will hit.

Average damage in a combat is average damage per hit X chance to hit. He will still be getting outdamaged by the fighter, and probably even a paladin that is not even smiting if the paladin focused on strength. I think the rogue will be outdamaging him also. A competent rogue anyway. The druid still does more damage. Who exactly is he out damaging other than the bard, wizard, and sorcerer. He might get the cleric, but I have not ran a battle-focused cleric yet so I dont even know if I can give him that.

Maybe.

I think it looks 'too good' to be honest, but if there was suggestion that this was to be allowed I would have to allow it the benefit of a close side by side DPS shootout or similar.

Just the 4d8 base to work off seems nasty.

Check the DPR Olympics Thread.

All of em, not likely, but having ran a group with a 25th level monk in it, he needed no help. Others may run it different but I would never allow it after seeing that.

All of em, not likely, but having ran a group with a 25th level monk in it, he needed no help. Others may run it different but I would never allow it after seeing that.

Was this pathfinder core or did you allow 3.5 splats? Some guy got it up to 64d8 a hit in 3.5, but just using INA the numbers don't lie. The monk is last in damage among melee types, except for maybe the cleric, but he does so many things he does not care.

core, with some stuff from epic handbook, 1 feat I think. Numbers in a vacuum are fine and all but do not always match at the table game play.

core, with some stuff from epic handbook, 1 feat I think. Numbers in a vacuum are fine and all but do not always match at the table game play.

However table game play varies so widely that anything from alertness to zone of truth could be either to powerful or too weak depending on the table. This does not make it the best basis for measurement in my opinion.

core, with some stuff from epic handbook, 1 feat I think. Numbers in a vacuum are fine and all but do not always match at the table game play.

I know I did not include buffs, but if anyone is getting buffed it is the guy that can do the most damage. I just don't see a monk being "the guy", but as we know play style has a lot to do with it, and you did experience it. Not much I can argue against that.

True as games varies which is way allowing something that boost the power of a class can be highly unbalancing. You can not just look at one playstyle.

If you run a homegame then ya know what works for your group, but if your paizo you can not just says "well theses guys did the math, lets ignore all the groups that it was to much for as they played different"

But yeah in that game wraithstrike, he was the guy, he couldn't fail any save on less then a 1, moved faster then anyone else and matched the fighter for damage more often then not and had the highest AC. He was a terror.

Not saying all games go like that, but if your no just dealing with your game then ya need to make a system that wont be overpowered in some plystyles. As the system is not just for your group and your playstyle .

Data is nice but ya need to take into account not all groups play the same way.

True as games varies which is way allowing something that boost the power of a class can be highly unbalancing. You can not just look at one playstyle.

If you run a homegame then ya know what works for your group, but if your paizo you can not just says "well theses guys did the math, lets ignore all the groups that it was to much for as they played different"

But yeah in that game wraithstrike, he was the guy, he couldn't fail any save on less then a 1, moved faster then anyone else and matched the fighter for damage more often then not and had the highest AC. He was a terror.

Not saying all games go like that, but if your no just dealing with your game then ya need to make a system that wont be overpowered in some plystyles. As the system is not just for your group and your playstyle .

Data is nice but ya need to take into account not all groups play the same way.

Er by that measure one can not make anything because everything could be overpowered in some group.

Not at all, you can make the game as it is. From what I have saw it works for different playstyles. I don't find the monk weak, others do. What I am saying is the "we need more power" group is always the ones wanting things boosted, when it is not needed.

If something needs boosted because all your players optimized that is not the systems doing. So if you make it so that class can now run with your rebuilt or super optimized group is is now to much for groups that do not optimize.

Fine for a homegame, bad ideal for a generic system IMO.

As it stands the system works for different playstyles. If you boost it up o match a subset of players and one type of playstyle it no longer does that.

Not at all, you can make the game as it is. From what I have saw it works for different playstyles. I don't find the monk weak, others do. What I am saying is the "we need more power" group is always the ones wanting things boosted, when it is not needed.

If something needs boosted because all your players optimized that is not the systems doing. So if you make it so that class can now run with your rebuilt or super optimized group is is now to much for groups that do not optimize.

Fine for a homegame, bad ideal for a generic system IMO.

As it stands the system works for different playstyles. If you boost it up o match a subset of players and one type of playstyle it no longer does that.

But does the system work of all playstyles as if it does not then obviously some playstyles are being excluded.

On the other hand if you are saying that the inclusion of such a thing as allowing INA to wok for monks unarmed strikes will make the game no longer work for different playstyles which would mean that it would work for one and only one playstyle I would say you are over estimating the impact of such a change.

On the third hand perhaps you are not explaining what you mean in a way I can understand.

The monk performs pretty well in the DPR olympics - my build nets him:

Full-round flurry with ki-point, DPR: 60.83
Full-round flurry after scaring, with ki point, DPR: 75.05

Sure that is "top heavy" (with tremendous focus on producing damage) - but as a base line to form a more playable character; it is very sweet.

And in terms of buffs - the monk is one of the best classes to buff due to the sheer number of attacks he can pull of. If there is anything that the DPR olympics show, it is that a great number of attacks makes all the difference in the world.

I think the best judge of if INA is too much for your game is to see the actual damage numbers it adds to your game.

If you find Monks doing 12-96 damage before bonuses on a Vital Strike at 20th level too much, you should not allow Monks to take INA.

Me personally, I find Vital Striking for 6-60 at 20th level not that impressive.

WWWW
Well if your playstsyle is dependent on optimization all classes are not gonna meet your expectations and no ruleset is gonna work for you out of the box. I my not be explaining it well so i'll leave it at that.

TOZ
I can not recall build but he was pulling off about 20 or better per hit. and laying down about 100 per round...my poor, poor dragons. Wish I still had his sheet but that was 4 OR 5 years back now The averages y'all uses just never match up with what I see, which is why I do not put stock in the whole DPR stuff. As it just never matches what I see in game and does not take into account the whole just one part of the combat so it's kinda useless in a real game at times.

TOZ

I can not recall build but he was pulling off about 20 or better per hit. and laying down about 100 per round...my poor, poor dragons. Wish I still had his sheet but that was 4 OR 5 years back now The averages y'all uses just never match up with what I see, which is why I do not put stock in the whole DPR stuff. As it just never matches what I see in game and does not take into account the whole just one part of the combat so it's kinda useless in a real game at times.

Well, that's why we use a RNG, otherwise things would be predictable. Good rolls are an aberration that only happens at the game table. He could easily have been a laughing stock with bad rolls all the time.

Even with bad rolls he outdamanged most the group,but it wasn't damage so much as the inability to hit or hurt him. wish I could recall more but really can't.

Seems every thread I go in suffers from Dice Blindness :|

4d8 is 18 damage. Know what outdamages that? A simple fighter.

18 strength, power attack, falchion - yes, not even the most damaging weapon? That's 14 damage at level 1. At level one you almost match that horrifying damage you're so angry about.

Yes, throwing down a lot of dice is really flashy and cool looking. But you need to look beyond that and see what the dice actually MEAN. Will the monk do a lot of damage? Sure! He still won't beat the fighter, unless he's burning all of his ki and put all his points into strength. At which point, congrats, you're a warrior with low health, terrible AC, and no sustainability. How powerful of you.

Seems every thread I go in suffers from Dice Blindness :|

4d8 is 18 damage. Know what outdamages that? A simple fighter.

18 strength, power attack, falchion - yes, not even the most damaging weapon? That's 14 damage at level 1.

Which he does... once.

4d8 as a base, plus anything else they add.
Whats the base die for a 'simple fighter' and his weapon?

Which he does... once.

4d8 as a base, plus anything else they add.
Whats the base die for a 'simple fighter' and his weapon?

8d4. 2d4 falchion x4 for Greater Vital Strike. If he doesn't Enlarge, or have Large size already.

Shifty wrote:

Which he does... once.

4d8 as a base, plus anything else they add.
Whats the base die for a 'simple fighter' and his weapon?

8d4. 2d4 falchion x4 for Greater Vital Strike. If he doesn't Enlarge, or have Large size already.

So thats 2d4? The Monk can enlarge etc too.

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Shifty wrote:

Which he does... once.

4d8 as a base, plus anything else they add.
Whats the base die for a 'simple fighter' and his weapon?

8d4. 2d4 falchion x4 for Greater Vital Strike. If he doesn't Enlarge, or have Large size already.

So thats 2d4? The Monk can enlarge etc too.

So wait, we're comparing a 20th level Monk to a 1st level Fighter?

ProfessorCirno wrote:

Seems every thread I go in suffers from Dice Blindness :|

4d8 is 18 damage. Know what outdamages that? A simple fighter.

18 strength, power attack, falchion - yes, not even the most damaging weapon? That's 14 damage at level 1.

Which he does... once.

4d8 as a base, plus anything else they add.
Whats the base die for a 'simple fighter' and his weapon?

I just told you. A level one fighter with just his weapon? 14 damage a swing. That's not including his much better crit rate, either, and this is a melee fighter, not the much more damaging archer fighter.

Even if the monk goes all out on strength, the fighter gains 1 1/2 to the monk's 1. The fighter ALSO gets power attack to go with it.

If the monk burns ki, yes, he might be outdamaging the fighter. But his health and his AC are nonexistant. His stunning fist DC is low. And he has no tricks like cleave or lunge.

You're putting way too much emphasis on dice rolling. Modifiers are just as, if not more, important.

Shifty wrote:

TriOmegaZero wrote:

Shifty wrote:

Which he does... once.

4d8 as a base, plus anything else they add.
Whats the base die for a 'simple fighter' and his weapon?

8d4. 2d4 falchion x4 for Greater Vital Strike. If he doesn't Enlarge, or have Large size already.

So thats 2d4? The Monk can enlarge etc too.

So wait, we're comparing a 20th level Monk to a 1st level Fighter?

I think he's trying to prove that, in a weird game where modifiers don't exist, the monk wins.

The only problem is, these forums are for Pathfinder, not his weird "no modifier" variant.

I think he was making the point your using mods for the fighter while only using monks base.