turkishproverb's page

13 posts. No reviews. 1 list. No wishlists.




1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
Quote:

Q: Can a monk take Improved Natural Attack to increase his unarmed strike damage?

A: (James Jacobs/Jason Bulmahn 11/4/09) 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.

[Source]

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.

Can someone please explain the twisted logic that went into this decision?

I mean, I can understand, agreement or not, the idea of giving a buff to wizards (Free metamagic) when as were in 3.5 form they were enough to destroy most pathfinder classes left and right. I might not agree, but I can understand. If nothing else, they needed to motivate wizard players to change over with everyone else.

But actively nerfing something that was legal in 3.5 and even Paizo's own Adventures?

On a class that isn't exactly power incarnate even with the new toys it's gotten?

I really don't get it. I'm trying. I'm not obsessed with "balance" like the 4e nuts, but I really don't see the logic behind this. It wasn't overpowered, it made sense fluffwise, and it made relative sense according to the rules.

I mean, yes, there are theoretical problems (none of them broken powerful) with giving it to everyone of any class as an option, but Monks were specifically exempted for a REASON. I can't see the reason for banning them from having it in pathfinder.

So please, will someone explain?