|
The Improved Natural Attack feat from the Bestiary increases the size of your natural attack by one step, just like in 3.5. It has an additional line that it can't be applied to an unarmed strike.
The monk's improved unarmed strike says that it counts as a manufactured weapon or a natural weapon. So feats/spells that normally can only go on manufactured weapons or natural weapons can be used with their unarmed strike.
My understanding is that the generic unarmed strike every humanoid possesses does not qualify for the feat. My question is whether the monk improved unarmed strike overrides it being a generic unarmed strike.
The Improved Natural Attack feat from the Bestiary increases the size of your natural attack by one step, just like in 3.5. It has an additional line that it can't be applied to an unarmed strike.
The monk's improved unarmed strike says that it counts as a manufactured weapon or a natural weapon. So feats/spells that normally can only go on manufactured weapons or natural weapons can be used with their unarmed strike.
My understanding is that the generic unarmed strike every humanoid possesses does not qualify for the feat. My question is whether the monk improved unarmed strike overrides it being a generic unarmed strike.
Dev's have responded that no, monk's unarmed strike doesn't count for Imp Nat Attack.
It would require some search-fu to find the dev answer on the forums, but it's out there.
For what it's worth, Monks can take the feat in my campaigns. It doesn't break anything.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
My question is whether the monk improved unarmed strike overrides it being a generic unarmed strike.
IIRC that line was added in Errata to cover Monks explicitly.
I remember JB being asked if it works with a Monk and he said "after running the numbers" No it would not work for Monks.
The Improved Natural Attack feat from the Bestiary increases the size of your natural attack by one step, just like in 3.5. It has an additional line that it can't be applied to an unarmed strike.
The monk's improved unarmed strike says that it counts as a manufactured weapon or a natural weapon. So feats/spells that normally can only go on manufactured weapons or natural weapons can be used with their unarmed strike.
My understanding is that the generic unarmed strike every humanoid possesses does not qualify for the feat. My question is whether the monk improved unarmed strike overrides it being a generic unarmed strike.
The truth is, they're normally allowed to. Because in D&D 3.5, WotC had stated that, yes, Monks can take INA. A feat to increase damage die one step is not overpowered. Especially considering what the Fighters can manage.
Paizo suddenly errata'd it for no real reason other than they believed it severely broke the game. One of those,"If the feat's so good, every Monk wants it, then it needs to be stopped" kind of things. However, I saw very few Monks take the feat in my campaigns, they focused solely on other builds. I believe I've had only one player with a MOnk that took the feat.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
I saw very few Monks take the feat in my campaigns
I've played a lot of monks in my days.
I've seen a lot of others play monks.I've never seen a monk without INA Ever, since 3.0 came out.
I'd have been shocked to see a monk without INA.
There were whole threads on wizards.com on how to get as many die step increases as possible up to something like 12d8 if the DM allowed them all to stack using 3.5 rules.
Not taking it in 3.5 is the same as not taking Power Attack in 3.5 on a Fighter. It only happen when the Player intentionally wanted to cripple his character for roleplay reasons.
No one in either of my groups has ever considered taking INA. After all, the feats in the Monster Manual are for monsters, right? The thought just never occurred to us.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. It seems wrong, but monks (in 3.5, at least) need all the help they can get.
Personally, I'm on the side of allowing it.
But I do understand that some people can see it overpowered, especially when stacking it with other size-changing abilities. Why aren't those abilities treated like all bonuses are? Not stacking, I mean. It's not that difficult to tack a bonus type and voilà.
What were the "crunched numbers", anyways?
If you find INA too powerful but your players ask to take it, you might consider the following optional fluff-and-rules:
- Improved Natural Attack can be chosen to harden your skin, or elongate your nails claw-like. You choose which, and it might change your damage type. However, once chosen, you can't get rid of the feat's effects.
- INA has a visible effect (hardened scars, elongated nails, unusually bulging muscles). NPCs might react differently than normal when you face them. They might find them strange or hideous. They might pity you because they think it's a difformity. If they know about INA, they might be especially wary of you. They might forbid you entrance to places where you ought to be disarmed (some cities, the king's castle, etc) or require you to be manacled.
- Considering INA has a physical effect, it is also reasonable to apply a slight penalty on checks related to precise manipulation. You might also damage delicate objects when handling them with your rough hands.
- You might have a slight bonus to Intimidate checks, but your Diplomacy rolls will have some kind of penalty.
I personally never felt it necessary for the monk to have in a. really in a is intended for... natural weapons nor Kung Fu. the manufactured and nat weapons clause I'n the monks linevis so they can receive spells. yes they allowed it in3.5 but they also allowed twf feats with flurry in3.5 and that's a silly pathway best not trodden.
IMHO, the feat could have been left available to the monk. It's a little, no game breaking damage boost. And is FUN to use with vital strike (at least for those who love roll a lot of dice).
The only thing to consider could be that APG spell able to increase by two steps the natural Attacks, Strong Jaws. Stacked with INA and adding vital strike could bring in some damage. But nothing so weird.
It's actually quite annoying that the druid can increase the damage dice of his natural attacks, and monk cannot. :(
|
Part of the reason I'm against monks taking the feat is - I can't wrap my head around it.
I don't say this lightly, either - I've managed to figure out a way to explain Human Rogues using Power Attack with a Rapier in two hands that not only doesn't look ridiculous, but actually makes a lot of sense.
But Improved Natural Attack? I can't wrap my head around it. I see it for Gore attacks (horns are larger). I mostly see it for Claws (claws are longer and sharper; only trick is how the monster pulls them back in). I have some trouble with Bite Attacks (teeth are bigger? sharper? how does it chew without killing itself?). Unarmed Strikes just don't make sense. It's more than just "I punch a lot so my bones are harder" - that's what the Monk damage bonus represents.
The feat isn't broken or overpowered, and if monks were allowed to take it by RAW I'd find a way to cope (like the bite).
I'd just like it to make sense, is all.
Part of the reason I'm against monks taking the feat is - I can't wrap my head around it.
I don't say this lightly, either - I've managed to figure out a way to explain Human Rogues using Power Attack with a Rapier in two hands that not only doesn't look ridiculous, but actually makes a lot of sense.
But Improved Natural Attack? I can't wrap my head around it. I see it for Gore attacks (horns are larger). I mostly see it for Claws (claws are longer and sharper; only trick is how the monster pulls them back in). I have some trouble with Bite Attacks (teeth are bigger? sharper? how does it chew without killing itself?). Unarmed Strikes just don't make sense. It's more than just "I punch a lot so my bones are harder" - that's what the Monk damage bonus represents.
The feat isn't broken or overpowered, and if monks were allowed to take it by RAW I'd find a way to cope (like the bite).
I'd just like it to make sense, is all.
Like it made sense anyway.
That's no reason not to start.I'd just like it to make sense, is all.Like it made sense anyway.
But it is a reason not to say "You can't do that!"
That's what silly and arbitrary arguments from the devs are for.
No one in either of my groups has ever considered taking INA. After all, the feats in the Monster Manual are for monsters, right? The thought just never occurred to us.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. It seems wrong, but monks (in 3.5, at least) need all the help they can get.
I'll save it for another thread, but Craft construct is a monster feat too. Doesn't mean a player coluldn't take it with DM permission.
Although I don't think a monk could take the feat in question. If another character had a natural attack they could. maybe an orc with a bite attack.
Minor point, the feat doesn't actually make the natural weapons bigger. Only changes the damage dice used. So if anything, it is just the subject being naturally better at causing damage, not having a harder, bigger weapon.
Exactly. In that case you can just say that the training made his body a better weapon. Strike harder, making his limb like stone or wood by training or whatelse.
Something I havent seen mentioned but I believe is relative to this discussion is how unarmed attacks are treated for monks. An unarmed attack for a monk doesnt simply mean his hands. Any part of his body can be considered his attack. His hands, feet, knees, elbows, headbutt, etc.
The INA feat specifically says a specific attack must be chosen when the feat is chosen. So if the feat were allowed the monk would have to choose a specific body part. That itself brings up further concerns during combat such as hands free, etc.
The attack would be "monk unarmed strike". An exception is an exception. Any part of the monk's body is a weapon, every part is enhanced. The difference is relevant for different attacks - a gore is not a bite, and so on. In this case, it would just be the same. I really can't see the issue.
From Flurry of Blows: "A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows attacks."
So if a monk takes INA, he can no longer use Flurry of Blows with it. :P
Here is a comparison of damage progression over 20 levels between a Monk and a Fighter. Both have 20 Str, both have Power Attack.
The Monk has INA, the Fighter is taking Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Specialization, along with his weapon training, etc. The Fighter is armed with a mundane greatsword the whole time.
Level [Monk] {Fighter}
1 [11.5] {16}
2 [11.5] {16}
3 [11.5] {16}
4 [16] {20}
5 [16] {21}
6 [16] {21}
7 [16] {21}
8 [21] {25}
9 [21] {26}
10 [21] {26}
11 [21] {26}
12 [24.5] {30}
13 [24.5] {31}
14 [24.5] {31}
15 [24.5] {31}
16 [30.5] {34}
17 [30.5] {35}
18 [30.5] {35}
19 [30.5] {35}
20 [37] {37}As you can see, the Monk is lagging behind the whole time until 20th level. None of this takes into account magic items, which will favor the Fighter more than the Monk.
I'm assuming those numbers are based only on damage done by a single attack. If so, they're not very useful, because of Flurry of Blows. A monk is always going to have more attacks than a greatsword-wielding fighter, and at least two (and up to five) of them are going to be at full BAB, whereas the fighter only gets two at full BAB at best.
I've re-run your numbers below, based on a single full attack from a monk and the greatsword-wielding fighter, assuming all hits hit and none crit. I've also added an INW-monk column:
Monk Fighter INW Monk
1 21 17.5 23
2 21 17.5 23
3 21 17.5 23
4 27 22.5 32
5 27 23.5 32
6 40.5 47 48
7 40.5 47 48
8 66 53 80
9 66 55 80
10 66 55 80
11 82.5 82.5 100
12 100 97.5 117.5
13 100 100.5 117.5
14 100 100.5 117.5
15 120 100.5 141
16 168 146 199.5
17 168 150 199.5
18 168 150 199.5
19 168 150 199.5
20 196 162 245
INW makes a big difference now, doesn't it? Note that these numbers are using some unrealistic assumptions - the fighter is going to crit more, with the 19-20 weapon; he's going to hit more because his attack roll is going to be 7 higher than the monk (4 weapon training, 1 Greater Weapon Focus, and the monk has -2 for flurrying); he can put all his stats into strength, whereas the monk is more MAD; and weapon enchants are cheaper for the fighter. Nonetheless, assuming a perfect attack sequence, monks win. Especially if they throw in a stunning strike, and then follow it up by triggering medusa's wrath for two extra attacks.
If chance to it is not assumed DPR should be calculated then. Assume all the attacks of the monk hit..is not the right way to judge the thing, IMHO.
why compare it to a sword wielding fighter? wouldn't twf fighter be appropriate?
If chance to it is not assumed DPR should be calculated then. Assume all the attacks of the monk hit..is not the right way to judge the thing, IMHO.
I agree completely. I was just doing it to point out the flaw in Mok's logic. If anyone's really wants it I'll do a full level-by-level DPR breakdown, against a monster with AC of a level appropriate CR (as per the table in the bestiary), but I'd rather not put that much effort into it.
The takeaway should be that monks and fighters are in the same league, until you let the monk take Improved Natural Attack (unarmed). Then the monk smokes the fighter.
why compare it to a sword wielding fighter? wouldn't twf fighter be appropriate?
Yep. As I said, I'm just refuting Mok's logic. The problem with comparing to a TWF is the choice of weapon, though - either you use two different weapons, and have to spend twice as many feats, or you're giving up damage by using a light weapon in your primary hand. So there's many more options there.
I'm playing a lvl 9 monk I'n our current game I'm not really seeing an issue her damage. basted I have 6 attacks at 14 14 14 14 9 9 for 1d8 +11 hame I doing the most damage? no the two archers do. but they can't move 90 feat jump over obstacles or disable bad guys other than by damage. tonight I disarmed on of the BBEG lieutenants and made him run away crying. the only thing really challenging is flying as I can only hit a 20 foot high jump.
I'm sure lots of people could build a stronger character but I don't really feel she needs ina though I'd be lying if I said she wouldn't benefit from it..
I'm playing a lvl 9 monk I'n our current game I'm not really seeing an issue her damage. basted I have 6 attacks at 14 14 14 14 9 9 for 1d8 +11 hame I doing the most damage? no the two archers do. but they can't move 90 feat jump over obstacles or disable bad guys other than by damage. tonight I disarmed on of the BBEG lieutenants and made him run away crying. the only thing really challenging is flying as I can only hit a 20 foot high jump.
I'm sure lots of people could build a stronger character but I don't really feel she needs ina though I'd be lying if I said she wouldn't benefit from it..
A player of mine played a dwarven monk in a similar way. A lot of nonconventional tactics and weird stuff. He did fine and had fun.
Indeed, he complained a bit for he lack of the "Gretaer" version of feats like Improved Trip among the bonus feats of the class.
I do not think the Monk is not fun or useful withou INA, but people used to take the feat before.
yeah, they did. but I'n 3.5 they allowed ALOT of things they cannot do now. the feat for monks as far as what the feat is intended for makes no sense. I have no issue wit a biting barbarian taking the feat. not be ause I favor barbarians bit I simply don't see why a feat intended to make a wolf bit harder makes a monks Kung Fu better.
I'm playing a lvl 9 monk I'n our current game I'm not really seeing an issue her damage. basted I have 6 attacks at 14 14 14 14 9 9 for 1d8 +11 hame I doing the most damage? no the two archers do. but they can't move 90 feat jump over obstacles or disable bad guys other than by damage. tonight I disarmed on of the BBEG lieutenants and made him run away crying. the only thing really challenging is flying as I can only hit a 20 foot high jump.
I'm sure lots of people could build a stronger character but I don't really feel she needs ina though I'd be lying if I said she wouldn't benefit from it..
If you're a 9th level monk you should be doing 1d10 damage, unless you're small. And if you're small, you're not optimized for damage (which is NOT a bad thing, by any means, it just means you're good at other things, like all the things you listed)
temple sword. my fist damage is 2d6. the plan is next level get I think..medusas wrath. then with haze and greater invus I'll have something like 8 attacks on stuff that cannot see me.
char has a monk robe.
the main thing is I compare my damage to 1h strikes not 2h ones. we actually have a cohort fighter at lvl 7 who does individual hits stronger than my monk. he just gets all of 2 attacks.
temple sword. my fist damage is 2d6. the plan is next level get I think..medusas wrath. then with haze and greater invus I'll have something like 8 attacks on stuff that cannot see me.
Ah, I should have realized. I have a temple-sword monk in my game, too.