Can a monk use Improved Natural Attack feat to increase the size of his unarmed strike.
General consensus is no he cannot. Which is a shame might help him out a bit in the dpt department.
No.
Improved Natural Attack (Monster)
Attacks made by one of this creature's natural attacks leave vicious wounds.Prerequisite: Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4.
Benefit: Choose one of the creature's natural attack forms (not an unarmed strike). The damage for this natural attack increases by one step on the following list, as if the creature's size had increased by one category. Damage dice increase as follows: 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6.
A weapon or attack that deals 1d10 points of damage increases as follows: 1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8.
Special: This feat can be taken multiple times. Each time it is taken, it applies to a different natural attack.
EDIT: Silly ninja golems...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo specifically errata'd it to keep the monk from having a nice thing (that he had in 3E). When the rules first came out, RAW he could. The bit in parentheses was added after it was pointed out.
I suggest houseruling the errata away.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that a Monk's UAS is significantly different than a non-monk's UAS:
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.
So the Devs/FAQ might say that they can't, but the RAW according to the most recent updated version of the CRB says they can. And it will continue to say they can until they update the CRB. =)
Oh the poor monk and all it's horrible wording... ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That is not true. It does not take house rule to allow monster feats. It is a houserule by PFS that you can not have them. They are called monster feats because monsters are the ones that normally qualify for them, not because players can not take them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The specific text in the Beastiary is as follows:
Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct).
So if you qualify, then you qualify. I realize that's a redundant statement but it's true. For example, any character can take "Improved Natural Armor" because creatures without a listed score are assumed to have that score at 0, and the prereq for Imp. Nat. Armor is "Natural Armor," not "Natural Armor of 1 or greater."
So looking at "Improved Natural Attack," the prereqs for the feat are "Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4." So a Monk already meets the requirements for a natural weapon, as stated in his Unarmed Strike rules, and by level 6 he will also meet the +4 BAB req.
So, by RAW, there's no reason to assume a Monk can't take the feat. The only thing contradicting RAW at this point is "Because the Devs said so." Which, if they're not willing to update the book, is a bit of a weak argument, IMO.
They won't update the book because disallowing monster feats is a PFS only rule. If they updated the book, then home game players would assume they can't take the feat either.
Notice, CRB also doesn't state that PFS Clerics with the Nobility domain don't gain Leadership and instead gain the Persuasive feat. Why don't they update the CRB to reflect this? Because it is a PFS specific rule.
The OP's question, however, wasn't specifically asked for PFS. PFS may allow/disallow certain things, but that doesn't make them RAW. :)
|
The specific text in the Beastiary is as follows:
Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct).So if you qualify, then you qualify. I realize that's a redundant statement but it's true. For example, any character can take "Improved Natural Armor" because creatures without a listed score are assumed to have that score at 0, and the prereq for Imp. Nat. Armor is "Natural Armor," not "Natural Armor of 1 or greater."
So looking at "Improved Natural Attack," the prereqs for the feat are "Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4." So a Monk already meets the requirements for a natural weapon, as stated in his Unarmed Strike rules, and by level 6 he will also meet the +4 BAB req.
So, by RAW, there's no reason to assume a Monk can't take the feat. The only thing contradicting RAW at this point is "Because the Devs said so." Which, if they're not willing to update the book, is a bit of a weak argument, IMO.
No, they can't. The feat explicitly says NOT AN UNARMED STRIKE. This line is there specifically to keep Monks out of the feat.
The specific text in the Beastiary is as follows:
Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them (particularly Craft Construct).So if you qualify, then you qualify. I realize that's a redundant statement but it's true. For example, any character can take "Improved Natural Armor" because creatures without a listed score are assumed to have that score at 0, and the prereq for Imp. Nat. Armor is "Natural Armor," not "Natural Armor of 1 or greater."
So looking at "Improved Natural Attack," the prereqs for the feat are "Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4." So a Monk already meets the requirements for a natural weapon, as stated in his Unarmed Strike rules, and by level 6 he will also meet the +4 BAB req.
So, by RAW, there's no reason to assume a Monk can't take the feat. The only thing contradicting RAW at this point is "Because the Devs said so." Which, if they're not willing to update the book, is a bit of a weak argument, IMO.
It's true. The Monk can TAKE the feat.
However the feat specifies that Unarmed Strikes are not affected by the feat.So by RAW they can take the feat, but unless they have another natural attack (or plan on getting one) it won't do anything for them.
If that makes sense or not... well you can always talk to your GM and see what he thinks. For your non-PFS games it's the GM that's the final arbiter, not the people on this forum here and not even the Devs.
I want to know why Paizo went in and specifically changed the feat to disqualify the monk from taking it.
I would guess that's because they feel monk UAS damage is fine where it is, and if they wanted monks to have the benefit of the feat they would simply increase their base damage rather than expecting every monk to take it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I want to know why Paizo went in and specifically changed the feat to disqualify the monk from taking it.
Because Monks aren't allowed to have nice things, obviously.
Lack of access to monster feats is one reason I refuse to play a druid in PFS.
How about simply that monks were never intended to use the feat? The fact that they qualified for it in 3.5 was a fluke, and was too wide-spread to do anything about by the time it was noticed. Pathfinder provided a fresh start to shut it down (though it did take an errata - Bestiary was a little rushed).
They can take magic fang, or any other effect that can increase their natural attack, except that feat.
Quite true, and for good reason. Essentially "Improved Unarmed Strike" already covers this, especially with the further progression. There is no logic to this feat working with unarmed strike. Is the monk's fist getting bigger? His nails sharper and harder? And when he uses his foot instead, does it suddenly double in size?
You asked "why Paizo went in and specifically changed the feat"? Because it didn't meet the 'common sense' rule.
Edit: I feel I should add that there is nothing wrong with wanting this to work, especially if it's a bit of rules-fu you've used in the past. I had a player in 3.5 use this - it was already a silly power level game, and wasn't an issue. There are good reasons why it shouldn't though, and I'm glad that's how the rules read now.
They can take magic fang, or any other effect that can increase their natural attack, except that feat.Quite true, and for good reason. Essentially "Improved Unarmed Strike" already covers this, especially with the further progression. There is no logic to this feat working with unarmed strike. Is the monk's fist getting bigger? His nails sharper and harder? And when he uses his foot instead, does it suddenly double in size?
You asked "why Paizo went in and specifically changed the feat"? Because it didn't meet the 'common sense' rule.
Wait, does a claw get bigger when you take Improved Nat Attack? Do you just assume it does or is this written somewhere?
|
They most certainly cannot as the Feat specifically states it cannot be an Unarmed strike. Though, there is talk through a combination of Feral Combat Training, Monk + Druid Levels, and Improved Natural Attack, that it can apply. There is no official ruling on it though and is hopefully in the process of being reviewed by the FAQ/Design team.