| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. |
Ok, so I've been attempting to create a build for a Dragon Disciple that has heavy emphasis on natural weapons.
On Feral Combat Training, it states that "while using the selected natural weapon, you can apply the effects of feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite, as well as effects that augment an unarmed strike."
For the brawler fighter archtype, at level 3, they gain close combatant, which grants +1 attack and +3 damage to weapons in the close weapon group. Under the close weapon group, there is unarmed strike.
If my logic is correct, thanks to Feral Combat Training, that the natural weapons that I would be using (claws) would gain the benefit from close combatant?
Also, is there any other strong alternative for improving damage further other than Improved Natural Attack, Arcane Strike, Dragon Style, and Dragon Ferocity?
I'm not 100% sure on this one, it isn't an effect that augments unarmed strike specifically no does it require IUS as a prereq.
Technically it is something that grants a bonus to a weapon group which happens to have unarmed strikes in the list. However slight, that is a difference. In a home game I'd probably fudge it and allow it, in PFS I could definitely see a GM saying 'No' to it unfortunately.
|
Feral Combat Training notes that it applies to effects that augment an unarmed strike.
Close Combatant is an effect that augments an Unarmed Strike.
No confusion.
It doesn't augment unarmed strikes, it is a benefit recieved when using the close weapons group. When using a weapon from the group you get a bonus. Natural weapons are not part of the close weapon group, FCT doesn't make them part of the close weapon group.
It is a technicality and a fine line, but it still exists. The ability reads that you gain a bonus when using specific weapons, it isn't an effect that augments the weapon you are using. They are two completely different paths that lead the to the same destination, this particular path isn't fair game for FCT however.
I think I once saw a quote from a Paizo person saying that the word 'effect' in that context defaults to the english meaning of the word, because it has no specific rules meaning. I can't for the life of me find that quote though, sorry.
In that light, I'd argue that the Close Combatant ability has an effect on someone's unarmed strike, and that effect should thus also apply to the natural weapon selected for Feral Combat Training.
I guess we should hit the FAQ and hope to find out.
Because weapon focus and weapon specialization specifically are taken for Unarmed Strike.
Close combatant specifically says Close Weapon Group as what it 'augments' (as you keep saying). It isn't augmenting IUS, IUS happens to be in the list of weapons the character gains a bonus when using.
There is a difference.
Feral Combat Training specifically applies to feats, not class features, and only then if they have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite. The only class feature that it augments is the monk's Flurry of Blows
It is not just feats.
Note the "as well as effects that augment an unarmed strike" part.
Then why would it specifically state that it altered the way a class feature operated?
If it is not augmenting unarmed strikes, then what is it doing to them?
If it is 'augmenting' anything, the class ability is 'augmenting' the character.
As far as the wording is concerned, the character is getting the bonus for using a close combat weapon (in case you missed me saying that further up). There is no 'effect' augmenting the weapon which is what FCT is looking for. The ability doesn't care that it is unarmed strikes specifically, it just cares that the weapon in hand is part of the Close Weapons group. If the weapon is on that list the character gets a bonus when they attack with it and do damage with it. If the weapon in hand isn't on that list the character gets no bonus. You'll notice there isn't a single natural weapon on the Close Weapons group list and nothing in FCT allows or changes the list.
For the third time, just because it is that important, the class ability grants the character a benefit for using weapons off of the Close Weapon group, it does nothing to the weapon itself. The ability says a brawler gains not the weapon gains.
For the third time, just because it is that important, the class ability grants the character a benefit for using weapons off of the Close Weapon group, it does nothing to the weapon itself. The ability says a brawler gains not the weapon gains.
And the 'effect' of that benefit is that the brawler has his unarmed strikes gain bonuses on attack and damage.
I found that quote I mention earlier. I'll spare people the effort of looking up what the quote was talking about that's on page 199 of the core rulebook. It was this section on combat maneuvers: "When you attempt to perform a combat maneuver, make an attack roll and add your CMB in place of your normal attack bonus. Add any bonuses you currently have on attack rolls due to spells, feats, and other effects. These bonuses must be applicable to the weapon or attack used to perform the maneuver."
Quote reproduced for easy reading:
Effect = anything that someone makes happen. It doesn't have a definition because it already has one in the dictionary.
The bit on page 199 basically uses the word "effects" rather than attempting an exhaustive list of things that could give you bonuses to attack rolls, which could include class abilities, racial abilities, character traits, ad-hoc bonuses given you by the GM, Aid Another bonuses, bonuses from magic items, bonuses from the terrain or weather, and so on and so on.
Basically, if something gives you a bonus (or a penalty) to an attack roll, you get to add that to your CMB—provided those bonuses apply to the move you're trying to pull off.
I'd argue that if class abilities are considered 'effects' for the purpose of being taken into account for CMB rolls, they would qualify under the wording of the FCT feat as well.
If the effect specifically targeted the unarmed strike it would be cut and dry, it doesn't. It 'targets' Close Weapons group. Natural weapons are not in the weapon group, class ability never triggers when they are used.
Again it is a technicality which could be used to not allow it to work in PFS play.
Home game I'd let it fly, organized play with a more strict rules set, it is a technicality that I'd understand if a GM did not allow it.
Basically just do the OP a favor and hit the FAQ. At worst it gets ignored.
But as Mr. Jacobs said, 'effect' is not a game term, so whether or not it targets anything, or whether or not the ability we're looking at triggers to create an 'effect' doesn't matter.
In simple dictionary terms, which is the way we apparently need to look at the word 'effect' in contexts like these, there is an undeniable 'effect' on the brawler's unarmed strikes. The bonus generated by that 'effect' is applied to CMB rolls, as per the ruling I quoted, and in an identical manner, it should also apply to the natural weapon chosen for use with the FCT feat.
Anyway, while digging up the James Jacobs quote, I came across several threads dealing with the same or very similar questions. Apparently, people ask it pretty frequently. And that's what the F in FAQ stands for, so yeah, I've hit FAQ.
A bit of thread necromancy, because this has become relevant again for my group.
With the ruling about Feral Combat Training causing monk's unarmed strike damage to apply to the selected natural weapon now in the official FAQ, would it be safe to assume that the brawler's Close Combatant ability should be considered an analogous situation?
