Claws and slams and swords, oh my!


Rules Questions

101 to 120 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Krodjin wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Krodjin,

reread the posts. I think you should back off.

Look. I'm sorry if I offended you. I just happen to interpret the rules (in this instance) in a manner similar to fretdog's.

Not only do I agree more with his position, You have this way of quoting threads that is not easy to read. I presume you are posting from your phone or other mobile device.

Using the features for quoting posts or the rules that is available on these forums would help you present your points in a manner that is easier to read & follow.

My understanding of the quotation application is rudimentary, and I have found it cumbersome. Maybe I'll try using it again.

Sczarni

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Krodjin wrote:

To summarize: Scott is wrong. Fret dog is correct.

/thread.

Krodjin, I owe you an explanation.

“Unarmed Strikes have always been and will always be manufactured weapons.”

This is an important point is Fretgod’s argument, and a quote of his own words.

“A monk's unarmed strike is treated as ... a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve ... natural weapons.”

This is a quotation from his post to support his argument.

This is the quote + what he omitted.

“’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.’”

This is a significant omission about a significant point in his argument.

The reason why is that this passage describes a Monk class ability that makes their unarmed strikes special: as much natural as manufactured weapons vis a vis enhancing or improving effects. And that weakens his argument, so he edited it out.

This is misrepresenting the truth, an it’s not okay.

Meanwhile he is still strawmanning me, and I am losing patience.

I read the quote about UAS and I do not take it to mean it counts as a prerequisite for the Multiattack feat. Consider this; having two claw attacks + 1 bite attack counts as having 3 natural attacks, even though you only have 2 distinct types of natural attack.

If an UAS was intended to be treated as a natural attack for the purposes of qualifying for feats that require a specified number of natural attacks, how many natural attacks would it count for? 1? 2? 5?

I just do not believe that UAS counts as a prerequisite for Multiattack in spite of your insistence that it does.

The rules you post do not convince me. A prerequisite is neither a spell or an effect.


Krodjin wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Krodjin wrote:

To summarize: Scott is wrong. Fret dog is correct.

/thread.

Krodjin, I owe you an explanation.

“Unarmed Strikes have always been and will always be manufactured weapons.”

This is an important point is Fretgod’s argument, and a quote of his own words.

“A monk's unarmed strike is treated as ... a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve ... natural weapons.”

This is a quotation from his post to support his argument.

This is the quote + what he omitted.

“’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.’”

This is a significant omission about a significant point in his argument.

The reason why is that this passage describes a Monk class ability that makes their unarmed strikes special: as much natural as manufactured weapons vis a vis enhancing or improving effects. And that weakens his argument, so he edited it out.

This is misrepresenting the truth, an it’s not okay.

Meanwhile he is still strawmanning me, and I am losing patience.

I read the quote about UAS and I do not take it to mean it counts as a prerequisite for the Multiattack feat. Consider this; having two claw attacks + 1 bite attack counts as having 3 natural attacks, even though you only have 2 distinct types of natural attack.

If an UAS was intended to be treated as a natural attack for the purposes of qualifying for feats that require a specified number of natural attacks, how many natural attacks would it count for? 1? 2? 5?

I just do not believe that UAS counts as a prerequisite for Multiattack in spite of your insistence that it does.

The rules you post do not convince me. A prerequisite is neither a spell or an effect.

Not to mention that every single creature in the game is physically capable of making an unarmed strike, even if those with animal-level intelligence wouldn't have the training or inclination to do so.


Since it looks like everyone has missed this bit of text that I posted roughly two dozen posts ago, I will post it again.

Quote:
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.

This is from the description of the monk class. From this line, it is clear from said description that not all monks have natural weapons - ergo unarmed strikes (which all monks have) are not natural weapons, save for where special provisions have been made.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Krodjin wrote:

To summarize: Scott is wrong. Fret dog is correct.

/thread.

Krodjin, I owe you an explanation.

“Unarmed Strikes have always been and will always be manufactured weapons.”

This is an important point is Fretgod’s argument, and a quote of his own words.

“A monk's unarmed strike is treated as ... a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve ... natural weapons.”

This is a quotation from his post to support his argument.

This is the quote + what he omitted.

“’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.’”

This is a significant omission about a significant point in his argument.

The reason why is that this passage describes a Monk class ability that makes their unarmed strikes special: as much natural as manufactured weapons vis a vis enhancing or improving effects. And that weakens his argument, so he edited it out.

This is misrepresenting the truth, an it’s not okay.

Meanwhile he is still strawmanning me, and I am losing patience.

I didn't "edit" anything it out. I cut via ellipses because it is irrelevant to a conversation about whether a Monk's unarmed strikes are natural weapons. That is what you do to streamline a point. You cut out the extraneous.

And let's pretend that US aren't generally treated as manufactured weapons for pretty much all purposes. What does that change? Is the point that they are still not natural weapons any different? You've aready agreed with that. It doesn't weaken my argument at all. US still aren't natural weapons for any purpose that doesn't include spells or effects that improve or enhance them. Prerequisites don't do this. So you're still wrong.

And I too grow tired of your lack of understanding how Strawmanning works yet insisting upon using the concept. I've quite clearly demonstrated how you have actually made the claims you're accusing me of fabricating. If you said it, I'm not making it up. Beyond that, I'm not even arguing those points anymore because they've been resolved. The only reason they're being discussed at all is because you keep erroneously accusing me of Strawmanning.

It is curious though. You accuse me of making things up and not providing evidence. I demonstrate with citations how I'm not making things up and how the rules support me, and now the only thing you're talking about is how dishonest you think I am. You didn't reply at all to my post demonstrating unequivocally that I am in now way Strawmanning anything. You just said you're getting annoyed because I'm still doing it, apparently. Even though I never was in the first place.


And mind you, that point you're calling so important to my argument was only relevant to the discussion of Monk's US not being treated as natural weapons for all purposes. That's been resolved as you simply worded a separate response poorly. We see eye-to-eye on that point. It's moot. It has nothing to do with whether they satisfy prereqs for Multiattack. So, now who's Strawmanning? Not me ...


Scott Wilhelm, there is only thing left we're actually discussing; we've agreed on everything else. So please, answer this question for me.

Do you believe that the prerequisites of a feat are effects?

If yes, please provide me with supporting evidence.

Liberty's Edge

This strikes me as oddly appropriate.


”Fretgod, Wed, Jul 30, 2014, 11:33 AM ” wrote:
I didn't "edit" anything it out. I cut via ellipses because it is irrelevant to a conversation about whether a Monk's unarmed strikes are natural weapons. That is what you do to streamline a point. You cut out the extraneous.

You did not omit trivial or extraneous things from the rules quote. You omitted telling and material things from your rules quote. What you “streamlined” out of your quotation was significant information that counters your argument, and that is not according to Hoyle.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you assert that

”Fretgod, Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 02:40 PM ” wrote:
Unarmed Strikes have always been and will always be manufactured weapons.

Again, correct me if I am wrong, but this point is an important part of your argument.

This is the Monk Class Ability that we are wrangling over.

” http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/monk.html#_monk” wrote:
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.

This is how it appeared in your post.

”Fretgod, Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 02:40 PM ” wrote:
The rules tell us what limited purposes for which the Monk's Unarmed Strikes count as natural weapons…

And later in the same post,

”Fretgod, Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 02:40 PM ” wrote:

Monk wrote:

A monk's unarmed strike is treated as ... a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve ... natural weapons.

I will now follow your conceit to “streamline a point. You cut out the extraneous,” and do some editing of my own:

”hypothetical argument, not a quote” wrote:
The rules tell us what limited purposes for which the Monk's Unarmed Strikes count as manufactured weapons…

And,

”hypothetical” wrote:

Monk wrote:

“Monk unarmed strikes count as… manufactured weapons for the purposes of effects that enhance or improve… manufactured weapons.”

Don’t you see? Your argument, logic, and evidence that monk unarmed strikes always count as manufactured weapons is just as weak and just as spurious as your strawman argument that monk unarmed attacks always count as natural weapons. In both cases, they only count as either under certain conditions pertaining to certain effects. And using your own conceits, they can be just as compellingly argued either way.

The simple fact is that this is a Monk Class Ability that lets them have it both ways for their unarmed strikes, and it gives them a lot of liberty to do so. I’m not saying they have complete liberty they way you are saying they do. I may yet, but right now, I just don’t feel comfortable painting it with such a broad brush, and I’d like you to respect that: no means no.

The way you quoted that class ability made it look like you were trying to cover up the truth. Perhaps I was over-emotional in my initial response and unfair by assigning a motive, in that case, I apologize. But whether it was done due to rhetorical dishonesty or sloppy writing, you still shouldn’t have done it


I'm not sure exactly whats going on here but:
Unarmed Strikes are absolutely 100% mechanically manufactured weapons, not natural attacks based on how they work for everyone in general.

Monks specifically have this:

Quote:

Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.

Usually a monk's unarmed strikes deal lethal damage, but he can choose to deal nonlethal damage instead with no penalty on his attack roll. He has the same choice to deal lethal or nonlethal damage while grappling.

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.

A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown above on Table: Monk. The unarmed damage values listed on Table: Monk is for Medium monks. A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with his unarmed attacks, while a Large monk deals more damage; see Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage on the table given below.

Which tells you how a monk's unarmed strike functions, which takes the base unarmed strike and modifies it by giving you Improved Unarmed Strike and a few other things in bold above.

The part I have enlarged and italicised clealry shows monk's unarmed strikes are not natural attacks. They are simply counted as natural attacks for the purposes of spells and effects which enhance natural attacks. However, they are members of the manufactured weapons category.


Scott Wilhelm, did you miss this post?

fretgod99 wrote:
And mind you, that point you're calling so important to my argument was only relevant to the discussion of Monk's US not being treated as natural weapons for all purposes. That's been resolved as you simply worded a separate response poorly. We see eye-to-eye on that point. It's moot. It has nothing to do with whether they satisfy prereqs for Multiattack. So, now who's Strawmanning? Not me ...

Beyond that, the only point you'd be making isn't that Unarmed Strikes might be natural weapons or maybe manufactured weapons, you'd be arguing that they're some third category of other, which still means they're not natural weapons. And again, Unarmed Strikes being manufactured weapons was not an integral part of my argument as you keep claiming, them not being natural weapons is. But again, we agree on that point: Monk's Unarmed Strikes are only considered to be natural weapons for very limited purposes. So why are you still arguing about it? Almost two weeks later?

I've not once been dishonest in my portrayal. The reason that language was irrelevant and extraneous at the point I excised it is because the point you're still trying to address had already been resolved. I never once strawmanned anything. I argued against a point I believed you were making because you poorly worded one of your responses. That's on you, not me. You can keep trying to shift blame all you want, but it's not my fault you poorly expressed yourself. If you said it (which you did), I'm not strawmanning. And again, as soon as you clarified your position, that point was dropped. Until you kept bringing it up. Again.

So - one final time - the only question left is this one:

fretgod99 wrote:

Scott Wilhelm, there is only thing left we're actually discussing; we've agreed on everything else. So please, answer this question for me.

Do you believe that the prerequisites of a feat are effects?

If yes, please provide me with supporting evidence.

Apparently after two weeks of thought on that point, once again the only thing you have left to respond to is incorrectly calling me out for strawmanning one more time on something that's already died and been buried more than once. What was cut out has nothing to do with the only point left to be resolved. Ergo, everything I did was perfectly in accordance with Hoyle.

And I'm not sure where you think I've claimed Monk's have "complete liberty" to go both ways with their unarmed strikes. I have no clue what you're talking about. The status of a Monk's Unarmed Strikes isn't up for debate anymore. The only thing that was relevant to in regards to this thread was whether they are considered natural weapons for all purposes or just a few; we've already agreed that it's just a few. I'm not sure what broad brush you're talking about.

So yes, your response was undoubtedly overly emotional. And you completely unfairly assigned motive to me that did not exist. The cause, however, was due to neither rhetorical dishonesty nor poor writing. I wrote exactly what I meant and exactly what was relevant to the only question that was still at hand. So your remonstration of my post is misguided; I didn't do anything wrong.

If you'd like to respond to the only question that there was actually any disagreement on, feel free. Otherwise, let it go.


Claxon wrote:
I'm not sure exactly whats going on here

Scott made a post which implied that the language you quoted meant that a Monk's Unarmed Strikes count as natural weapons for all purposes, so I responded much as you did to demonstrate that Unarmed Strikes are manufactured weapons and to be considered natural weapons only for limited purposes. It turns out is was simply poor wording, so that point was dropped because we agreed that they're considered natural weapons for only very limited purposes.

A separate (only mildly related) point of contention is Scott's belief that, since a Monk's Unarmed Strike counts as a natural weapon for the purpose of being benefited by the Monk taking the Multiattack feat, it must necessarily count as a natural weapon to satisfy the prerequisite to take the Multiattack Feat in the first place. In regard to that argument, I quoted the section you did, but excised the information not relevant to natural weapons (because the manufactured weapon language is utterly irrelevant to the point being addressed - Monk's UAS status as a natural weapon for the purpose of satisfying feat prerequisites).

Because I excised the information which was irrelevant to the point being addressed, while addressing only that specific point, Scott has taken the position that I'm dishonest because the information which is irrelevant to the only point left to actually be addressed is kind of maybe (but not really all that) relevant to the point that was already dealt with and is no longer in contention and that I must have cut out that information because I was actually trying to hide the truth to win an argument on the internets.

Of course, the reason I excised the information he's complaining about (the references to manufactured weapons) is because I was demonstrating that a Monk's UAS only count as natural weapons for spells and other similar effects, which doesn't include acting as a prerequisite to qualify for a feat. He hasn't addressed that point yet.

Now you're all caught up.


Fretgod wrote, “Unarmed Strikes are on the list of manufactured weapons.”

In Pathfinder, specific trumps general. We are talking about how a specific Class Ability lets members of a specific class treat unarmed strikes differently from how other people do. Your observation about what table unarmed strikes are usually found on is just not relevant here.

"fretgod99 Mon, Jul 28, 2014, 02:40 PM wrote:


“Monk's Unarmed Strikes count as natural weapons, only as the target or beneficiary of effects or spells that enhance or improve natural weapons.”

Fretgod, that is just not what the rule says. You are making that up: maybe it’s not just you, but it’s also not Paizo Publishing.

I’ll show you again what the rule really says.

” http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/monk.html#_monk” wrote:
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.

It doesn’t say,

“A monk unarmed strike may benefit from effects that enhance or improve either natural or manufactured weapons.”

It doesn’t even say,

“A monk unarmed strike is treated as a manufactured and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve it.”

No, it says,

” http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/monk.html#_monk” wrote:
…manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for… manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

This wording is in fact much more broad than you pretend it to be. There is no self-reflexive language here. It is simply just not the case that this ability only allows Monk Unarmed Strikes to be the beneficiaries of effects. It clearly does allow MUS to be the benefactors of these effects, too. So once again, monks get to have it both ways. It’s just what the rule says.

This point is made all the more forcefully by fretgod’s assertion that MUS are not natural weapons. This ability works for effects that enhance natural weapons, and MUS aren’t those, so it clearly doesn’t have to only benefit MUS, since it clearly benefits REAL natural weapons, and because it is for “…effects that… improve… natural weapons.”

Sczarni

At the end of the day a Monk cannot use an Unarmed Strike to count as one of the 3 (or more) Natural attacks required to qualify for the Multiattack feat...


As we've both quoted ad nauseum, the rules say, "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."

"for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."

Show me how a prequisite is a "spell or effect that enhances or improves" a natural weapon and you'd have a point.

You can't because it means exactly what I've said it means. I am not making anything up. I used the word "benefit" because it is synonymous with improving or enhancing something. A prequisite for a feat doesn't improve or enhance anything. Ergo, that language doesn't apply.

But again, per your interpretation, Monks all can qualify for Improved Natural Attack. So why does nobody take it? Why is it not a relatively standard feat for damage-oriented Monks? Being treated as a size bigger for UAS damage certainly seems like it'd be a pretty good boon.


Krodjin wrote:
At the end of the day a Monk cannot use an Unarmed Strike to count as one of the 3 (or more) Natural attacks required to qualify for the Multiattack feat...

I think will demonstrate to you at the end of the day that indeed a Monk can, but I'm sorry, I don't have time to write more just now. Please be patient.


fretgod99 wrote:

As we've both quoted ad nauseum, the rules say, "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."

"for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."

Show me how a prequisite is a "spell or effect that enhances or improves" a natural weapon and you'd have a point.

You can't because it means exactly what I've said it means. I am not making anything up. I used the word "benefit" because it is synonymous with improving or enhancing something. A prequisite for a feat doesn't improve or enhance anything. Ergo, that language doesn't apply.

But again, per your interpretation, Monks all can qualify for Improved Natural Attack. So why does nobody take it? Why is it not a relatively standard feat for damage-oriented Monks? Being treated as a size bigger for UAS damage certainly seems like it'd be a pretty good boon.

I do not see at the moment a problem with substituting "benefit" with "enhance" or "improve." If I ever do, I promise I will share that problem with you. You know I will.

I believe that the Monk special ability we have been quoting ad nauseum does not in fact extend to the Improved Natural Attack Feat, or at least the rule allowing us to do so is shaky enough that you could expect some PFS-DMs to outlaw it. It's not safe to base your character build on that. You can always make that argument to your homespun DM, of course.

The reason I say so has to do with the wording of the INA Feat.

"...Choose one of the creature's natural attack forms (not an unarmed strike)..."--http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/monster-feats/improved-natural-a ttack

I apologize for the framing of the quote and the fact that my reference is not an official source. The feat is in the Bestiary. I am pressed for time.

I do believe that our MUS Class Ability would allow it to be treated as a Natural Attack for the purposes of treating it as an natural weapon for the INA Feat, except that the feat itself disallows it to be applied to unarmed strikes specifically. And while a MUS may be a Natural Attack for the purposes of this feat, it is still an unarmed strike, and therefore disallowed.

If you want your Monk to benefit from INA, I recommend you find some way to give him a Natural attack, like make him a Tengu, take some levels in Alchemist Beastmorph, or take the Tentacle Discovery. Then take Feral Combat Training with your Tentacle, then take INA. For a PFS character, you have to do this via 2 levels in Ranger. I have a build that does this, and it is indeed impressive. By Level 7, her DPR is over 100. I've posted it elsewhere on the forum, and I'd share it with you again.

More later.


The text of the monk class ability just doesn't limit MUS to being the beneficiaries of effects that benefit unarmed strikes.

” http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/monk.html#_monk” wrote:
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.

Right?

Well, isn't a tentacle a natural weapon?

Do Monk Unarmed Strikes count as natural weapons for the purpose of effects that enhance natural weapons? The rule says it does. You need to find some other rule, an erratum, an FAQ, an official rules post, something, in order to clarify what I'm saying out of existence, because this RAW is just precisely what I'm saying.

So, Monk Unarmed Strikes count as natural weapons for the purpose of effects that enhance tentacle attacks.

Doesn't taking Multiattack have an effect that "enhances or improves" tentacles?

Because if the answer is yes, then the ability to take Multiattack is also an effect enhances or improves tentacles.

Remember, "effect" is not a game term: it is an English Language word that means any of a lot of things.

I have gone far beyond the burden of proof for the OP, which is, as you may recall, to provide useful advice for his character build that he could vet with his homespun DM with strong rationale to convince him of its validity.

Fretgod wrote:
I am not making anything up.

Fretgod, I'm going to recognize yet another way I was being too harsh. I am right and you are wrong, but what I am saying about this Monk Class ability was definitely not intended by the author of it.

But in this case, the RAI definitely is trumped by the RAW. Because this rule did not start out as a Pathfinder rule. It goes back at least to Dungeons and Dragons version 3.5, based on the work of EGG--may the Adventure never stop rolling--and revised by Andy Collins. The Intent of Wizards of the Coast when they published this rule has no bearing the RAW that Paizo Publishing cut and pasted into their Core Rulebook.

3.5 Player's Handbook wrote:
A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons (such as the magic fang and magic weapon spells).

That version of the rule much more clearly limits the application the way you describe, but when Paizo eliminated what was in the parentheses, they also changed the meaning of the rule by removing the self-reflective text. Now they rewrote it so the door swings both ways: not just the beneficiary anymore, but also the benefactor.

Remember the context of this rule in the 3.5 Player's Handbook. There were no races that gave you natural attacks. There was no Feral Combat Training that let you enmesh MUS with Natural Attacks, Monks (pretty much) couldn't even multiclass to take 2 levels in Alchemist and grow a tentacle,

3.5 Player's Handbook wrote:
Like a member of any other class, a monk may be a multiclass character, but multiclass monks face a special restriction. A monk who gains a new class or (if already multiclass) raises another class by a level may never again raise her monk level, though she retains all her monk abilities.

and there wasn't an Alchemist Class to take levels in. And remember, in 3.5, if you let the levels in your multiclasses get far apart, didn't keep them even, you'd suffer an experience point penalty. It was just a no-no, like when you put 1 Townhouse on Park Place and a Hotel on Boardwalk. I don't think the writer of the 3.5 Player's Handbook even had Half Orc Vampire Abyssal Sorcerer/Monks with Bites, Slams, and Claws even on their radar when they wrote that. Paizo probably wasn't thinking about it with this kind of sophistication when they cut and paste the Monk from 3.5 to Pathfinder, but that hardly matters either. The people who invented Chess probably never thought of the Ruy Lopez or the King's Gambit. Those kinds of things are invented by players who elevate the game with sophisticated thinking.

Anyway, we're not dealing with Wizards of the Coast. They're gone from the equation, and so is their intent. We are left with the RAW, and the RAW says that Monk Unarmed Strikes can be treated as natural weapons for the purposes of effects that benefit tentacles, and the ability to take Multiattack is an effect that benefits tentacles.

That is unless you can find some other rule, FAQ, Erratum, or Official Rules Response that says otherwise.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:

The text of the monk class ability just doesn't limit MUS to being the beneficiaries of effects that benefit unarmed strikes.

” http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/monk.html#_monk” wrote:
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.

Right?

Well, isn't a tentacle a natural weapon?

Do Monk Unarmed Strikes count as natural weapons for the purpose of effects that enhance natural weapons? The rule says it does. You need to find some other rule, an erratum, an FAQ, an official rules post, something, in order to clarify what I'm saying out of existence, because this RAW is just precisely what I'm saying.

So, Monk Unarmed Strikes count as natural weapons for the purpose of effects that enhance tentacle attacks.

Doesn't taking Multiattack have an effect that "enhances or improves" tentacles?

Because if the answer is yes, then the ability to take Multiattack is also an effect enhances or improves tentacles.

Remember, "effect" is not a game term: it is an English Language word that means any of a lot of things.

I have gone far beyond the burden of proof for the OP, which is, as you may recall, to provide useful advice for his character build that he could vet with his homespun DM with strong rationale to convince him of its validity.

Fretgod wrote:
I am not making anything up.

Fretgod, I'm going to recognize yet another way I was being too harsh. I am right and you are wrong, but what I am saying about this Monk Class ability was definitely not intended by the author of it.

But in this case, the RAI definitely is trumped by the RAW. Because this rule did not start out as a Pathfinder rule. It goes back at least to Dungeons and Dragons version 3.5, based on the work of EGG--may the Adventure never stop rolling--and revised by Andy Collins. The Intent of Wizards of the Coast when they published this rule...

I feel your Multiattack example isn't so good. I feel it's the base creature benefiting from Multiattack. It's says the creatures secondary attacks only tack a -2. Well, we don't have secondary punches. Also it's to the creature, not the natural attack. It's kinda like if a feat said you can make iterative attacks at a -3 penalty instead of -5. Your manufactured weapon isn't getting a boost. Nothing about your weapon is giving you a -5 on iterative attacks. It's you. So the feat is effecting you, not your weapon. So multiattack isn't enhancing a tentacle. It's enhancing the creature with the tentacle.


PF Version wrote:
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.
3.5 Version wrote:
A monk’s unarmed strike is treated both as a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons (such as the magic fang and magic weapon spells).

Two things:

1. The wording is the exact same. They switched where the "as" is, but that's pretty much it (aside from the parenthetical). As for the parenthetical, this doesn't change the meaning of the phrase at all. It simply gives examples of what it is referencing. Spells and effects like Magic Fang or Magic Weapon.
2. The D20SRD version of the entry also does not contain the parenthetical. I'd have to dig out my PHB to see if different versions omitted it as well, but ultimately it doesn't matter.

You're claiming that the inclusion of a couple of examples for context completely change the meaning and impact of the ability. Now, not only do they count as natural weapons for spells and effects (what we're told), but they also count as natural weapons for the purposes of qualifying for spells and effects, even though that's not a spell or effect.

I understand that there is no game definition of "effect". In fact, I've discussed this very point before. And, I did so using the definition of "effect" that you provided in this thread.

Scott Wilhelm about 'Effect' wrote:
ef·fect, /iˈfekt/: a change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.

Your position before was that the prerequisite of a feat is an "effect". So please explain to me, using your definition of effect, how a prerequisite is a change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause. You can't because a prerequisite is not a change. A prerequisite is not the result of doing something. It is, in short, not an effect.

I've never disputed that the Multiattack feat would apply to a Monk's US. It just would be a pointless endeavor because it doesn't actually doing anything. But now we've gone from talking about the benefit of the feat actually applying to US (which it does) to talking about how because the feat applies, taking the feat is an effect that benefits US.

Taking a feat isn't an effect. Taking a feat is an action which causes the effect.

And again, I really don't know how you get that this would not have been allowed in 3.5 but now is in PF simply because they didn't bother to include (such as the magic fang and magic weapon spells).

Besides, you contradict yourself. You say that taking MA is now an effect, which is why Monk's can take it. Then later you claim it's because the PF rules now let US be benefactors as well as beneficiaries of effects. Those are not the same thing. One says, "It's an effect". The other says, "It's not an effect, but it doesn't matter because it still counts."

101 to 120 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Claws and slams and swords, oh my! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.