Okay Scott, I'm out. I'm done debating with you. Your stance seems to get more and more away from things and you are less and less responsive to the issues others are pointing out. And this has taken too long so I'm not enjoying it more. BAB is not for the weapon it's for the character. You can's say everything is an effect, negating an effect is not an effect. I would highly suggest not sharing this view anymore. And you've still never explained how the Monk's unarmed strike stops being a manufactured weapon for natural attacks to have a -5. Since it's always counting as manufactured.
Removed posts. Keep it civil, folks. Let's not be insulting to each other.
So, now to the next part of the 3 part argument I made to Chess Pwn.
Secondary natural attacks get a -5 on the attack roll. Removing this penalty would be an effect that improves a natural weapon.
Mixing primary natural weapon attacks with manufactured weapon attacks demotes the natural weapon from primary to secondary, imposing the -5.
I contend that this -5 penalty is an effect. I also content that the ability to remove this penalty, should there be one, is also an effect. I will not advance my position on what that ability is in this post. I believe there is one, but in the interest of keeping my posts brief and clear—I really struggle with the “brief” part—I will only demonstrate the -5 penalty is an effect for which there might be remedy, and said remedy is also an effect.
google, definition of effect wrote: a change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause. Does imposing a -5 penalty on a secondarily natural attack constitute an effect?
In the case of Tentacles, Wing Buffets, and Tail Slaps, in other words, things that already are considered secondary natural attacks, the answer would be no. That is intrinsic to the natural attack, the change would be to remove it.
In the case of mixing a Bite attack with a spear thrust, then the Bite attack, which usually is a primary natural weapon gets demoted to secondary. That is a change. Because of that, the -5 penalty that wasn’t there before is there now. That is a change. The -5 penalty is a change that is a consequence of the primary natural attack being demoted to secondary. The demotion is a change that is a consequence of the action of making a spear thrust in the same round as you make a bite attack.
Likewise, what if that manufactured weapon could be made to count as a natural weapon? What if there were a Wild enchantment you could put on a melee weapon?
hypothetical wrote: Wild: Upon command, this weapon counts as a primary natural weapon, and confers an additional natural weapon attack doing the normal amount of damage for a weapon of this size and type, plus any other applicable bonuses, of course. +2 equivalent, CL 6, Creator must have some kind of polymorphing class or race ability. Activating this hypothetical weapon enchantment would be a cause that would make the change of removing the -5 penalty from the secondary natural weapons, and that change would be an effect according to the Google definition of the word.
In this particular case, our Tengu Fighter with the Claws Racial Trait would have his full attack action look thusly,
1 Bite, no penalty
2 Claws, no penalty
1 Wild Spear, no penalty
Also, this effect would improve, enhance, and/or improve the natural weapons as in “enhance or improve manufactured or natural weapons” and as in “effects that augment an unarmed strike” by increasing the chance of that strike hitting.
Once again, in this post, I am not proposing a specific mechanism for these effects to be realized. I’m just saying that these are effects that would enhance, improve, and/or augment natural weapons according to the best-available definition of the word.
Fretgod wrote: Saying that FCT allows you to make iterative attacks because iterative attacks augment UAS isn't proof; that's simply restating the same claim. No sir, I am not simply restating the same claim. Not even in the text of your commentary am I restating my claim. “Iterative attacks augment” Is one thing. “FCT allows you to make iterative attacks” is another.
I stated my thesis: FCT allows you to apply effects that augment unarmed strikes to your chosen natural attack, and iterative attacks won through high BAB count as such.
I quoted the rule that confirmed that FCT allows you to apply effects that augment unarmed strikes: the description of the benefit.
Then I demonstrated that iterative attacks are an effect.
Then I demonstrated that iterative attacks augment unarmed strikes.
As evidence, I brought forth a dictionary that you have accepted as authoritative (Google) and applied the definitions to the case. I showed the condition matches the definitions.
So no. I am not offering argument as evidence. I am not simply restating my arguments. This is evidence-backed argument.
Fretgod wrote: But ultimately, here's is definitive proof why you cannot do what you want to do with FCT. It is objectively more powerful than something you are explicitly told you cannot do with FCT. I understand you correctly, you are saying there is something I want to do that is more powerful than something else that is explicitly illegal.
To begin with, I do not see the logic, here. How does the fact that some illegal thing would be less powerful than what I want to do if it weren’t illegal make the thing I want to do illegal?
Also, would you please tell me what that less-powerful illegal thing is?
Fretgod wrote: You can have FCT with a Monk at 2nd level if you retrain and take the correct traits. So, let’s say I have a Half-Orc with the Toothy Racial Trait who at first level takes Weapon Focus Bite. I also get Improved Unarmed Strike. I get several Exotic Weapon proficiencies as bonus feats. Also, I get one of several other bonus feats, such as Improved Grapple or Scorpion Style. You don’t get bonus feat for reaching 2nd level, but you do for reaching Level 2 Monk, again from a small list of acceptable feats. Are you are proposing that you can retrain one of the Monk Bonus Feats and take Feral Combat Training instead? By spending time and treasure or prestige points and treasure for PFS characters, you can normally retrain feats, but I don’t know that Monk Bonus Feats are eligible for that. Maybe, I don’t know. If you can, you can get FCT at Level 1:
the Half-Orc Monk takes Weapon Focus Bite, Improved Grapple, knows how to use some monk weapons, gets his Wis Mod to AC, Flurry of Blows, and maybe some other stuff.
Then the Monk retrains Improved Grapple or maybe Exotic Weapon Proficiency Kama and takes Feral Combat Training Bite instead.
Interesting, but I’m not sure why this is relevant, since you don’t get iterative attacks until your BAB reaches +6, and for Monks that doesn’t happen until like level 8.
Fretgod wrote: A 2nd level Monk with a bite attack and FCT could flurry with that bite attack with the following attacks:
Bite +0/ Bite +0, both of which do full STR. You cannot add another natural weapon to this, even if one were available.
Okay
Fretgod wrote: What you want to do is substitute this bite attack for your Monk attack, then make another bite attack as your natural attack. No, I don’t. I don’t think I said that. What makes you think I said that?
Also, I think you are addressing 2 different arguments in 1 post, which I find a little confusing. I thought this post started as a rebuttal to my argument in favor of iterative attacks due to a high BAB. Now you are talking about, what? Combining natural and unarmed strikes in 1 full attack action? But you aren’t describing that, either, at least not an attack routine I am proposing.
I did say that a bite attack with Feral Combat Training does can benefit from iterative attacks granted by a high BAB, and in a recent post I proved that iterative attacks fit the definitions for “effects that augment unarmed strikes."
I also said—as a completely separate issue—that even without FCT, a Monk with Natural Weapons could combine his Natural Weapon Attack with his Unarmed Strike in a Full Attack Action without suffering a -5 on the natural weapon attack because of the monk ability where “a monk unarmed strike counts as both a manufactured and a natural weapon for the purposes of spells and effects that enhance or improve natural or manufactured weapons.” So my level 2 Monk, actually a Level 1 Ranger/Level 1 Monk, a half orc with the Toothy Racial Trait could make 1 of 2 full attacks.
Morning Star +1 for 1d8 or
Unarmed Strike+1 for 1d6 and Bite +1 for 1d4
She won’t be getting Flurry of Blows. She will be a MOMS Monk. She will use armor and shield. She will grow an alchemal Tentacle, and apply FCT to the Tentacle.
This has turned out to be a complicated argument.
1)Some people are asserting that that ability is only for use on the MUS itself and cannot be used to benefit other attacks. I addressed this argument most recently in my post of August 28, 10:03PM on this thread.
2) Some people are asserting that the -5 secondary attack penalty is not an effect, and that removing the -5 penalty is also not an effect. I just addressed that one.
3) Some people have extrapolated some kind of infinite loop of attacks from my argument. I don’t know. That is not even my argument, and it pretty much seems to go against the RAW. There might be some merit in the logical exercise of this extrapolation, but finding it is not my job. I made my position clear on this point in my post of August 31, 9:53PM and on September 1, 9:47PM.
4) Some people are asserting that MUS count as both Manufactured and a Natural Weapons all the time and always incur all the penalties and benefits of both. I haven’t gotten to that one yet.
Since that’s a lot of things, it’s too many to address all in one post, so I am addressing each of these points each in its own post. I’m sure that in the interest of civility, you appreciate my reasons, and I hope you will follow suit.
Fretgod wrote: You cannot substitute your natural attack for your UAS to make iteratives with your natural weapon via FCT. It is nowhere close to what was intended. Substituting your natural attack for an unarmed strike is not what I am advocating. The attack routines, likewise, not mine. Would you please quote me back to me where I said that, which thread it was in, and the date I said it on? Maybe this is just a simple misunderstanding. Maybe someone deserves credit for convincing me about something.
You level 2 character builds are not really to the point for BAB-granted iterative attacks, since level 2 characters do not have sufficiently high BABs to get iteratives, if indeed that was the point that hypothetical character was intended to address.
Is Flurry of Blows the less-powerful illegal thing? If that is what you were referring to, then you must have made a mistake. While Flurry is illegal for MOMS Monks and generally can’t be done by Monks wearing armor, Flurry isn’t generally illegal. Also, nothing in Pathfinder is illegal simply because it’s more powerful than Flurry of Blows. Flurry of Blows is not like the Washington Monument in Washington, DC where it’s illegal to build anything taller than it.
I don’t think your conjectures about what was intended have any merit. Meritorious counter arguments are rules-based counter arguments. If we must talk about what the Design Team intended, can we at least have some evidence at that? I miss the part where you quoted something that the Design Team said and explained why that gives insight into what they are thinking.
Fretgod wrote: And you still have yet to provide proof that it is in any way a reasonable interpretation. Beyond that, I have provided a clear explanation as to why you absolutely cannot and should not be able to do what you are trying to do here; Yes I have. I submitted my arguments and the supporting evidence so that it can be cross-examined, and so other contributors can offer counter-evidence, perhaps to outweigh it. Simply declaring that my evidence doesn’t exist is NOT civil.
Iterative attacks do not augment unarmed strikes. You can make more unarmed strikes but the unarmed strike itself is unchanged. Making multiple attacks with a sword do not make the sword better.
I would think that if you are going to use the claim that UAS is both Manufactured & Natural, then the 2 may not be separated. As such if ANY aspect of the attack is considered Manufactured you relate that as a Manufactured attack. since the remaining natural attacks are not in any way considered Manufactured you relegate those to the place of Secondary attacks. By doing so they are required to be made at the -5 that all Secondary attacks are made at.
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote: Iterative attacks do not augment unarmed strikes. You can make more unarmed strikes but the unarmed strike itself is unchanged. Making multiple attacks with a sword do not make the sword better. I think your position may be a legitimate position to take, and the idea that adding more strikes does not make a single strike better is a philosophically interesting point.
But remember that I have demonstrated that the word augment means to make something greater by adding to it, also to increase something, and getting to make multiple attacks with a sword does make it greater. Something is clearly being added to that sword: more attacks.
A sword in the hands of someone who knows how to use it is a greater thing than in the hands of someone who doesn't. A Stradivarius in my hands may as well have come from Toys 'R' Us for the music it will make. While masterpiece violin is a thing of beauty that might have a place as a museum display just because, its full value is not realized outside the hands of a skilled musician.
Dolanar wrote: I would think that if you are going to use the claim that UAS is both Manufactured & Natural, then the 2 may not be separated. As such if ANY aspect of the attack is considered Manufactured you relate that as a Manufactured attack. since the remaining natural attacks are not in any way considered Manufactured you relegate those to the place of Secondary attacks. By doing so they are required to be made at the -5 that all Secondary attacks are made at. As I am sure you realize, I am of the opposite position. Other people side with you in this argument, and it is a sticky wicket, to be sure. But if you stay tuned, I think you will see me knock the bails off that wicket in due course.
I want to thank you both for weighing in on this topic. I am especially interested in any relevant rules, official rules posts, FAQs, etc on the matter.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote: Iterative attacks do not augment unarmed strikes. You can make more unarmed strikes but the unarmed strike itself is unchanged. Making multiple attacks with a sword do not make the sword better. I think your position may be a legitimate position to take, and the idea that adding more strikes does not make a single strike better is a philosophically interesting point.
But remember that I have demonstrated that the word augment means to make something greater by adding to it, also to increase something, and getting to make multiple attacks with a sword does make it greater. Something is clearly being added to that sword: more attacks.
A sword in the hands of someone who knows how to use it is a greater thing than in the hands of someone who doesn't. A Stradivarius in my hands may as well have come from Toys 'R' Us for the music it will make. While masterpiece violin is a thing of beauty that might have a place as a museum display just because, its full value is not realized outside the hands of a skilled musician. It's not something of philosophical value; it's something that is semantically far more accurate than the position you are espousing.
The Stradivarius is not a better instrument in a skilled musician's hand compared to yours or mine. It is put to better use. That is ultimately where your position falls apart.
Iterative attacks make a person more adept at using a weapon. They do not make the weapon more effective. A +1 longsword is no different if it is wielded by a 12th level fighter than if it is wielded by a commoner. Nothing about the longsword changes at all. It gains no new properties. It does not gain new abilities to overcome damage reduction or energy resistances. It is not all of a sudden crafted of a specialized material. It does not undergo any sort of augmentation whatsoever. A +1 longsword in the hands of a 12th level fighter is utterly indistinguishable from a +1 longsword lying on the floor being wielded by nobody.
The difference between a 12th level fighter and a commoner wielding a +1 longsword isn't that the sword mysteriously improves; the difference is that the fighter is far more adept at using the sword. That is what iterative attacks reflect - the general ability of the wielder to use the weapon effectively.
Your position on this matter frankly does not make any sense. For it to make any sense, the weapon itself would actually have to be better. Being able to attack with a weapon twice doesn't make the weapon twice as good; it just means you're twice as good at wielding it. Don't forget, the sword does not get more attacks. The wielder gets more attacks. We know it's the wielder getting the attacks and not the sword because the wielder isn't required to make every attack with the same weapon; you can use whatever manufactured weapons are at your disposal for iteratives, not just the +1 longsword.
Regarding FCT and iterative attacks:
FCT lets you add anything that augments US to your natural attack. You're simply replacing "anything that augments US" with "iterative attacks". And no, you haven't proven that iterative attacks augment US. See above. You need to not only prove your interpretation re: iteratives being an augmentation of the weapon is valid (it isn't), but also that your interpretation is a reasonable one (i.e., it is plausibly something that was intended by the developers). You cannot do either of those two things.
On to the reason why you in particular cannot demonstrate the intent element.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: I understand you correctly, you are saying there is something I want to do that is more powerful than something else that is explicitly illegal.
To begin with, I do not see the logic, here. How does the fact that some illegal thing would be less powerful than what I want to do if it weren’t illegal make the thing I want to do illegal?
Also, would you please tell me what that less-powerful illegal thing is?
You seriously don't get the logic? You are explicitly told that something which is nearly identical to the thing you're trying to do, but less effective, is illegal. You don't think that has any impact whatsoever on the intent of allowing the more powerful nearly identical thing you are trying to do? I honestly don't know how much clearer of an implication you can get than that.
Can I do X? No, you're explicitly told that you cannot.
Then can I do Y, which is demonstrably more powerful than X, because there's no rule that says I can't do Y? ... No. It's the same thing as X but better. If you can't do X, why would you think you can do Y?
So what is the less powerful illegal thing? As I made clear, it's using your natural weapons in addition to flurrying. What there may be confusion on is what exactly you're advocating. The OP was asking if he could substitute his bite attack for his iteratives, then make an additional bite attack and two claw attacks. That is the attack sequence I have been responding to. In rereading it appears that you misunderstood what he was asking.
I assume now that you are not advocating that the OP's requested attack sequence is correct: Bite+11/+6/+1 (in place of iteratives) in addition to Bite+11/Claw+11/Claw+11
This is not an acceptable attack routine. Yours isn't either (with one fewer bite at +11), but it's not as egregious as the OP's.
So if my example didn't make sense, it's because I was responding to the attack sequence posed by the OP. My apologies for the confusion.
Regarding the intent of the developers, you've made multiple statements in a number of threads that you believe that your position goes well beyond what was intended by the 3.5 developers. But you also believe that that intent is no longer relevant, in large part because of a change in wording to the language used in the Monk entry. But despite me repeatedly asking you to explain it, you never have. So I'm hoping that you will at some point, beyond making a reference to a "let's eat grandma" style joke.
Pathfinder 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. D&D 3.5 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). There are precisely two differences between these two entries. PF has changed "both as" to "as both". And PF has removed the parenthetical examples. That is it. And to me it is interesting to note that the d20srd retains "both as" but also omits the specific examples (likely for the same reasons Paizo did).
You have said that you have no doubt that the 3.5 version of this rule wouldn't allow you to do what you are trying to do. But you now think PF does, because the intent is different. How exactly are either of these changes indicative of a completely different intent?
Are you placing that much emphasis on the omission of the specific examples? What do you make of the Barbarian's Rage entry? PF omitted specific reference to activating magic items like wands and scrolls, but kept the language regarding abilities that require patience or concentration. Does that mean raging PF Barbarians can activate wands now? PF Druid's Wild Empathy doesn't include the explanatory parenthetical providing examples of animals that 3.5 does. Do you believe this omission also changes how Wild Empathy works for PF Druids? In PF, the Monk's Purity of Body entry doesn't provide the examples of mummy rot and lycanthropy. Does this mean the ability functions differently than it did in 3.5? How does it work differently and how do we know? If the PF Ranger's entry for Evasion doesn't include the parenthetical regarding a Red Dragon's fiery breath like the 3.5 version, does that mean it functions differently, too? Is the PF Wizard's Empathic Link more or less limited when conveying he general emotions of a familiar than the same 3.5 ability, since the PF ability doesn't provide examples of general emotions like 3.5 does?
Are you starting to sense a pattern? You base your entire argument on the absence of the examples contained in the parentheticals. This, according to you, evinces a drastically different intent by Pathfinder. You've said as much.
[The 3.5] 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. What's more likely, Paizo eliminated the examples in the parentheses because of restrictions regarding the OGL or some other drafting and editing requirement, or Paizo eliminated the examples but kept literally everything else about that section of the rules pretty much identical because it intended for the ability to function completely differently?
Plus, your argument that the 3.5 developers never would have considered PCs with natural attacks is unpersuasive. Not only could a Monk multiclass in Druid and retain his/her ability to flurry, but the rules contain explicit instructions on how PCs can play monstrous races, many of which provide for natural attacks. Clearly the possibility was far less common, but certainly it was contemplated.
Remember, the burden of proof is on you. And your burden isn't simply to come up with any kind of interpretation and make everyone else prove you wrong; your burden is to provide an interpretation and demonstrate that it is at least plausible that your interpretation was intended by the developers.
Ultimately, until you can explain how developer intent is for this rule regarding US being treated as manufactured and natural for specific purposes to apply to things other than the US themselves, the whole secondary natural weapons argument is irrelevant. If that language means what everyone has always assumed it means (which is the same thing it meant in 3.5), then natural attacks made in conjunction with a Monk's US are necessarily secondarily. Please explain how you think Paizo's intent is so drastically different than the 3.5 version.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: fretgod99 wrote: Why do people think you can get iteratives with a natural attack via FCT? There's nothing in the rules to support that. Actually, that is perfectly false.
Feral Combat Training states that to your selected natural attack, you can apply effects that augment an unarmed strike.
An effect that augments an unarmed strike is that when your BAB gets high enough, you get iterative attacks.
Not all unarmed strikes do get iterative strikes: only the ones that are augmented by a high BAB.
Iterative attacks are an effect that augments an unarmed strike, so they are a benefit that is granted by Feral Combat Training.
Circular logic based upon incorrect information leads to wrong conclusions.
Why is anyone still responding to Scott? Do you honestly think hes going to change his erroneous argument? Everyone knows how this works, just move on and let this thread die please.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Calth wrote: Why is anyone still responding to Scott? Do you honestly think hes going to change his erroneous argument? Everyone knows how this works, just move on and let this thread die please. Because some poor innocent person, earnestly searching for accurate information on the forums on this issue, may stumble across this thread and see that Scott's "claims" take up a significant amount of space. They may not have the savvy to look back and see the clear refutations (mainly because Scott spams posts because, if you can't be right, at least be loud). They may be lead to an incorrect conclusion because of Scott's disinformation. That is why people are so persistent in making it abundantly clear that Scott is spreading disinformation. And, honestly, if it were my forum, he'd be banned at this point for his actions as they damage the community... but that's just me.
Chess Pwn wrote: And you've still never explained how the Monk's unarmed strike stops being a manufactured weapon for natural attacks to have a -5. Since it's always counting as manufactured. HI I am an outside member to this debate and recently today spoke with Scott in person on the matter now I was skeptical at first of his argument but his line of thinking was sound and while I agreed with many of you that since the unarmed strike was a manufactured weapon and thus effects of the monk ability would not apply (I personally had always thought that all unarmed strikes were considered natural weapons) and thus was shocked to discover this and as an example I was giving came up we decided to look at the spell Magic Weapon which I will quote here and give the link to the spell from the PRD that affirms that many of you have this idea wrong
"You can't cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang)."
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/spells/magicWeapon.html#magic-weapon
Please copy paste the link.
And as you see here under the magic weapon spell an unarmed attack is CLEARLY stated to be a NATURAL attack/which means That ALL arguments on both sides are INVALID because both parties understanding of the rules on Unarmed Strikes were false.
(Sorry Scott not trying to sound mean).
Also if you wish to be technical I agree with the statement previously given that the monk class ability does in fact consider the monks unarmed strike Both of the two type however it only does so if it is being affected by something that would require it to be either Manufactured or Natural if neither is required then it stays its base type of NATURAL as this spell and by assumption other spells will state which in all cases allows what Scott has been saying throughout this thread to be true.
My apologies to those I may have offended with this post and wish to only settle this dispute by stating the falsehood in the main argument against one party.
To allow FCT to generate iteratives off all your natural weapons would be hideous (although hugely feat intensive).
Tengu ninjas with Kamikaze ninja trick and claw/claw/bite..
Now if an additional Feat with FCT as the prerequisite gave the effect: when making a full attack you can make an additional attack with the chosen Natural attack at a -5 penalty, I think that would probably be ok and balanced (as you're probably not going to take this feat multiple times)
Eh, unarmed strikes are sort of in a grey area between manufactured and natural weapons but are typically treated as manufactured. The Magic Weapon entry does create some doubt, but they're generally treated as manufactured weapons. They appear on the manufactured weapons table in the equipment chapter. Monsters which "do not have natural attacks" may still make unarmed strikes. And unarmed strikes can be used to make iterative attacks which natural weapons are explicitly not allowed to do.
So despite the language in the Magic Weapon spell, unarmed strikes are generally treated as, and understood to be, manufactured weapons.
fretgod99 wrote: Eh, unarmed strikes are sort of in a grey area between manufactured and natural weapons but are typically treated as manufactured. The Magic Weapon entry does create some doubt, but they're generally treated as manufactured weapons. They appear on the manufactured weapons table in the equipment chapter. Monsters which "do not have natural attacks" may still make unarmed strikes. And unarmed strikes can make iterative attacks which natural weapons are explicitly not allowed to do.
So despite the language in the Magic Weapon spell, unarmed strikes are generally treated as, and understood to be, manufactured weapons.
Hi fretgod I'm sorry to say this but the reason many people will consider it as a manufactured weapon is either do to needing a bonus for it being so as in a monks case or wearing armor of medium or heavy which in these cases gives the wearer a gauntlet thus the unarmed attack is with a gauntlet which IS a manufactured weapon
ICEruseseyes wrote: fretgod99 wrote: Eh, unarmed strikes are sort of in a grey area between manufactured and natural weapons but are typically treated as manufactured. The Magic Weapon entry does create some doubt, but they're generally treated as manufactured weapons. They appear on the manufactured weapons table in the equipment chapter. Monsters which "do not have natural attacks" may still make unarmed strikes. And unarmed strikes can make iterative attacks which natural weapons are explicitly not allowed to do.
So despite the language in the Magic Weapon spell, unarmed strikes are generally treated as, and understood to be, manufactured weapons.
Hi fretgod I'm sorry to say this but the reason many people will consider it as a manufactured weapon is either do to needing a bonus for it being so as in a monks case or wearing armor of medium or heavy which in these cases gives the wearer a gauntlet thus the unarmed attack is with a gauntlet which IS a manufactured weapon I'm not sure what your point is here but it's generally irrelevant. People consider them manufactured because outside of the single confusing entry in Magic Weapon, everything else in the rule books treats them as manufactured. I was going to edit before you replied, but go look at Magic Fang. That spell doesn't lump US in with natural weapons. If US was a natural weapon, it wouldn't say it can be applied to "a natural weapon or an unarmed strike".
So what's more likely, Magic Weapon is an unfortunate and somewhat confusing poor choice of words and US are treated as manufactured weapons or literally every other reference to US in the rule books is wrong because of the odd wording in one spell?
And how do you get around the iterative attack issue?
I am sorry.
After reading through the PRD and some other rule books a little more I must say Sorry but US you are correct are not in fact natural attacks even though stated so a many cases as such. The description of an unarmed attack states that this attack is not a natural attack. However I have to argue that you argument then in this case is also invalid because no where is it also stated that an unarmed strike is treated as a manufactured weapon. So i then say this since this is the case and since many wordings in the core books say contradictory things including calling a unarmed strike natural as in magic weapon or specifically calling it not so in its description might we say that it is neither of the two which in this case forces the monk class ability to make perfect sense which in its wording gleams light on this situation. This states that
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.(why would it say both if it was already manufactured?)
By this class feature we Must then assume that an US is neither a Natural nor a Manufactured weapon thus deserves clarification in some way shape or form. I will not argue this anymore for it is now my belief that the Rules of Pathfinder specifically contradict itself on this matter and DESERVE clarity so the argument is then settled for since the US is neither until SAID to be one or the other by way of an effect being placed upon it as worded in the class ability by it in fact saying "for the purpose of" we must take away that an US is neither a natural nor a manufactured weapon thus requires different rules all its own thus (and i'm sorry Scott) I believe neither argument has any salt because without it being natural nor being manufactured both arguments become INVALID. Until clarification is given about Unarmed Strike either the class ability or the attack.
Wow. I started this thread to ask something, and in the answer found out I had got several rules wrong, but was to busy at the time to thank people for helping me get things right and never went back later because I assumed the thread would've disappeared in to the depths of old threads.
Boy was I wrong. lol
Have to read up and workout what happened.
ICEruseseyes wrote: I am sorry.
After reading through the PRD and some other rule books a little more I must say Sorry but US you are correct are not in fact natural attacks even though stated so a many cases as such. The description of an unarmed attack states that this attack is not a natural attack. However I have to argue that you argument then in this case is also invalid because no where is it also stated that an unarmed strike is treated as a manufactured weapon. So i then say this since this is the case and since many wordings in the core books say contradictory things including calling a unarmed strike natural as in magic weapon or specifically calling it not so in its description might we say that it is neither of the two which in this case forces the monk class ability to make perfect sense which in its wording gleams light on this situation. This states that
A heads up on where your confusion is coming from.
A lot of the core rulenook was simply cut and pasted from the SRD from 3.5. Unfortunately as Pathfinder developed the chamged the terminology and definitions they used for some areas, Attacks/Manufactured Weapons/Melee Attacks/Natural Attacks been a large part of these changes.
The main effect of this is you are using terminology and definitions from the Core in comjunction with later works they don't mesh properly. The trick is that later definitions and terminology take precedent over core in these areas.
The manufactured/3rd category status of US has no impact on whether FCT allows you to substitute your bite attack for your US when making iteratives; you cannot.
Beyond that, it is unquestioned by everybody that a non-Monk's US when combined with natural attacks makes the natural attacks secondary. So the question is whether a Monk's US are supposed to be treated like everybody else's when combined with natural attacks or not. The point you're making has little to no impact on that question. Is there evidence to support the conclusion that they're to be treated differently than everybody else's beyond "Well this is technically one way a person could conceivably interpret this Monk entry even though it appears to defy how everyone (including the developers) intends for this ability to work"?
Because so far, that's all we've been given. We haven't even been told how developer intent has changed between 3.5 anf PF, despite the fact that it apparently has (according to some, well, one).
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
US has the uncanny quality of being physically a natural weapon, and thus spells general to keep RL consistency effect them like natural weapons, however mechanically they behave like manufactured weapons and thus apply all the normal effects and uses a manufactured weapon uses.
@ICE: I don't see how the nature of Unarmed Strike in being an mfg/natural weapon has anything to do with the discussion (and I use as lose a definition of "discussion" possible), but it most certainly doesn't render both sides invalid. One side was invalid to begin with and the other certainly isn't affected as such. So lets go over first, the Begging the Question fallacy and second, the nature of Unarmed Strikes.
Begging the Question: Sometimes called "circular logic" or "bootstrapping", this is the logical fallacy of using your intended final conclusion as a beginning premise in order to logically prove itself. In this case, the conclusion is that Natural Attacks can be made in place of Unarmed Strikes for a character who possesses the FCT feat. One of the supporting premises is that a Natural Attack can be made in place of Unarmed Strikes and doing so would be an "augmentation" to said Unarmed Strike which leads logically to the Natural Weapon being used in place of an Unarmed Strike in an otherwise valid attack sequence (ie. Kick/Kick/Kick/Bite/Claw/Claw becomes Bite/Bite/Bite/Bite/Claw/Claw). But you never would have validated the original condition without the premise being presumed allowed. You need to be permitted beforehand to substitute the Natural Attack for Unarmed Strike in order for it to be an augmentation. It's like the old riddle of going back in time to give Mozart (or any other famous composer) a record of his yet un-written music which serves as his inspiration to write said music. Where did the original music come from? Such a situation would be fundamentally and logically impossible, thus any conclusion derived from it is, inherently, invalid.
Unarmed Strikes: Unarmed Strikes are Natural Weapons, but not Natural Attacks. In the combat section, under Natural Attacks, it states, "Natural Attacks: Attacks made with Natural Weapons..." Natural Attacks are "made with" Natural Weapons such as Claws, Bites, etc. So Unarmed Strikes, while being Natural Weapons, already have a method of use and, so, are not valid for making Natural Attacks. Instead they make Unarmed Attacks. The line for Monks states that their Unarmed Strikes count as both Manufactured weapons and Natural weapons. They already counted as Natural weapons, but if they just wrote that they count as manufactured weapons, that would seem like a replacement (they no longer count as natural weapons). So the normal rule is that Unarmed Strikes are Natural Weapons (distinct from Natural Attacks, mind you) and the Monk's exception is that instead of "just" Natural weapons, they count as both those and manufactured weapons.
The problem we have with Scott is his stubborn insistence on rejecting all logical analysis of his position, his use of circular logic to "prove" his position, and, mainly, the fact that his actions damage the reputation of the community and are harmful to people looking for accurate and valid information. He is spreading disinformation and, regardless of whether this is intentional or inadvertent on his part, it should be halted at best or at least adequately displayed to be disinformation so that it doesn't lead anyone to an incorrect conclusion.
fretgod99 wrote: Regarding the examples above, I think it needs to be either a 3rd level Monk or a Monk 1/ Fighter 1. The principle works the same, but I mistyped and forgot to go back and edit in time. I missed this your correction when I responded to your earlier post. I hope you weren't put off my analysis of your suggestion of a level 2 acquisition of FCT using retraining.
The earliest level any of my builds acquire Feral Combat Training is level 4.
1Level Ranger1: Tengu, Ranger, Freebooter, Weapon Focus Bite
L2R1Monk1: Master of Many Styles, Snake Style
3R1M2: Snake Fang, Combat Reflexes
4R1M2Fighter1: Feral Combat Training
HangarFlying wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: fretgod99 wrote: Why do people think you can get iteratives with a natural attack via FCT? There's nothing in the rules to support that. Actually, that is perfectly false.
Feral Combat Training states that to your selected natural attack, you can apply effects that augment an unarmed strike.
An effect that augments an unarmed strike is that when your BAB gets high enough, you get iterative attacks.
Not all unarmed strikes do get iterative strikes: only the ones that are augmented by a high BAB.
Iterative attacks are an effect that augments an unarmed strike, so they are a benefit that is granted by Feral Combat Training.
Circular logic based upon incorrect information leads to wrong conclusions. My logic is not circular. My logic is progressive, and it starts with evidence. Compared with my fellow contributors on this thread, I an extensive user of evidence.
You might argue that one argument of mine builds upon the other like a pyramid, and you might defeat some lower argument and my whole position topples like a statue without a pedestal. But you haven't.
I have been defeating your counter arguments in turn. I have been showing you the rules, and showing how the conditions fit the rules.
If you want to defeat my position, you'll do better to throw rules than insults.
And false information? If you know any single fact that I am in error about, then I urge you to quote it back to us and point out my error. I try to be careful about getting my facts straight, and if you can show me where I haven't, I will gratefully straighten them out. Until you can show a single piece of information I have gotten wrong, you are just throwing more insults.
The post of mine you are replying to is an initial, rough, and cursory expression of my position. Look a few posts down from that one, and you will see a more detailed and structured argument. That is the post you should be responding to if you want to address my real argument.
Apocryphile wrote: To allow FCT to generate iteratives off all your natural weapons would be hideous (although hugely feat intensive).
Tengu ninjas with Kamikaze ninja trick and claw/claw/bite..
Now if an additional Feat with FCT as the prerequisite gave the effect: when making a full attack you can make an additional attack with the chosen Natural attack at a -5 penalty, I think that would probably be ok and balanced (as you're probably not going to take this feat multiple times)
I don't think anyone is suggesting that FCT will allow you to generate iteratives off of all your natural weapons in 1 round. I believe that iterative attacks granted by a high BAB are additive, and I believe having multiple forms of natural attacks that all have Feral Combat Training will not some kind of force multiplier of BAB-based iteratives. I like your idea of Tengu with FCT on their Beaks and Claws getting multiple iteratives for each beak and claw, but I don't think that's legal anymore than you do, at least not with any mechanism we've discussed on this thread.
I am arguing that the iterative attacks you get through a high BAB can be applied to a natural attack with FCT instead of having to apply them to your unarmed strike or a manufactured weapon, if you have a certain Monk ability, that is. I am not suggesting that the iterative attacks can be multiplied by the number of natural attacks you have, even with FCT. It just adds choices.
@ Fretgod and Kazaan: I am not comfortable with the language that you can substitute a FCT-Natural Weapon attack for an unarmed strike. I resent that that idea of things is being attributed to me. I made that clear in a recent response post I made to Fretgod, but it is still being misattributed to me. What part of "I don't think that." did you not understand?
I also asked you what makes you think I think that? I still await an answer. I would like to address any factual or mistaken underlayment of your misattribution, or I would like to be shown that I really used to think that and publicly admit I have had my mind changed by your determined, clever, well-researched, and polite arguments. But continuing to misattribute that position to me after I have clearly disavowed it is dishonest.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: @ Fretgod and Kazaan: I am not comfortable with the language that you can substitute a FCT-Natural Weapon attack for an unarmed strike. I resent that that idea of things is being attributed to me. I made that clear in a recent response post I made to Fretgod, but it is still being misattributed to me. What part of "I don't think that." did you not understand?
I also asked you what makes you think I think that? I still await an answer. I would like to address any factual or mistaken underlayment of your misattribution, or I would like to be shown...
Uh, you realize that by allowing natural attacks to get iteratives you're just substituting that for whenever you'd get an US, right? I am misattributing nothing to you. You are operating under the erroneous position that natural weapons can benefit from iterative attacks via FCT. They cannot. You have absolutely no evidence that iterative attacks augment unarmed strikes. You are incorrectly interpreting the rules to reach a conclusion they do not support.
Instead of making unarmed strikes with your iteratives, you're trying to make natural weapon attacks. Whether you call it "substituting" your natural attack for an unarmed strike or "applying an effect that augments unarmed strikes" to your natural attacks is irrelevant; they are functionally equivalent. You are using the Monk language to substitute natural weapon attacks for unarmed strikes when making iterative attacks. You cannot do this. The reason you cannot do this is because iterative attacks are not an effect that augment unarmed strikes.
A +1 longsword doesn't change properties and all of a sudden get better when it's wielded by a trained fighter. The fighter is simply better at wielding the sword. I.e., the sword is used better. Nothing about the sword changes. The same is true for unarmed strikes.
A Fighter being the recipient of a Bull's Strength spell makes his/her weapon strikes more effective, too. That doesn't mean the Bull's Strength spell makes the weapon better.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
if anything i'd say your weapon effects your attack by changing the damage and the type of damage, etc, not the other way around.
I am curious, though. Earlier on in this thread, it appeared that a large part of what informed your "iteratives with natural weapons via FCT" position was the FAQ language allowing the selected natural weapon to be used as a "monk weapon". SEE:
Scott Wilhelm wrote: From the FAQ, I extrapolate that with Feral Combat Training you are allowed to use these strikes iteratively in the same manner as iterative strikes are allowed with a manufactured Monk Weapon like a Sai. Scott Wilhelm wrote: Claxon wrote: Scott, being able to make iterative attacks is not an effect that augments unarmed strikes. The line is mostly about being able to apply feats that would normally only work with unarmed strikes to your natural weapons. It also works with anything that modifies how an unarmed strike normally works, but making iterative attacks isn't a modification. I agree with that. It was an extrapolation from the FAQ saying that FCT allows the character to treat the natural attack as a Monk Weapon that I offer as rationale for FCT allowing iterative bite attacks, not the text of the FCT Benefit. Do you still believe that? Is this still something that informs your opinion? Because 1. this is precisely the opposite of what you are now arguing (before you expressly said natural weapons benefiting from iteratives is not because of anything associated with FCT), and 2. this is another misapprehension of the rules on your part. FCT making the selected natural weapon a "monk weapon" doesn't mean it gets to make an attack any time any other "monk weapon" can make an attack (i.e., it is not treated like a sai or a temple sword or a siagnham); "Monk Weapon" simply means that the relevant weapon can be used as a part of a flurry of blows.
So, "Monk Weapon" doesn't mean a bite can be used like an other weapon a monk is proficient with. Iterative attacks from high BAB augment the PC, not the weapon. Paizo's intent with the Monk rules was exactly the same as WotC's under 3.5 (which you've admitted would not allow you to do what you are trying to do here). Is there anything else you think supports your position? Because so far you're 0 for 3.
Bandw2 wrote: if anything i'd say your weapon effects your attack by changing the damage and the type of damage, etc, not the other way around. I disagree, and I would like to explain why. You apply bonuses and iterative attacks to the weapons. You don’t apply weapons to the bonuses. Apart from its use a condition as a prerequisite for certain feats, your Base Attack Bonus only exists as an augmentation to a weapon.
From the fact that it is called an attack bonus, I infer that the intent of the rules is that it is to be used on an attack, and you cannot make an attack that has an attack roll without a weapon. All attacks that have attack rolls are made with weapons, and you can’t make an attack roll without one. Usually, we think of these weapons are made with manufactured weapons such as spears and swords, but a weapon can also be a ray spell, a natural weapon such as a claw or a tentacle. If a creature has none of these things, then it can make an unarmed strike, which Ultimate Equipment characterizes as “a light weapon.”
And that is why I assert that Base Attack Bonuses are augmentations to weapons: there is no intrinsic use for the BAB without the weapon. There is only a choice of which weapon you choose to augment with the BAB. And that would include iterative attacks granted by high Base Attack Bonuses. Not all weapons get all of them. You generally can apply them to manufactured weapons, but you generally can’t apply them to natural weapons. You generally can’t apply those iterative attacks to ray spells that take a Standard Action to cast. Some attack spells, such as Magic Missile, cannot benefit from attack rolls and only get iterative attacks via a completely different mechanism from the BAB. I cite this as a reason why Pathfinder counts Scorching Ray as a weapon but not Magic Missile. It’s not a weapon if you can’t apply your BAB to it.
The primary purpose of the BAB is to augment attack rolls made with weapons. That is why I say you apply the bonus to a weapon, and not the other way around, and it is also partly why I assert and prove my position that the BAB is an effect that augments an unarmed strike, and why iterative attacks granted by a high BAB can be
We gamers describe weapons such as swords, unarmed strikes, and bite attacks with metrics such as how many attacks you get with the weapon, how likely you are to score a hit with the weapon, and how much damage you do with that weapon. By these metrics, iterative attacks granted by a high Base Attack Bonus are effects that improve natural weapons and effects that augment unarmed strike as in the Monk Class Ability and Feral Combat Training.
Base Attack Bonus also applies to Bull Rushing, that's not a weapon. It also applies to Grapple, which isn't a weapon. It also applies to Disarm, which is also not a weapon. It also applies to every other combat maneuver, none of which are weapons, yet you still make attack rolls to accomplish them. It applies to Combat Maneuver Defense, as well. Not a weapon. It's relevant to overcoming a Feint attempt. Not a weapon.
Base Attack Bonus apparently has the power to augment every weapon simultaneously, without making any change in the weapon in any conceivable sense, whatsoever. Your argument is utterly nonsensical.
Also, I find it curious that you would resort to proving your point by inferring intent. You're the person who's said that "the rules as intended are irrelevant almost all the time" because resorting to figuring out developer intent is akin to "mind reading" and we can't be held responsible for what developers "meant to say".
That you must use some sort of weapon to make an attack (most of the time) does not mean that Base Attack Bonus augments the weapon. The conclusion is unsupported by the claim. Your insistence that it be true is also not proof.
Bottom line, the rules state that if your BAB is high enough you can get extra attacks. They do not say your weapon gets additional attacks. They do not say that you can make extra attacks, but only with a specific weapon. A +1 Longsword is a +1 Longsword; nothing about the sword changes depending upon who's wielding it. What changes is how adept the wielder is at using any weapon. This change is reflected in the BAB mechanic.
Fretgod wrote: you realize that by allowing natural attacks to get iteratives you're just substituting that for whenever you'd get an US, right? I am misattributing nothing to you. Fretgod, I am very uncomfortable with your rewording of my argument. I do not endorse your rewording of my argument. If you continue arguing against this, your rewording of my argument, I will treat it as if it were never my argument.
It is my argument. It shall be worded as I see fit.
You have complained that my arguments are confusing. Rewording them to imply things I disbelieve compounds that problem. Don’t be part of the problem. I invite you to demonstrate that it is not your debate tactic to reword my arguments for the purpose of creating confusion.
Fretgod wrote: Base Attack Bonus also applies to... combat maneuver, none of which are weapons, yet you still make attack rolls to accomplish them. I think combat maneuvers are weapons. You can take Weapon Focus for any combat maneuver, and you can only take Weapon Focus for a weapon. Functionally, they work as weapons.
Fretgod wrote: Also, I find it curious that you would resort to proving your point by inferring intent. You're the person who's said that "the rules as intended are irrelevant almost all the time" because resorting to figuring out developer intent is akin to "mind reading" and we can't be held responsible for what developers "meant to say" To begin with, there is no post on this thread where I made a reference to mind reading.
Also, unlike my detractors, I admit that I am inferring the intent of the intent of the writers: other people bandy around RAI as if they were certain of the intent of the writers, which they have no grounds for. I do have grounds for my inference, and I provided my evidence. Most of the people who have stated with certitude about the intent of the writers included absolutely no evidence that they have any insight whatsoever that they have any insight into the intent of the writers.
The bottom line is that your attack bonuses are applied to your weapons, and that includes your bonus attacks. I have demonstrated that iterative attacks granted by base attack bonus match the rule "effects that augment and unarmed strike." There have been good arguments; you made one or more of them, and I have countered them.
Combat maneuvers aren't weapons. You can't take weapon focus in any combat maneuver. The text says "Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for the purposes of this feat." Grapple is the only combat maneuver you can take weapon focus in, and only because it's a specific exception.
If combat maneuvers are weapons, what damage do they deal? How much do they weigh? How do you get proficiency with them? (required for weapon focus) Can I make them masterwork? Can you enchant them? Can I make my grapple magical and give it +1 attack and damage? My bull rush? What are you enchanting if you do that? Your body? If you could do that, don't you think every unarmed monk ever would know about that?
BLAH BLAH FLIBBITY RAAAAAAWR GRRR FLOPPITY.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Bandw2 wrote: if anything i'd say your weapon effects your attack by changing the damage and the type of damage, etc, not the other way around. I disagree, and I would like to explain why. You apply bonuses and iterative attacks to the weapons. You don’t apply weapons to the bonuses. Apart from its use a condition as a prerequisite for certain feats, your Base Attack Bonus only exists as an augmentation to a weapon.
From the fact that it is called an attack bonus, I infer that the intent of the rules is that it is to be used on an attack, and you cannot make an attack that has an attack roll without a weapon. All attacks that have attack rolls are made with weapons, and you can’t make an attack roll without one. Usually, we think of these weapons are made with manufactured weapons such as spears and swords, but a weapon can also be a ray spell, a natural weapon such as a claw or a tentacle. If a creature has none of these things, then it can make an unarmed strike, which Ultimate Equipment characterizes as “a light weapon.”
And that is why I assert that Base Attack Bonuses are augmentations to weapons: there is no intrinsic use for the BAB without the weapon. There is only a choice of which weapon you choose to augment with the BAB. And that would include iterative attacks granted by high Base Attack Bonuses. Not all weapons get all of them. You generally can apply them to manufactured weapons, but you generally can’t apply them to natural weapons. You generally can’t apply those iterative attacks to ray spells that take a Standard Action to cast. Some attack spells, such as Magic Missile, cannot benefit from attack rolls and only get iterative attacks via a completely different mechanism from the BAB. I cite this as a reason why Pathfinder counts Scorching Ray as a weapon but not Magic Missile. It’s not a weapon if you can’t apply your BAB to it.
The primary purpose of the BAB is to augment attack rolls made with weapons. That is why I say you apply the bonus to a... actually no, your BAB is a stat of your character that he uses for attack rolls, it augments attacks and other things, but the weapon augments your attack as well. if you have no weapon, you have unarmed strikes. basically, BAB and your weapon both effect your attack, and do not actually effect each other at all.
or in essence, BAB - to hit, weapon - to damage
Bob Bob Bob wrote: Combat maneuvers aren't weapons. You can't take weapon focus in any combat maneuver. The text says "Choose one type of weapon. You can also choose unarmed strike or grapple (or ray, if you are a spellcaster) as your weapon for the purposes of this feat." Grapple is the only combat maneuver you can take weapon focus in, and only because it's a specific exception.
If combat maneuvers are weapons, what damage do they deal? How much do they weigh? How do you get proficiency with them? (required for weapon focus) Can I make them masterwork? Can you enchant them? Can I make my grapple magical and give it +1 attack and damage? My bull rush? What are you enchanting if you do that? Your body? If you could do that, don't you think every unarmed monk ever would know about that?
You make a good point: Grapple is the only Combat Maneuver that is actually a weapon. Let’s take a look at that. What are some Combat Maneuvers?
Trip: imposes the prone condition on your target
Overrun: lets you move through an opponent’s square
Bull Rush, Drag, Reposition: moves the opponent
Disarm: deprives opponent of his weapon
Feint: Takes away an opponent’s dex bonus, although this doesn’t quite seem to count as a combat maneuver, and doesn’t use the CMB
Dirty Trick: Imposes any of a lot of conditions: blinded, staggered, dazzled, and entangled among others
Grapple: Imposes conditions on opponent, including Grappled, Pinned, and Tied Up, also moves opponent and damages opponent
Sunder: Damages objects
Steal: takes an item from the target that is not being held
So what makes Grapple a weapon apart from the other maneuvers? Grapple is the only one that inflicts damage. Sunder sort of inflicts damage, but you always use a weapon to Sunder. If you have no other weapon at all, you Sunder with an Unarmed Strike, which is also a weapon, so you might use Weapon Focus for Sundering, but it would be Weapon Focus Earthbreaker, not Weapon focus Sunder. Of course, weapons that inflict damage is precisely what we are talking about here in this discussion of natural vs. manufactured weapons, unarmed strikes, swords, spears, bites, and tentacles.
But what does this really mean? Base Attack Bonuses are mostly applied to weapons and attacks with weapons that inflict damage. They might also be applied to combat maneuvers which are also weapons. They are applied to you combat maneuver defense. They are not applied to all attacks. They don’t apply to a Burning Hands Spell, for instance. They do not apply to your saving throws. The base attack bonus is not intrinsic to the person. They are acquired by gaining enough levels in the right classes. They do not apply to the person as opposed to the weapon. It is a bonus which can be applied to some things and not to others, including natural weapons that have Feral Combat Training
It still doesn't change the weapon in any sense.
Look at it this way: a character sees a long sword lying on the ground. He picks it up and makes an attack with it. Afterwords he sets the long sword back down. In what way is the long sword different?
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote: It still doesn't change the weapon in any sense.
Look at it this way: a character sees a long sword lying on the ground. He picks it up and makes an attack with it. Afterwords he sets the long sword back down. In what way is the long sword different?
There is a sense in which the sword is changed: the most meaningful sense. Look at it this way: a sword is a tool, a tool is defined by how it is used. When the first Homo Habilis picked up her first hammerstone in the Oldewan Valley, it was just a rock. It became something else when she began making scrapers and cutting tools with it. A skilled warrior doesn't necessarily change the shape or composition of those 4 pounds of carbon and iron when he picks up that sword, but it means something different in his hands than it does in other places. It might not just be 4 pounds of iron and carbon when it is lying on the ground. Many swords are carefully crafted, carefully formulated, and carefully shaped. A sword lying on the ground may be quite a work of art. But the fact that it is lying on the ground gives it meaning, too. Is it covered with rust? If not, it was only lying on the ground for a very short time. It's original owner is probably not far away, perhaps lying dead on the ground next to it, or maybe the owner ran away. Perhaps he was a coward or just saw something so scary that anyone would have run away. Context does give meaning.
But these are philosophical considerations.
We gamers describe weapons such as swords, unarmed strikes, and bite attacks with metrics such as how many attacks you get with the weapon, how likely you are to score a hit with the weapon, and how much damage you do with that weapon. By these metrics, iterative attacks granted by a high Base Attack Bonus are effects that improve natural weapons and effects that augment unarmed strike as in the Monk Class Ability and Feral Combat Training.
So now I want to expand upon my earlier post demonstrating that removing the -5 penalty imposed upon secondary natural attacks constitutes an effect that augments an unarmed strike such as is gifted by the Feral Combat Training Feat and the Monk ability that a Monk Unarmed Strike counts as both a manufactured and a natural Weapon for the purposes of effects that improve manufactured and natural weapons.
I’d like to review some of the counter arguments I have been addressing.
People have argued that a Monk Unarmed Strike is by default a manufactured weapon, and the Monk ability gives the monk the ability to treat the MUS as a natural weapon only simultaneously with it’s being treated as a manufactured weapon, not instead of, and so still takes the -5 penalty. ICE addressed that well in his post of Sun, Sep 7, 2014, 03:40 AM on this thread, but I do intend to expand upon it.
People have also declared that eliminating the -5 penalty does not constitute an effect vis a vis the description of the Feat, as in “effects that augment an unarmed strike.” But in my post of September 4, 7:07PM on this thread, I have demonstrated that the ability to eliminate the penalty does fit the definitions of effect, augment, and improve with respect to the class ability and with respect to the benefits of the Feral Combat Training Feat.
People have argued that this ability only works on effects that modify the MUS itself, but a simple look at the wording of the rules makes it clear that no such limitation exists. I dealt with this expansively on my post of Thu, Aug 28, 2014, 10:03 PM on this thread. People have argued that that was not the intent of the rules, but I demonstrated comprehensively that that claim cannot be made. I went into detail recently about the RAI surrounding this rule in my posts of Fri, Aug 29, 2014, 11:57 PM .
Now I would like to explore an example about how this would work in a character. I have a character build, a Half-Orc with the Toothy Alternative Racial Trait. She will take a few levels in Monk, a few levels in Ranger, and a few levels in Alchemist. She will take the Tentacle, Alchemal Discovery.
One interesting thing to bear in mind is that even a nominally secondary natural weapon like a Tentacle becomes a primary natural weapon when it is the character’s only natural attack, so if this character didn’t have the bite attack, her Tentacle wouldn’t even have a -5. And since the Bite attack is just gravy, and controversial gravy, the more prudent thing for a build that hangs upon, like mine does, using Feral Combat Training to apply Snake Fang to a Alchemal Tentacle and take advantage of Improved Natural Attack, the Grab Ability, and Armor Spikes to maximize damage and then later to develop Grappling in its own right, is to just not have a Bite Attack.
To offset the -5 (and for other reasons), she will take the Feral Combat Training Feat for her Tentacle. And I am demonstrating that the rules of the game say she can do just that.
Feral Combat Training lets her apply to her tentacle “effects that augment an unarmed strike.” And one such effect is the ability to count a MUS “as both a natural and a manufactured weapon for the purposes of effects that enhance or improve manufactured or natural weapons. This means she can treat her natural-weapon-tentacle as a manufactured weapon for the purposes of removing the -5 penalty. This is an effect caused by treating the tentacle as a manufactured weapon, which the ability combined with the feat says she can do. Of course, she doesn’t have to treat her tentacle as a manufactured weapon for the purposes of combining it with the Bite Attack, because the Monk Ability says, “for the purposes of effects that enhance or improve unarmed strikes,” and because the Tentacle, of course, remains a Tentacle, and is still a natural weapon, the bite attack doesn’t take a -5 either.
|
