Feral Combat Training combined with other Natural Attacks


Rules Questions

201 to 222 of 222 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

People have argued extensively that when “a Monk Unarmed strike counts as a manufactured and a natural weapon for the purposes of spells and effects that enhance and improve manufactured and natural weapons,” it means that the MUS becomes both natural and manufactured simultaneously, and so even if a MUS counts as a natural weapon when used in the same round, it still counts as a manufactured weapon, and still impose a -5 on an natural attack you combine it with such as a Bite attack.

I argue that that is not the case. The MUS may count as only one of the other to the advantage of the Monk. To support this, I have been looking for spells and effects that specify that they work on either manufactured or natural weapons and also specify that they don’t work on the other. That has been hard to find. Almost every spell that enhances natural weapons do not mention manufactured weapons at all, and vice versa for spells that enhance manufactured weapons. That suggests that the rules as intended is that there are no weapons that are both natural and manufactured. But we don’t need to deal in suggestions of intent. There is a spell that speaks straight to the point. Magic Weapon.

Magic Weapon wrote:

School transmutation; Level cleric 1, paladin 1, sorcerer/wizard 1

Casting Time 1 standard action
Components V, S, DF
Range touch
Target weapon touched
Duration 1 min./level
Saving Throw Will negates (harmless, object); Spell Resistance yes (harmless, object)
Magic weapon gives a weapon a +1 enhancement bonus on attack and damage rolls. An enhancement bonus does not stack with a masterwork weapon's +1 bonus on attack rolls.
You can't cast this spell on a natural weapon, such as an unarmed strike (instead, see magic fang). A monk's unarmed strike is considered a weapon, and thus it can be enhanced by this spell.

Magic Weapon Specifies that it works on manufactured weapons, but it does not work on natural weapons. Magic Weapon specifies that it works on Monk Unarmed Strikes, and that means that when a Monk Unarmed Strike counts as a Manufactured Weapon, it does NOT count as a natural weapon. Furthermore, Magic Weapon Specifies that it doesn’t work on Unarmed Strikes, only Monk Unarmed Strikes, and that means that Unarmed Strikes are not manufactured weapons. It takes at least a level in Monk to gain the class ability to treat your unarmed strike as a manufactured weapon but not always simultaneously as a natural weapon. And the parallel structure of the wording of the Monk Ability implies the converse: when a MUS counts as a natural weapon, it does not have to count as a manufactured simultaneously.


The language of Magic Weapon and Magic Fang has been discussed quite a bit already. Aside from that, your conclusion (MUS must only be one at a time because of the language of Magic Weapon) is unsupported by your argument. All that is happening is that a Monk's US is an exception to the rule that Magic Weapon doesn't typically work on US. Nothing more can be inferred.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

i've already said that unarmed strieks are mechanically manufactured but physically natural and thus for continuity, they make exceptions for some spells so that they make sense.

meanwhile monk UAS are counted as manufactured for several instances for balance, as many monks will never pick up a weapon, and thus the wizard would have to get magic fang some how to buff the monk.

the specific rules on magic weapon have no bearing on the general rules anyway.

Paizo Glitterati Robot

Removed a couple posts. We totally get that people are going to have strong opinions about rules topics, but please focus on discussing content and not turn the discussion into pile on of another poster. Thanks.


Quote:

You were taught a style of martial arts that relies on the

natural weapons from your racial ability or class feature.
Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Strike, Weapon Focus
with selected natural weapon.
Benefit: Choose one of your natural weapons. While
using the selected natural weapon, you can apply the
effects of feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike
as a prerequisite, as well as effects that augment an
unarmed strike.
Special: If you are a monk, you can use the selected
natural weapon with your flurry of blows class feature.

Once again, apart from the iterative part which can be a bit ambiguous, the other parts are quite clear for me :

Benefit :
- First : "Choose one of your natural weapons". Only this weapon will be taken into account for this feat. Ok "Claw" I choose you !!! So my bite attack won't benefit from this feat, only my claws. Since, per RAW, you can't take a feat two times unless otherwise stated in the feat that's the only weapons I can choose in my entire adventurer's life.

- Second : "While using the selected natural weapon, you can apply the effects of feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite". You can take feat such as dragon style or stunning fist and apply it with your natural attack. So now I can make 3 natural attacks at full BaB but my claw natural attacks are stunning if I want to...
That's it for the feat part, that's all the feat let you do, take unarmed strike feats and apply them to your chosen Natural weapon.
The feat is not clear if you count as having Weapon Focus : Unarmed Strike since you have weapon focus : "claw", which count as unarmed strike for feat, for the case I wanted to take the Counterpunch feat for example.

- Third : "While using the selected natural weapon you can apply effects that augment an unarmed strike". Effects that augment unarmed strike... Well that's less clear for sure... Especially for iterative attacks, since there's nowhere in the rules a list of "effects that augment", or for that matter we don't really know what kind of "effects" they intend... And there's also no definition of iterative attacks in the rule, the only thing defined is the base attack bonus definition which state that you gain one extra attack when reaching +6.
So when you get to +6 BaB you gain one supplementary attack at -5, the real question is : "does this bonus attack count as an effect that augment unarmed strike ?", well since there's no clear rule as a master I would say yes... at +6 BaB you gain one attack bonus on your claw as natural weapon with -5 to touch (Oh seems my third claw is now a secondary attack ;) ). Mainly because this is notoverpowered and I think it's still subpar compared what most of the manufactured can do to the extent of my knowledge.

- Fourth : "Special: If you are a monk, you can use the selected natural weapon with your flurry of blows class feature. : As stated in bold this is a special rule if you are a monk making you capable of using the selected natural weapon when you use FoB (which is a full round action that doesn't let you use your other natural attacks.). So no question asked here, it's pretty clear.

So, finally, nowhere in the feat it's stated that your natural weapons become unarmed strike, you can't use manufactured weapons rules, you still use natural weapons rules with your Feral Natural Weapons.

That's how I read the feat.

Edit : Oops seems that I have overlooked this :

Quote:
BaB entry in player book : he receives an additional attack in combat when he takes a full-attack action

So I will still let the player get his extra natural attack at -5 but only on a full round action.


Loengrin wrote:
So I will still let the player get his extra natural attack at -5 but only on a full round action.

Essentially, yes. If he's doing a normal, stock full-attack, he can do so just like anyone else, adding his natural attacks on at -5. So, with 3 iterative attacks, he could do Temple Sword/Temple Sword -5/Temple Sword -10/Bite -5, for example. He gets to apply his Monk unarmed damage dice to his chosen natural weapon, mind you, so if he took Bite as his FCT choice, his Bite would get the benefit of Monk Unarmed damage as well as any feats such as Weapon Focus: Unarmed Strike.

Doing a Flurry of Blows, however, is different as, in that case, he can replace any attack in his sequence with either Unarmed Strike or his chosen natural weapon. In that case, and only in the case of Flurry of Blows, he can replace his Temple Sword/Temple Sword/Temple Sword -5/Temple Sword -5/Temple Sword -10 with Bite/Bite/Bite-5/Bite -5/Bite -10, getting his full Flurry BaB for all of them.


Kazaan wrote:
Loengrin wrote:
So I will still let the player get his extra natural attack at -5 but only on a full round action.

Essentially, yes. If he's doing a normal, stock full-attack, he can do so just like anyone else, adding his natural attacks on at -5. So, with 3 iterative attacks, he could do Temple Sword/Temple Sword -5/Temple Sword -10/Bite -5, for example. He gets to apply his Monk unarmed damage dice to his chosen natural weapon, mind you, so if he took Bite as his FCT choice, his Bite would get the benefit of Monk Unarmed damage as well as any feats such as Weapon Focus: Unarmed Strike.

Doing a Flurry of Blows, however, is different as, in that case, he can replace any attack in his sequence with either Unarmed Strike or his chosen natural weapon. In that case, and only in the case of Flurry of Blows, he can replace his Temple Sword/Temple Sword/Temple Sword -5/Temple Sword -5/Temple Sword -10 with Bite/Bite/Bite-5/Bite -5/Bite -10, getting his full Flurry BaB for all of them.

I believe the point being made there is that Loengrin is saying FCT would allow a character with FCT in a bite attack to make an attack sequence of Bite+6/Bite+1 when the character gets to BAB +6, Flurry of Blows notwithstanding.

So a character with a bite and two claws with FCT in the claws would get the following attack sequence when making a full attack:

Bite+6/Claw+6/Claw+6/Claw+1/Claw+1

Or at least:

Bite+6/Claw+6/Claw+6/Claw+1

This is not how the rules work. loengrin appears to have the same misunderstanding that Scott has about iteratives and natural attacks. That it's not overpowered to allow something doesn't mean that is how the rules are intended to function. Besides, the only real reason that manufactured weapons are superior to natural ones (particularly after BAB+6) is because manufactured weapons get iteratives.


fretgod99 wrote:
Bite+6/Claw+6/Claw+6/Claw+1

This.

But this is while assuming that the attack you gain at BaB 6 is an effect that augment an unarmed strike, if it's the case then per the Feral Combat Training feat statement you gain +1 attack on your Claw if you have chosen Claw as your weapon of choice with the feat.

Now what we really need is a clarification on what are effects that augment an unarmed strike


There's no support for the argument that iteratives augment weapons. Scott has presented an interpretation that has been roundly rejected as it doesn't make logical sense. There's been no evidence presented that iteratives do anything but make the wielder more adept at using any weapon.


The following quote from the flurry of blows class ability prevents the use of additional natural weapon attacks along with the use of a natural weapon (using FCT) while using flurry of blows:

A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows attacks.

Feral Combat Training only modifies the first half of that sentence, it does not modify the second half -- that restriction still applies.

So, what basically happens is that if you pick Bite as your FCT choice, you get iterative attacks using the FOB progression applying the modifiers you have that occur with your bite attack (to each of your FOB iterative attacks), you then cannot use your bite attack as a natural weapon -- nor can you use claws, or tentacles or hooves, or any other natural weapon.

If you want iteratives and natural attacks, you get those without having to take feats or anything else. However, all natural attacks become secondary (-5 to attack and 1/2 STR damage bonus). And a monk uses is regular BAB on the iterative attacks, not the FOB progression and cannot use his natural weapons in the iterative attacks...those are unarmed strikes.

This isn't complicated.


fretgod99 wrote:
The language of Magic Weapon and Magic Fang has been discussed quite a bit already. Aside from that, your conclusion (MUS must only be one at a time because of the language of Magic Weapon) is unsupported by your argument. All that is happening is that a Monk's US is an exception to the rule that Magic Weapon doesn't typically work on US. Nothing more can be inferred.

> The language of Magic Weapon and Magic Fang has been discussed quite a bit already.

Bandw2 wrote:
i've already said that unarmed strieks are mechanically manufactured but physically natural

Does that mean I don’t get to offer my opinions because somebody else has already offered theirs? No thanks, I’ll speak my mind, anyway, thank you very much.

> your conclusion (MUS must only be one at a time because of the language of Magic Weapon)

I did word that poorly. That is not what I meant, but I understand how my wording left that interpretation open.

I meant to say that the wording of the Magic Weapon dweomer makes it clear that “a monk unarmed strike counts as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purposes of spells and effects that enhance and improve manufactured and natural weapons,” does not mean that a MUS must always count as both for all penalties and all bonuses, but may count as one, the other or both to the monks' advantage, “for the purposes of spells and effects that enhance and improve manufactured and natural weapons.”

> All that is happening is that a Monk's US is an exception to the rule that Magic Weapon doesn't typically work on US. Nothing more can be inferred.

It's not worded as an exception. It says that the spell will work on a Monk Unarmed Strike “because it is also a weapon.” That is a clarification to the rules, not an exception to the rules.

Bandw2 wrote:
monk UAS are counted as manufactured for several instances for balance, as many monks will never pick up a weapon, and thus the wizard would have to get magic fang some how to buff the monk.

That is not why they count as manufactured weapons. Admittedly, you may be guessing correctly as to what the writer may have intended when they wrote the rule, but this is not the result of some unspoken convention that emerged for game balance. MUS count as manufactured weapons because Monk's have that Class Ability. There is no need to conjecture about what was intended in this case because they have made the RAW clear.

Bandw2 wrote:
the specific rules on magic weapon have no bearing on the general rules anyway.

The specific rules on Magic Weapon do not change the fact that Unarmed Strikes are not manufactured weapons, but they clarify the rules by explicitly stating that Magic Weapon will not work on Unarmed Strikes because they are not manufactured weapons. And they clarify that a Monk has the ability to count his unarmed strikes as either manufactured or natural (or both) weapons at his or her advantage because the spell description specifies that it will work on monk unarmed strikes, due to the monk ability, and fact that it the spell does not work on manufactured weapons that are also natural weapons at the same time.

That’s what the rules say.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
The language of Magic Weapon and Magic Fang has been discussed quite a bit already. Aside from that, your conclusion (MUS must only be one at a time because of the language of Magic Weapon) is unsupported by your argument. All that is happening is that a Monk's US is an exception to the rule that Magic Weapon doesn't typically work on US. Nothing more can be inferred.

> The language of Magic Weapon and Magic Fang has been discussed quite a bit already.

Bandw2 wrote:
i've already said that unarmed strieks are mechanically manufactured but physically natural
Does that mean I don’t get to offer my opinions because somebody else has already offered theirs? No thanks, I’ll speak my mind, anyway, thank you very much.

When did I say you couldn't? The point simply is that this ground has been covered and you're adding nothing new.

Quote:

> your conclusion (MUS must only be one at a time because of the language of Magic Weapon)

I did word that poorly. That is not what I meant, but I understand how my wording left that interpretation open.

I meant to say that the wording of the Magic Weapon dweomer makes it clear that “a monk unarmed strike counts as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purposes of spells and effects that enhance and improve manufactured and natural weapons,” does not mean that a MUS must always count as both for all penalties and all bonuses, but may count as one, the other or both to the monks' advantage, “for the purposes of spells and effects that enhance and improve manufactured and natural weapons.”

> All that is happening is that a Monk's US is an exception to the rule that Magic Weapon doesn't typically work on US. Nothing more can be inferred.

It's not worded as an exception. It says that the spell will work on a Monk Unarmed Strike “because it is also a weapon.” That is a clarification to the rules, not an exception to the rules.

Uh ... Magic Weapon says that it doesn't work on US. The Monk entry says that Magic Weapon is allowed to work on it. That's an exception. It's specifically creating an exception to the general rule that Magic Weapon does not work on US.


Also Scott, I'm still waiting for you to reply to some pretty important points.


Fretgod wrote:
Uh ... Magic Weapon says that it doesn't work on US. The Monk entry says that Magic Weapon is allowed to work on it. That's an exception. It's specifically creating an exception to the general rule that Magic Weapon does not work on US.

That is NOT an exception to how Magic Weapon works. Monks have a special ability. What you are looking at is the interaction between 2 rules, not an exception to 1 rule.

I have a lot of responses to make to a lot of posts, Fretgod. I'm fielding them in order of relevance.


General Rule: Magic Weapon doesn't work on unarmed strikes
Specific Rule: Magic Weapon works on a Monk's unarmed strikes

Exception: A person or thing that is excluded from a general statement or does not follow a rule

The specific rule is an exception to the general rule. In fact, it's the very definition of an exception.


And how are you setting up your hierarchy of relevance? It seems to me that a post undercutting the very basis for your position (the intent argument) should be pretty high up on your list of priorities. I made this post almost two weeks ago, which pretty clearly demonstrates that you are wrong on PF intent regarding the Monk entry we're discussing. That's the statement upon which you're basing the rest of your arguments.


Quintain wrote:

The following quote from the flurry of blows class ability prevents the use of additional natural weapon attacks along with the use of a natural weapon (using FCT) while using flurry of blows:

A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows attacks.

Feral Combat Training only modifies the first half of that sentence, it does not modify the second half -- that restriction still applies.

So, what basically happens is that if you pick Bite as your FCT choice, you get iterative attacks using the FOB progression applying the modifiers you have that occur with your bite attack (to each of your FOB iterative attacks), you then cannot use your bite attack as a natural weapon -- nor can you use claws, or tentacles or hooves, or any other natural weapon.

If you want iteratives and natural attacks, you get those without having to take feats or anything else. However, all natural attacks become secondary (-5 to attack and 1/2 STR damage bonus). And a monk uses is regular BAB on the iterative attacks, not the FOB progression and cannot use his natural weapons in the iterative attacks...those are unarmed strikes.

This isn't complicated.

> This isn't complicated.

> the flurry of blows class ability prevents the use of additional natural weapon attacks along with the use of a natural weapon (using FCT) while using flurry of blows:

I agree with you; that isn’t complicated. Flurry of Blows is a particular class ability that requires a Full Round Action. Once you make a Flurry of Blows action, some free actions and maybe swift actions aside, your round is done. You still get any attacks of opportunity of course, but AoO’s aren’t part of your round, even when they happen during your round. I don’t think anybody on the thread is contesting this. I don’t contest this. The contentious points on this thread have had mostly to do with Full Attack Actions that are not Flurry of Blows.

With the exception of the Alchemal Tentacle and possibly other exceptions, a Natural Weapon gives you an extra attack. Secondary Natural Weapons suffer a -5 to the attack roll, and Primary Natural Weapons don’t.

So, when a Lion makes 1 Bite Attack and 2 Claw attacks, he makes all 3 with no penalties, since they are all primary natural weapons.

When a Giant Octopus makes a bite attack and 8 tentacle attacks, The Bite attack takes no penalty, and the tentacles take -5s since tentacles are secondary natural weapons, except that Giant Octopi have the Multiattack Feat so that their tentacles only suffer a -2.

Fretgod, Krojin, and Claxon helped me come to this understanding of these Natural Weapon rules in another thread.

Most player character races don’t have natural attacks, so most of the time when an Alchemist takes the Tentacle Discovery, that is the Alchemist’s only natural weapon, so it is usually a Primary Natural Weapon: no -5 penalty.

You can combine manufactured weapon attacks with natural weapons in a full attack action, but when you do, all natural weapons get demoted to Secondary Natural Weapons: they take a -5 penalty, -2 if they have Multiattack

These are all under the Universal Monster Rules under Natural Attacks, and I don’t think any of these are under contention. I'm sorry if I'm coming across as pedantic, but I feel it is necessary to lay down some groundwork.

The controversy begins with Monk Class Abilities and the Feral Combat Training Feat. I intend to expand on that, but this post is already long enough, so I will have to give you more later.


Scott, I want you to do me a favor. Click on the following link and open up the "Character Classes I" document. Under the Monk entry, you will find the following entry:

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.

Notice what is missing: the very things you're claiming Pathfinder left out because they intended this rule to function differently. This document you're looking at is literally the rules source for the entire Pathfinder game system, not the rules contained in the 3.5 CRB. However, you'll notice that this is precisely the same rule as what is in the 3.5 CRB, minus the explanatory parentheticals, just like the Pathfinder rule.

You're on record admitting that what you want to do would not have been permitted under 3.5. Your argument is that PF's intent is different, precisely because they removed the explanatory parentheticals. That is the only thing you've pointed to in attempting to demonstrate this new intent.

As you can see, PF didn't remove the parentheticals because the intent of how this rule functions is different than the intent of how the same rule functions in 3.5; the parentheticals do not appear in the PF edition because those parentheticals are not a part of the Open Gaming License. PF's intent regarding that rule has nothing to do with their absence.

Since, as you've noted, you would not be able to do what you want to do in 3.5, and there's no evidence demonstrating that Pathfinder intends for this particular rule to function any differently than it did in 3.5, you should realize that you are not able to do what you want to do in Pathfinder. The intent is the same. Pathfinder is no different in this regard.


Are people actually still dragging out this discussion?

I think Quintain explained it pretty well. This is how all of us will rule the ability.

I do reckon Scott might try to push this reading of the rules to some unfortunate GMs at PFS-play.

Those poor sods will either let him roll with it or will decide that the argument he makes is too convoluted and will default to the common sense interpretation that the rest of hold to be true. Most will do the latter.

Scott might then complain to the VC or make a complaint to whomever it is that runs PFS. Those people will come to the same conclusion as we have. That this interpretation is in no way "Rules as Written" because there are too many hoops to jump through to come to this conclusion.

This means that PFS people running modules will be under no obligation to let this fly.

And then they will give Scott a choice: To play without this nonsense, or to not play at all.

In the meanwhile, we have all been kind enough to keep adding kindling to this discussion which, as Scott knows very well, has long lost any chance of convincing either side of the debate.

So how about we let this fire die down and get on with discussions which really matter. Because face it: This one is worn out.

Paizo Glitterati Robot

Locking this one. I think we've reached the end of this thread's usefulness.

201 to 222 of 222 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Feral Combat Training combined with other Natural Attacks All Messageboards