Dragon Ferocity and Power Attack after the new FAQ


Rules Questions

101 to 150 of 198 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

It's definitely a fuzzy area.

I think it shouldn't work, because PA can also affect unarmed strikes that aren't natural attacks. If a barbarian has IUS and uses PA, it'll work.

PA could affect natural attacks, but also ordinary (improved) unarmed strikes. Unarmed strikes are more specific, more appropriate, so use the rules that PA has for those: they're light weapons and thus only get +2.

If you had a feat that could not affect unarmed strikes, only natural attacks, then it'd affect MIUS as a natural attack. If the feat can affect unarmed strikes then use it that way.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.

This whole argument would be avoided if we just make natural attacks and weapon attacks use the same rules. The Natural weapon/Manufactured weapon divide makes no sense at all and is confusing for MANY players.

Maybe with Unchained.


Consider the following: When you use TWF, you designate one weapon as your main-hand and a different weapon as your off-hand. These are not fixed distinctions as, in a different round, you have the option to swap those designations. Your Flaming Dagger could be main-hand this round but your Holy Shortsword could be main-hand next round, at your option. Some effects (henceforth referred to as "rules elements") affect your off-hand or main-hand attacks. Other rules elements affect both. Others still simply come into play when you TWF but don't affect the actual attacks being done. To illustrate, Double Slice allows you to use full Str on your off-hand attacks. Off-hand attacks only exist in the context of TWF so Double Slice wouldn't bump your attack from half Str to full Str for secondary natural weapons or any other kind of attack that, for any special reason, gets less than full Str to damage because it only affects off-hand attacks. Even if you used Unarmed Strikes as your off-hand weapon and took FCT, this isn't a bonus that, specifically, improves Unarmed Strikes; it is a bonus that improves your Off-hand Attack. Two-Weapon Warrior gets Defensive Flurry which grants him a scaling Dodge bonus to AC when using TWF. Even if he used Unarmed Strikes as part of his TWF routine, Defensive Flurry isn't a rules element that improves Unarmed Strikes just because you are using Unarmed Strikes. Lastly, TWW also gets Twin Blades which grants +1 attack and damage when making a full-attack with two weapons or a double weapon. This may affect your attack and damage rolls for the weapon, but it isn't affecting "the weapon" in the same manner that Magic Fang affects "the weapon" or Dragon Style/Ferocity affects "your unarmed strikes".


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

The word of issue here seems to be "primary". It's clear that MIUS counts as a natural attack for at least some things, but whether or not it would be considered primary (though no one contends that it is secondary) is fuzzing the issue. If it can be considered primary, PA takes the higher ratio. If it cannot, then it is a light weapon and takes the lower one.

I see no way to prove RAW definitively one way or another without additional information, so further debate seems relegated to opinion and "expect table variation."

Scarab Sages

Save for a few outlying cases, monk unarmed strikes have always worked like weapons regarding iterative attacks. This is proof enough, for me, that unarmed strikes are not treated as natural attacks for ANY purposes other than enhancement via magic or some kind of strange NA only buff, which means they need to follow the normal rules for how attacks with weapons work. Since an unarmed strike is "one-handed"-ish, they use those rules.

Really, all this NA stuff is making it way more complicated than it needs to be.


Gingerbreadman wrote:
Ascalaphus wrote:
I don't mind this working, but I don't think it'll last. Then again, you could get lucky; maybe the backload of FAQ requests for actual problems will delay nerfing this away :P
Sensible FAQ requests don't get priority over nerfing stuff that's working well.

Truth.

That said. I love that they inadvertently buffed the class.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

That's the issue though. "...and effects" means that it isn't just spells, and as this is the rules forum, there just isn't enough there to nail it down one way or the other.
The debate is about power attack, which does not care whether your attack sequence is iterative or natural. Power attack either is or is not an effect, and MIUS either is or is not counted as primary. Beyond that, it is clearly treated as a natural attack sometimes, and it is clearly never a 2h weapon.

Shadow Lodge

Beign "treated as natural" is not the same as beign "treated as a primary natural attack" the same way beign "treated a manufactured" doesnt mean "treated as a one handed weapon". You can try to sneak the term all you want but nothing, absolutely nothing on the text indicates IUS is a primary natural attack. At most its an asumption from the 1.0+0.5 damage ratio, but given RAI is clear then no. Not at all, this is not working.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ElementalXX wrote:
Beign "treated as natural" is not the same as beign "treated as a primary natural attack" the same way beign "treated a manufactured" doesnt mean "treated as a one handed weapon". You can try to sneak the term all you want but nothing, absolutely nothing on the text indicates IUS is a primary natural attack. At most its an asumption from the 1.0+0.5 damage ratio, but given RAI is clear then no. Not at all, this is not working.

It's no longer 1.0+.5 it's now increased to 1.5. That's where the question comes from.

As for the natural attack issues here is a question. Does IUAS put you at -5 to hit while being treated as a natural weapon? If no it's a primary.

Shadow Lodge

Undone wrote:
ElementalXX wrote:
Beign "treated as natural" is not the same as beign "treated as a primary natural attack" the same way beign "treated a manufactured" doesnt mean "treated as a one handed weapon". You can try to sneak the term all you want but nothing, absolutely nothing on the text indicates IUS is a primary natural attack. At most its an asumption from the 1.0+0.5 damage ratio, but given RAI is clear then no. Not at all, this is not working.

It's no longer 1.0+.5 it's now increased to 1.5. That's where the question comes from.

As for the natural attack issues here is a question. Does IUAS put you at -5 to hit while being treated as a natural weapon? If no it's a primary.

Thats an interesting assumption


ElementalXX wrote:
Undone wrote:
ElementalXX wrote:
Beign "treated as natural" is not the same as beign "treated as a primary natural attack" the same way beign "treated a manufactured" doesnt mean "treated as a one handed weapon". You can try to sneak the term all you want but nothing, absolutely nothing on the text indicates IUS is a primary natural attack. At most its an asumption from the 1.0+0.5 damage ratio, but given RAI is clear then no. Not at all, this is not working.

It's no longer 1.0+.5 it's now increased to 1.5. That's where the question comes from.

As for the natural attack issues here is a question. Does IUAS put you at -5 to hit while being treated as a natural weapon? If no it's a primary.

Thats an interesting assumption

Spoiler:
Dragon Ferocity and Tiger Claws: These feats both tell me to add 1/2 my Strength bonus to damage. How does that affect my damage? Does that reduce down to 1/2?

No, Dragon Ferocity should read "While using Dragon Style, increase your Strength bonus on unarmed strike damage rolls by an additional one-half your Strength bonus, to a total of twice your Strength bonus on the first attack and 1-1/2 your Strength bonus on the other attacks" and Tiger Claws should read "If you use Power Attack in conjunction with this attack, increase your Strength bonus on one of the damage rolls by an additional one-half your Strength bonus, normally to a total of 1-1/2your Strength bonus." These changes will be reflected in future errata.

I'm not sure how you could make any other assumption. It's right there in the errata.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I think the assumption being referred to is that if it doesn't have the -5 as a secondary would, then it must be primary. This is part of the fuzzy area, since it uses iterative progression. Otherwise, if it was primary, all attacks would be made at full BAB, so the -5 for secondaries doesn't clear it up either.

The closest you can get with that is if the subsequent iterative attacks were to be considered "secondary", since they are not made at full highest attack bonus, but that's a whole new can of worms.

Scarab Sages

Undone wrote:
ElementalXX wrote:
Beign "treated as natural" is not the same as beign "treated as a primary natural attack" the same way beign "treated a manufactured" doesnt mean "treated as a one handed weapon". You can try to sneak the term all you want but nothing, absolutely nothing on the text indicates IUS is a primary natural attack. At most its an asumption from the 1.0+0.5 damage ratio, but given RAI is clear then no. Not at all, this is not working.

It's no longer 1.0+.5 it's now increased to 1.5. That's where the question comes from.

As for the natural attack issues here is a question. Does IUAS put you at -5 to hit while being treated as a natural weapon? If no it's a primary.

If you make a non-flurry full attack with a manufactured weapon, can you kick with your IUAS at -5 regardless of your BAB? If not it's not a natural attack.

Once again, a Monk's unarmed strike is NOT a natural attack. It's treated as a natural attack in very specific circumstances and it is not primary or secondary.

If you have a dagger in each hand, and make an AoO, it is not an off-hand attack. It is only off-hand when you make a full attack with the TWF feat. Likewise, natural weapons are only primary or secondary if you make an attack with them using the natural weapon rules.

Monk unarmed strikes are iterative attacks that resolve using the normal manufactured weapons rules. While a monk IUS can be affected by Strong Jaw or Eldritch Claws, it is not a natural attack and not primary or secondary.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I disagree that it's so clear-cut. All that is stated is that it counts as either for effects that enhance either.

As to primary or not, it says nothing. Other, normal natural attacks do not always intrinsically count as primary or secondary, either (though most do default to one or the other), since their classification can change depending on the circumstances they're used in, such as in conjunction with manufactured weapons.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Compare this to flurrying using Power Attack and Feral Combat Training with a bite, which normally counts as primary natural attack and thus qualifies for the higher ratio. Not that this really clears anything up.


Look, if an effect says "this works for natural attacks", then it works on monk's IUS, if it says, "primary natural attack" or secondary, or tertiary, then it doesn't effect MIUS, since they aren't a primary or secondary natural attack because it isn't a natural attack.

Scarab Sages

Imbicatus wrote:

This whole argument would be avoided if we just make natural attacks and weapon attacks use the same rules. The Natural weapon/Manufactured weapon divide makes no sense at all and is confusing for MANY players.

Maybe with Unchained.

You would restrict a creature with 4+ natural attacks to iteratives based on HD?

Or would you allow full BAB + full STR for every weapon I can hold?

Scarab Sages

As a side effect, if it is clarified that Monk unarmed strikes actually are Natural Attacks for all purposes, then a monk would be explicitly forbidden from using them in a flurry of blows.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
Look, if an effect says "this works for natural attacks", then it works on monk's IUS, if it says, "primary natural attack" or secondary, or tertiary, then it doesn't effect MIUS, since they aren't a primary or secondary natural attack because it isn't a natural attack.

RAW monks IUS counts as a natural weapon: RAW does not say he makes natural attacks. Flurry is an iterative attack with TWF rules.

Even if you had claws and took Feral Combat, this would not change. Flurry remains an iterative attack, not a natural attack.

Scarab Sages

Artanthos wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:

This whole argument would be avoided if we just make natural attacks and weapon attacks use the same rules. The Natural weapon/Manufactured weapon divide makes no sense at all and is confusing for MANY players.

Maybe with Unchained.

You would restrict a creature with 4+ natural attacks to iteratives based on HD?

Or would you allow full BAB + full STR for every weapon I can hold?

I would give all monster's an updated multiattack that allows them to make all of their listed attacks in a full attack. Without that monster-only ability, natural weapons follow standard rules.

When PCs get monster-only abilities, things start to break. It's mostly ok, now because of the relatively few ways to get a lot of natural attacks as a non-wildshape user. but there is a reason why natural attacks are one of the stronger combat styles for Barbarians, Alchemists, and Rogues.


Davor wrote:

Save for a few outlying cases, monk unarmed strikes have always worked like weapons regarding iterative attacks. This is proof enough, for me, that unarmed strikes are not treated as natural attacks for ANY purposes other than enhancement via magic or some kind of strange NA only buff, which means they need to follow the normal rules for how attacks with weapons work. Since an unarmed strike is "one-handed"-ish, they use those rules.

Really, all this NA stuff is making it way more complicated than it needs to be.

But the dragon style feats make the unarmed strikes "two-handed"-ish even as a weapon. And power attack also has a natural attack only buff and the dragon style feats make the MIUS "primary"-ish.

RAI for the concepts seems to indicate dragon style makes MIUS fit the +3 PA modifiers for bigger weapon attacks.


But none of the things you're using DO any of the things you're implying.
Dragon style doesn't make them two-handed. A MIUS are not primary, thus power attack just gives the +2. So I feel that RAI is no. They don't meet any of the requirements.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Two-handed-ish, sure, but as a manufactured weapon MIUS is considered a light weapon, so regardless of the strength bonus you use for it, it would receive the lesser bonus from PA. That's why this hinges on whether or not it can be considered a primary natural attack, at least as far as PA is concerned.

Scarab Sages

Power attack doesn't care about light weapons. You only get reduced damage on power attack with off-hand weapons. Off-hand weapons ONLY exist when you make a full attack with two weapon fighting feats.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

RAW it receives the -1/+2, because it is not being used in two hands, and it is not declared to be a primary natural attack anywhere, and those are the things that power attack requires. RAI is not possible to determine, though everyone obviously feels clearly one way or the other. I'm allowing in my home game because one of my players is having a blast with it, but that has nothing to do with RAW or RAI.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Imbicatus wrote:
Power attack doesn't care about light weapons. You only get reduced damage on power attack with off-hand weapons. Off-hand weapons ONLY exist when you make a full attack with two weapon fighting feats.

Power attack DOES care about light weapons, indirectly. It only gives +3 with 2h weapons, 1h weapons used in 2 hands, or primary natural attacks with 1.5x strength mod to damage. Light weapons cannot get the +50% under any circumstances.

Scarab Sages

Lavawight wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Power attack doesn't care about light weapons. You only get reduced damage on power attack with off-hand weapons. Off-hand weapons ONLY exist when you make a full attack with two weapon fighting feats.
Power attack DOES care about light weapons, indirectly. It only gives +3 with 2h weapons, 1h weapons used in 2 hands, or primary natural attacks with 1.5x strength mod to damage. Light weapons cannot get the +50% under any circumstances.

Ah, I though you were implying that they would get the 1:1 reduced rate for off-hand weapons, not the normal 1:2 ratio.

Scarab Sages

Honestly, the only way I could see an unarmed strike getting 1:3 power attack would be if there was a feat that allowed you to make a two-handed punch like Kirk using Shat-fu


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Imbicatus wrote:
Honestly, the only way I could see an unarmed strike getting 1:3 power attack would be if there was a feat that allowed you to make a two-handed punch like Kirk using Shat-fu

This NEEDS to be a thing. Shatner Style feat chain, in some form, would be great.

On the other hand, that's sort of how I pictured Dragon Style/ferocity anyway.

Shadow Lodge

Voadam wrote:
Davor wrote:

Save for a few outlying cases, monk unarmed strikes have always worked like weapons regarding iterative attacks. This is proof enough, for me, that unarmed strikes are not treated as natural attacks for ANY purposes other than enhancement via magic or some kind of strange NA only buff, which means they need to follow the normal rules for how attacks with weapons work. Since an unarmed strike is "one-handed"-ish, they use those rules.

Really, all this NA stuff is making it way more complicated than it needs to be.

But the dragon style feats make the unarmed strikes "two-handed"-ish even as a weapon. And power attack also has a natural attack only buff and the dragon style feats make the MIUS "primary"-ish.

RAI for the concepts seems to indicate dragon style makes MIUS fit the +3 PA modifiers for bigger weapon attacks.

RAI is that there is not 3:1 ratio as the OP suggested. Mark(aka a Rogue Eidolon) has stated this is not the way the feat is suppoused to work. RAI is clear


Where?


here


Ah, good, thought it was an actual dev post.

Mark posts as Rogue Eidolon when he wants to make sure it's not to be taken as an official dev clarification, usually because he's not sure.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Not that I necessarily disagree, but why did he post as Rogue Eidolon instead of his official name?


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:

Ah, good, thought it was an actual dev post.

Mark posts as Rogue Eidolon when he wants to make sure it's not to be taken as an official dev clarification, usually because he's not sure.

still kind of declares this wasn't his intent.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Is he the writer of Dragon Style/ferocity?


Bandw2 wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

Ah, good, thought it was an actual dev post.

Mark posts as Rogue Eidolon when he wants to make sure it's not to be taken as an official dev clarification, usually because he's not sure.

still kind of declares this wasn't his intent.

When he declares it not intended it means he's not happy with the collateral the change incurred.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Undone wrote:
Bandw2 wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

Ah, good, thought it was an actual dev post.

Mark posts as Rogue Eidolon when he wants to make sure it's not to be taken as an official dev clarification, usually because he's not sure.

still kind of declares this wasn't his intent.
When he declares it not intended it means he's not happy with the collateral the change incurred.

Have you not heard?

The collateral doesn't exist.

The change doesn't exist.

It was always this way.

Pity the fools, such as I, who thought, and continue to think, differently.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

That's what I thought... It worked this way before the FAQs, it was just 1.5+0.5 and 1.5 for the iteratives. Wasn't sure what the "intent" posts were about unless he wrote the style feat to begin with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lavawight wrote:
That's what I thought... It worked this way before the FAQs, it was just 1.5+0.5 and 1.5 for the iteratives. Wasn't sure what the "intent" posts were about unless he wrote the style feat to begin with.

Nope. Prior to the errata the feat never did anything despite everyone thinking it did.


so say I want to flurry with my natural attacks (assuming i have Feral, etc.)

which numbers do i apply to it? for instance, lvl 8 monk. flurry bonus has +6/+6/+1/+1. i only have 3 natural attacks (claw/claw/bite). they are all primary attacks (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/universal-monster-rule s#TOC-Natural-Attacks)

1) do i get a 4th attack somehow? maybe as an unarmed strike

2) in the reverse, if i'm lvl 5 monk, the iterative is +3/+3. do i lose my 3rd natural attack?

3) if my Weapon Focus is claw, is it just claw that gets full BAB and the bite (or any other natural attack) gets the normal -5 iterative penalty when using flurry?

4) i'm able to add the monk's unarmed strike to natural attack damage. is it the difference between normal unarmed strike and monk unarmed strike, or just add all of the monk's "augmented" damage?

FAQ for reference: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1g1#v5748eaic9sgz

Scarab Sages

Tinner01 wrote:

so say I want to flurry with my natural attacks (assuming i have Feral, etc.)

which numbers do i apply to it? for instance, lvl 8 monk. flurry bonus has +6/+6/+1/+1. i only have 3 natural attacks (claw/claw/bite). they are all primary attacks (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/universal-monster-rule s#TOC-Natural-Attacks)

1) do i get a 4th attack somehow? maybe as an unarmed strike

2) in the reverse, if i'm lvl 5 monk, the iterative is +3/+3. do i lose my 3rd natural attack?

3) if my Weapon Focus is claw, is it just claw that gets full BAB and the bite (or any other natural attack) gets the normal -5 iterative penalty when using flurry?

4) i'm able to add the monk's unarmed strike to natural attack damage. is it the difference between normal unarmed strike and monk unarmed strike, or just add all of the monk's "augmented" damage?

FAQ for reference: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1g1#v5748eaic9sgz

If you want to flurry with your natural attack you must take feral combat training with it. FCT allows you to use the natural weapon in place of an unarmed strike in any or all of the attack granted by the flurry. You do not gain any extra attack on the flurry by doing this. If you have claw/claw/bite available, you would need to choose to take FCB in one of them only.

To answer your questions,

1: no you don't get any additional attacks in a flurry. You are still +6/+6/+1/+1.

2: if you don't do a flurry, you can attack with your normal BAB doing either claw/claw/bite at +6/+6/+6 or unarmed strike/unarmed strike/claw/claw/bite at +6/+1/+1/+1/+1 treating all natural attacks as secondary. Since only one of your natural attacks has FCT, only the claws or bite can be used with your monk damage or style feats.

3: you cannot use a natural attack with a flurry of blows unless you have FCT with that weapon, so you never make an attack outside of the flurry.

4: you don't add monk unarmed strike damage you your natural attack, you replace your natural attack damage with your monk unarmed strike damage.


Wow. I've never anticipated this response... Very interesting!

Just a quick question: When I took Dragon Style, my GM cleared me for the 1:3 ratio on Power Attack for the first attack (thus he already OK'ed the primary thing). Would it be game-breaking in a mythic game (WotR) to ask if Dragon Ferocity (which will not come online before Level 9, so in about 4 levels) will also grant me the 1:3 ratio?


If you make an attack with an Unarmed Strike, all your natural attacks are considered to be secondary for that attack.

Thus wouldn't a monk only get -1 / +1 for power attack?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Jeremias wrote:

Wow. I've never anticipated this response... Very interesting!

Just a quick question: When I took Dragon Style, my GM cleared me for the 1:3 ratio on Power Attack for the first attack (thus he already OK'ed the primary thing). Would it be game-breaking in a mythic game (WotR) to ask if Dragon Ferocity (which will not come online before Level 9, so in about 4 levels) will also grant me the 1:3 ratio?

It's not gamebreaking in any case. The damage can get pretty high if built right, but you'll still be behind a decently built fighter or barbarian. You even could have gotten both feats early with the cheesy MoMS monk dip.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Rikkan wrote:

If you make an attack with an Unarmed Strike, all your natural attacks are considered to be secondary for that attack.

Thus wouldn't a monk only get -1 / +1 for power attack?

No, because while the monk's IUS counts as a natural weapon for some things, he doesn't make natural attacks with it. Monk attacks are iterative, so in general primary/secondary aren't applicable.


Lavawight wrote:
Jeremias wrote:

Wow. I've never anticipated this response... Very interesting!

Just a quick question: When I took Dragon Style, my GM cleared me for the 1:3 ratio on Power Attack for the first attack (thus he already OK'ed the primary thing). Would it be game-breaking in a mythic game (WotR) to ask if Dragon Ferocity (which will not come online before Level 9, so in about 4 levels) will also grant me the 1:3 ratio?

It's not gamebreaking in any case. The damage can get pretty high if built right, but you'll still be behind a decently built fighter or barbarian. You even could have gotten both feats early with the cheesy MoMS monk dip.

This. You're only really ahead with regular quicken metamagic rods/spell perfection and blood crow strike (At which point your DPR is actually the highest in the game.).

Shadow Lodge

Its hardly game breaking,i mean we are talking about monks here, but it doesnt mean its right.


ElementalXX wrote:
Its hardly game breaking,i mean we are talking about monks here, but it doesnt mean its right.

I don't think any natural attacks are neither primary or secondary just saying.


it's a good thing that a MIUS isn't actually a natural attack so it doesn't need to fit into one of them

101 to 150 of 198 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Dragon Ferocity and Power Attack after the new FAQ All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.