Dragon Ferocity, Power Attack, and Unchained Monk Unarmed Strike


Rules Questions


12 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 3 people marked this as a favorite.

So after much debate on this topic, I thought I'd just go ahead and make a thread on it. Here is the question: Does an unchained monk's unarmed strike class feature interact with power attack?

One of the ways one can gain bonus damage with your Power Attacks is using a primary natural attack with a strength modifier of 1.5. Although Dragon Style technically just adds an untyped bonus equal to half your strength on the first attack, dragon ferocity actually actively changes the modifier. The UM's unarmed strike class feature allows his unarmed strike to count as a natural or manufactured weapon for the purpose of "spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."

Now, a natural attack is either primary or secondary, without exception. And if you have only one natural attack, it is automatically primary. However, we know that a monk's unarmed strike is not ACTUALLY a natural weapon, or it would automatically receive the 1.5 str modifier all lone natural attacks get. It is only in relation to certain 'effects' that it counts as one. Is power attack one of those effects? Certainly, it modifies attack rolls and damage, but does it effect weapon dice or enhancement bonuses, or make it count as magic? If not, does that make Weapon Focus (Longsword) an 'effect' that doesn't technically effect a weapon? The very broad interpretation of 'enhance or improve weapons' makes this ultimately DM fiat, but for the purposes of PFS and other RAW-heavy groups, we should probably have a consensus.


You basically answered your own question. The monk's unarmed strike isn't actually a natural attack, and so you can't apply the one natural attack = primary logic to then assume the monk's unarmed strike can count as a primary natural attack for other effects --- only that it can functional as a natural attack more generally. Additionally, given that monk unarmed strikes are getting 1.0x strength not 1.5x I don't see any precedent to allow for 1.5x power attack at all.


Blakmane wrote:
You basically answered your own question. The monk's unarmed strike isn't actually a natural attack, and so you can't apply the one natural attack = primary logic to then assume the monk's unarmed strike can count as a primary natural attack for other effects --- only that it can functional as a natural attack more generally. Additionally, given that monk unarmed strikes are getting 1.0x strength not 1.5x I don't see any precedent to allow for 1.5x power attack at all.

But if it counts as a natural attack, whether it is or not, it HAS to count as primary or secondary. The unarmed strike text doesn't specify. The 1.5x modifier is granted by Dragon's Ferocity while using dragon style. And specific overrides general.


It is a natural attack for very specific purposes. That does not include actually attacking, so primary/secondary status is never relevant.

Sovereign Court

I'm having a hard time coming up with a conclusive answer. Let's go through it step by step, and removing all irrelevant text;

1) With Dragon Ferocity your unarmed strike gets a 1-1/2 Strength modifier to damage rolls.

2) Power Attack asks if: "This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with (...) a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls."

3) "A monk's unarmed strike is treated as (...) a natural weapon for the purpose of (...) effects that enhance or improve (...) natural weapons."

So the question is: is Power Attack an "effects that enhance or improve (...) natural weapons"?

A problem here is that "effect" is not a globally defined game term. And it never will be, because by now it's used on so many places with a slightly different slant, that any effect to pin it down to a definition will probably break more systems than it'll clarify.

So we need to interpret it in the local context.

I think it makes more sense to say that Yes, it is such an effect. I think so because:
- Consistency: Power Attack sweepingly associates the +50% with just about every other way of attacking that has a 1.5 Strength modifier. The only exception I can think of is odd-case secondary natural weapons that get 1.5x Strength damage, like some tail slaps. Those are quite rare.
- Simplicity: Power Attack clearly improves your attack by making it do more damage. And "effect" in the monk description seems intended to be very broad so it can cover as many different things as needed. It takes an extremely narrow reading to see something else here I think.
- Natural attacks are usually primary and monk's unarmed strikes do not exhibit any behaviour normally associated with secondary natural attacks. So if the question comes up "is Unarmed Strike primary or secondary", primary is the obvious choice.


dragonhunterq wrote:
It is a natural attack for very specific purposes. That does not include actually attacking, so primary/secondary status is never relevant.

This.

"Is Unarmed Strike primary or secondary" is a false dichotomy. "Neither" is a perfectly valid answer, because the Unarmed strike is only treated as a natural attack for effects - it does not actually become one.

Liberty's Edge

Okay, here's the short version:

It doesn't work because Power Attack, by its own text, does not enhance weapons. It applies a bonus and penalty to die rolls, but has no effect on weapons themselves. The sentence that describes its relationship to various weapon types makes it clear that the bonus is affected by the weapons, but still does not affect the weapons themselves. The cause/effect relationship runs backward to the way it is getting interpreted elsewhere.

For the longer version, try this and this.


Blakmane wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
It is a natural attack for very specific purposes. That does not include actually attacking, so primary/secondary status is never relevant.

This.

"Is Unarmed Strike primary or secondary" is a false dichotomy. "Neither" is a perfectly valid answer, because the Unarmed strike is only treated as a natural attack for effects - it does not actually become one.

Not to turn this into a circular argument, but I don't understand the logic there. If a natural attack has two settings, it has that two settings in any scenario where it is addressed. The introduction of a 'generic' natural attack that exists nowhere else in the game seems like an oversight more than intent. If we can just get a ruling on whether an unarmed strike 'counts as' primary or secondary, we can solve this and simply not have to address it. Update the SRD with a side note and call it a day.


dragonhunterq wrote:
It is a natural attack for very specific purposes. That does not include actually attacking, so primary/secondary status is never relevant.

But it IS relevant. In this exact case, its relevant. We either accept that it is the only instance in the game where a 'generic' natural attack is assumed to exist, even theoretically, or we go with the rules in the CRB and accept it doesn't have a label. We wouldn't assume its secondary just because it doesn't say primary. Why would we invent a neutral label that doesn't exist anywhere else in the game just to make the logic function?


Wrong question.
Try this:

"Am I talking about an ability that enhances or improves a natural attack?"
answer:
Yes, My unarmed strike counts as a natural attack
No, it's irrelevant my unarmed strike is still just an unarmed strike.

It really is that simple.
It is not a natural attack, it is an unarmed strike that can be modified in very specific circumstances.


It's not a natural attack, so it doesn't have to be a 'generic' natural attack - It's neither because it isn't a natural attack. It is only treated as a natural attack in a very specific set of circumstances. Assuming primary OR secondary would massively complicate the issue because these classifications come with a whole additional set of baggage attached.

You're still stuck on this idea that is has to be labelled. It doesn't any more than a longsword needs to be labelled a primary or secondary natural attack. The rule exists so that feats which boost your natural attack (or spells like magic fang, although yes that one works on unarmed anyway) can also apply to your unarmed strikes. You could do the same thing with a longsword, or any manufactured weapon, by changing a few words. It does this just fine without needing to be primary or secondary.

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

A monk's unarmed strike is a light weapon. It can benefit from feats that enhance natural weapons, like Eldritch Claws, or spells that enhance natural weapons, like Strong Jaw. It never actually becomes a natural weapon though, and it is never primary or secondary.

Power Attack clearly states that in order to gain a -1:+3 damage ratio, the weapon used must be a two-handed weapon, a one-handed weapon wielded in two hands, or a primary natural weapon that gains 1.5 STR.

A monk unarmed strike is none of those, it is a light weapon. It does not allow the enhanced power attack ratio.

That said, FAQ button hit. I am tired of having this argument every other month.


Can a Monk take improved natural attack to bump the damage dice of his unarmed strike? No, because his unarmed strike is not a natural weapon and thus he does not qualify for this feat. It has no category. It is just being treated as a natural weapon for things like an Amulet of Mighty Fists or Magic Fang. You could even cast Strong Jaw on a Monk and have him be treated 2 size categories larger for determining his unarmed strike damage. Plus you get additional unarmed strikes from BAB, something else natural attacks can not do. Just go to bestiary 1 page 302 and look at the chart of natural weapons. These are the weapons power attack refers to.


Blakmane wrote:

It's not a natural attack, so it doesn't have to be a 'generic' natural attack - It's neither because it isn't a natural attack. It is only treated as a natural attack in a very specific set of circumstances. Assuming primary OR secondary would massively complicate the issue because these classifications come with a whole additional set of baggage attached.

You're still stuck on this idea that is has to be labelled. It doesn't any more than a longsword needs to be labelled a primary or secondary natural attack. The rule exists so that feats which boost your natural attack (or spells like magic fang, although yes that one works on unarmed anyway) can also apply to your unarmed strikes. You could do the same thing with a longsword, or any manufactured weapon, by changing a few words. It does this just fine without needing to be primary or secondary.

If a longsword could be a two-handed weapon or a one-handed weapon, then yes, any class ability saying 'x counts as a longsword' should actually say 'x counts as a two-handed longsword.' I'm stuck on it because its an essential part of natural attacks, so if we're going to say 'x counts as a natural attack,' any reasonable version of those rules would add in 'primary' or 'secondary' just before it. Its not a false dichotomy. Its a dichotomy, found right in the CRB.


CryntheCrow wrote:
Blakmane wrote:

It's not a natural attack, so it doesn't have to be a 'generic' natural attack - It's neither because it isn't a natural attack. It is only treated as a natural attack in a very specific set of circumstances. Assuming primary OR secondary would massively complicate the issue because these classifications come with a whole additional set of baggage attached.

You're still stuck on this idea that is has to be labelled. It doesn't any more than a longsword needs to be labelled a primary or secondary natural attack. The rule exists so that feats which boost your natural attack (or spells like magic fang, although yes that one works on unarmed anyway) can also apply to your unarmed strikes. You could do the same thing with a longsword, or any manufactured weapon, by changing a few words. It does this just fine without needing to be primary or secondary.

If a longsword could be a two-handed weapon or a one-handed weapon, then yes, any class ability saying 'x counts as a longsword' should actually say 'x counts as a two-handed longsword.' I'm stuck on it because its an essential part of natural attacks, so if we're going to say 'x counts as a natural attack,' any reasonable version of those rules would add in 'primary' or 'secondary' just before it. Its not a false dichotomy. Its a dichotomy, found right in the CRB.

A Longsword can't be a two-handed or one-handed weapon, it is just a one-handed weapon that you can wield in two hands if you so choose. This does not change the type of weapon it is and power attack says it works with one-handed weapons being wielded in two-hands. this does not change the weapon category.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The logic there is that a monks unarmed strike is actually not a natural weapon, neither a manufactured weapon. It´s only treated as such for certain effects to allow buffing it etc.
If it were a natural attack - especially a primary - then the monk would never gain iterative attacks with it, but she does. Also only natural attacks where it´s mentioned gain the 1.5* STR damage.
All natural attacks that are primary or secondary are called out as such, the monks unarmed strike is definately not.

The next thing is, Dragon style and ferocity only let you increase the STR damage bonus on unarmed strikes from full (1) to 1.5*. At no point does it talk of making unarmed strike a twohanded weapon.

Power attack needs either a twohanded weapon or a primary natural attack with 1.5* damage bonus to allow for 1.5* power attack damage, but even with dragon ferocity the monks unarmed strike is neither of that.

In a home game you can certainly ask the GM if she would allow this to work as you desire, but it´s not officialy in the rules nor right and i wouldn´t be too insistent on it or argue. And for PFS this directly falls into the "wonky rules, don´t think of it area".

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Unarmed Strikes can never be a Primary or Secondary Natural weapon.


One of the Designers, in a very non-official way, said that a Monks IUS was a treated as a natural weapon that wasn't primary or secondary. So it's not a super crazy idea that it's a natural that isn't primary or secondary.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

-Still wouldn´t affect power attack.

-No offense, but it´s also like starting a rumor in an environment with heavily entitled feeling people arguing at game tables.


Hasn't it been ruled that Dragon Style gets the better power attack? Well, if that is the case, and Dragon Ferocity has the same wording as DS in the 1.5x STR, then I think this is worthy of a FAQ. They're in the same line, and the second feat is an improvement, allowing DS damage on all hits, while making the first hit REALLY strong (Which given the inclusive nature of bonuses, still would get the better PA), while still somehow doing less less? Doesn't seem right. I mean, there have been weirder things, so yeah, button hit.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Giving Dragon Style/Ferocity unarmed strike 1.5x Power Attack is one of those things that in theory seems like it could work, but it relies on a fairly lawyer-y path across a series of rather wobbly bridges, and ends in a rather absurd position, which is this:

If all that matters for the purposes of Power Attack is that a Monk is making an unarmed strike that happens to deal 1.5xSTR, then that first Dragon Style unarmed strike that actually deals 2xSTR doesn't qualify, because it isn't 1.5xSTR. The technicality giveth, and the technicality taketh-away.

Which serves well to illustrate how shaky the whole thing actually is. If you have to navigate at least one or two significant IFs and then you end up in a strange place, it a pretty good sign your interpretation has gone astray.


BadBird wrote:

Giving Dragon Style/Ferocity unarmed strike 1.5x Power Attack is one of those things that in theory seems like it could work, but it relies on a fairly lawyer-y path across a series of rather wobbly bridges, and ends in a rather absurd position, which is this:

If all that matters for the purposes of Power Attack is that a Monk is making an unarmed strike that happens to deal 1.5xSTR, then that first Dragon Style unarmed strike that actually deals 2xSTR doesn't qualify, because it isn't 1.5xSTR. The technicality giveth, and the technicality taketh-away.

Well the first hit under Dragon Style and Ferocity (2x Str) would still get the better power attack by the rule of inclusive pre-reqs. By that logic same logic, since you need 15 STR to get Ferocity, you don't have 13 STR, and thus can't use power attack, just as well, an actual dragon wouldn't be able to have a better power attack on their bite (Which the style seeks to emulate)

I see your point, but where the argument for the augmented power attack is comparing Dragon Style/Ferocity with extremely similar conditions and logically asking if it's included or excluded, your example goes out of the way for absolute literalism that leads to inane paradoxes and overall ridiculous results.


Frosty Ace wrote:
I see your point, but where the argument for the augmented power attack is comparing Dragon Style/Ferocity with extremely similar conditions and logically asking if it's included or excluded, your example goes out of the way for absolute literalism that leads to inane paradoxes and overall ridiculous results.

It's actually a very different situation than a typical inclusive prerequisite though, since the case is already relying on the argument that Dragon Style is actually changing your 1xSTR weapon into a 'new' weapon that does 1.5xSTR.

Power Attack doesn't say that to meet the condition you need to have 1.5xSTR with an attack; it says that you need to make the attack with a weapon that does 1.5xSTR - like a wolf's bite attack, for example. So saying it works due to a circumstance is like claiming that a longsword is a two-handed weapon because you're holding it in two hands. Ultimately, saying it's an inclusive prerequisite rather than demanding a specific weapon - after arguing that it's a specific weapon - is like pleading a technicality and then protesting being too technical.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Zuloph wrote:
Can a Monk take improved natural attack to bump the damage dice of his unarmed strike? No, because his unarmed strike is not a natural weapon and thus he does not qualify for this feat. It has no category.

Just to point out, the reason a Monk can't take Improved Natural Attack for his unarmed strike is because the feat specifically states "not an unarmed strike". The existence of that restriction implies that otherwise, the Monk could improve his unarmed strike with INA, because due to his class features, it counts as a natural weapon.

Scarab Sages

ZZTRaider wrote:
Zuloph wrote:
Can a Monk take improved natural attack to bump the damage dice of his unarmed strike? No, because his unarmed strike is not a natural weapon and thus he does not qualify for this feat. It has no category.
Just to point out, the reason a Monk can't take Improved Natural Attack for his unarmed strike is because the feat specifically states "not an unarmed strike". The existence of that restriction implies that otherwise, the Monk could improve his unarmed strike with INA, because due to his class features, it counts as a natural weapon.

Yes. A Monk IUS counts as a natural weapon for the purposes of effect that enhance a natural weapon. It's still neither a primary or secondary natural weapon and does not count as such for effects that require a natural weapon to be primary or secondary, such as power attack.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Dragon Ferocity, Power Attack, and Unchained Monk Unarmed Strike All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.