Lathiira wrote: PossibleCabbage wrote: Didn't we have an Unarmed Strike Primary/Secondary Dragon Ferocity kerfuffle in the rules forum like 4 months ago? Are we just revisiting that here or did I hallucinate that? Nature abhors a vaccum. As the number of caster-martial disparity (CMD) threads has dwindled, something else has to take up that space, or else the internet crashes and the world descends into a(nother) Dark Age. You've found nature's substitute for CMD threads. That's all. Let me give you a preview of my next thread.
"There is no cmd because of monks can use their unarmed strike manufactured attacks followed by unarmed strike natural attacks because BAB effects attacks.
The trick to making this work is lots of dipping because it's is always better. The point of the dips is to get bardic masterpiece Pageant of the Peacock so you can make a bluff check in place of a knowledge engineering to determine how hard it is to jump a pit"
Vaccum filled.
Grandlounge wrote: Lathiira wrote: PossibleCabbage wrote: Didn't we have an Unarmed Strike Primary/Secondary Dragon Ferocity kerfuffle in the rules forum like 4 months ago? Are we just revisiting that here or did I hallucinate that? Nature abhors a vaccum. As the number of caster-martial disparity (CMD) threads has dwindled, something else has to take up that space, or else the internet crashes and the world descends into a(nother) Dark Age. You've found nature's substitute for CMD threads. That's all. Let me give you a preview of my next thread.
"There is no cmd because of monks can use their unarmed strike manufactured attacks followed by unarmed strike natural attacks because BAB effects attacks.
The trick to making this work is lots of dipping because it's is always better. The point of the dips is to get bardic masterpiece Pageant of the Peacock so you can make a bluff check in place of a knowledge engineering to determine how hard it is to jump a pit"
Vaccum filled. This doesn't work if you're a paladin though because you're guaranteed to fall (into the pit).
Greeeit wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote:
For most Monks you can indeed, for much the same reason. The MUS Class Ability may not grant you the ability to treat Unarmed Strikes as Primary or Secondary natural weapons, only as Natural Weapons. But the Universal Monster Rules say that if any of your Natural Attacks is your only Natural Attack, then it is treated as a Primary Natural Attack. For most PC Monks, their Unarmed Strikes are indeed their only Natural Attacks.
My point is that your argument about how being treated as a natural weapon for some effects equals working as one (to which I don't agree) is pointless.
Ignoring how you argue your way to a -1:3 power attack ratio through the natural attack side, from its nature as a manufactured weapon, the unarmed strike would also have an unambiguous -1:2 ratio from the manufactured side.
Given this contradictory result, I do not believe you are meant to draw any assumptions about power attack ratios from the quote in question. I'm not trying to throw shade at you: I'm sorry. But I don't think I understand the point you are making. Honestly, I didn't think we were even in disagreement.
Greeeit wrote: My point is that your argument about how being treated as a natural weapon for some effects equals working as one (to which I don't agree) is pointless. Well, this is a game. All of it is pointless. Some people think life is pointless.
But being treated as one = working as one? I don't see the problem in the context of the argument I'm making.
I assert that the rules of the game do state that Monk Unarmed Strikes count as Natural Weapons for the purposed of effects that improve Natural Weapons, and if the Monk has no other Natural Weapons, then the Monk Unarmed Strike counts as a Primary Natural Weapon. The Core Rulebook says the first. The Bestiary says the second.
Greeeit wrote: Given this contradictory result, I do not believe you are meant to draw any assumptions about power attack ratios from the quote in question. Clearly for the Power Attack effect, a Monk can decide his Unarmed Strikes count as Natural Weapons, and clearly they are not Secondary Natural Weapons, so using Power Attack with MUS does not give only +1 Damage.
Natural Attacks wrote: If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature's full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls.... If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type. If the Monk has no other natural weapons, then his Unarmed Strikes are clearly count as his only Natural weapons, and the Universal Monster Rules say they count as Primary Natural Attacks that enjoy +1.5 St Mod.
Greeeit wrote: Given this contradictory result, I do not believe you are meant to draw any assumptions Special Abilities let you contradict the rules in specific ways. That's the whole point of special abilities. But perhaps I am misunderstanding which contradiction you are referring to.
My point was that the quote from unarmed strike that is used to justify the whole primary natural weapon thing would, using the same logic, lead to a different power attack ratio from the manufactured side.
I agree that there is precedence for specific trumping generic, but a line that contradicts itself is, in my opinion, clearly worthless when trying to come to an unambiguous consensus about rules.
As for the monk choosing how to apply effects, I cannot remember ever seeing another rule where you're allowed to chose where and how mechanics interact with each other.
To be honest, I don't really care about the outcome of this argument. It's literally been going on for years, and I doubt anyone on either side have ever been swayed. I'm just sad it has to derail otherwise good threads like this one in its quest too.... something..
Greeeit wrote: My point was that the quote from unarmed strike that is used to justify the whole primary natural weapon thing would, using the same logic, lead to a different power attack ratio from the manufactured side. That sounds true, but I just don't see a problem with that. My point is that the rules say so, and I have shown this. If somebody wants to play the game some way, and they can demonstrate that it's legal, [and they're not jerks to the other players], there is no reason to say that can't play the game the way they want to under a wise guidance of strictest, literalistist GM.
Greeeit wrote: I agree that there is precedence for specific trumping generic, but a line that contradicts itself is, in my opinion, clearly worthless when trying to come to an unambiguous consensus about rules.
As for the monk choosing how to apply effects, I cannot remember ever seeing another rule where you're allowed to chose where and how mechanics interact with each other.
Monks have always been a class apart. Just because their class feature is unique, doesn't mean you dismiss what the rules say. Here's another one for you: Lances: I cannot remember seeing another rule where you are allowed to do double damage from the charging mount. Are you calling for throwing out the rules for lances, too?
Greeeit wrote: To be honest, I don't really care about the outcome of this argument. It's literally been going on for years, and I doubt anyone on either side have ever been swayed. I'm just sad it has to derail otherwise good threads like this one in its quest too.... something.. The argument going on for years probably means there is a problem with the rules that Paizo Publishing is not fixing, and this represents a de facto ignoring of customer complaints on Paizo's part. I know a little bit about arguments that go on for years like this, though not about this one in particular. I don't think this is a problem Snowlily, ChessPwn and others created. It's a problem they (we?) found. If you are frustrated by it, that's understandable, but you should be directing your complaints to Paizo Publishing, not to us.
Meanwhile, for goodness sake, if you want to take this thread in a different direction, take it there! No one's stopping you!
A Humble Submission for Contender:
A Vanilla Human Fighter Lvl14
Since this is about making a killer unarmed fighter then lets min max a 25 point buy
Stat Base Race Lvl
Str 16 2 18
Dex 18 1 19
Con 13 1 14
Int 8 8
Wis 8 8
Cha 9 1 10
Weapon Training Choices
Lvl 5 : Close
Lvl 9 : Focused Weapon : Close
Lvl 13: Trained Grace : Close
Feats
Lvl1 : Improved Unarmed Strike
Lvl3 : Weapon finesse
Lvl5 : Power Attack
Lvl7 : Pummeling Style
Lvl9 : Improved Grapple
Lvl11 : Greater Two Weapon Fighting
Lvl13 : Pummeling Charge
Bonus Feats
Human : Weapon Focus : Unarmed Strike
Lvl1 : Two Weapon Fighting
Lvl2 : Double Slice
Lvl4 : Weapon Specialization : Unarmed Strike
Lvl6 : Improved Two Weapon Fighting
Lvl8 : Greater Weapon Focus : Unarmed Strike
Lvl10 : Martial Focus : Close
Lvl12 : Greater Weapon Specialization : Unarmed Strike
Lvl14 : Weapon Style Mastery
Full BaB
+14/+9/+4
6 attacks on a full round TWF
+12/+12/+7/+7/+2/+2
At lvl 14 he would hit for base 1d10 per fist
Between stats, fighter weapon training, advanced weapon trainging choices, and feats you get some pretty decent bonuses to damage and attack roles.
Its 2:30 am for me while doing this, but a quick calculation would suggest +9 to attack (+4 dex, +3 weapon training, +2 weapons focuses) and +15 to damage (+4 str, +6 weapon training, +4 weapon specializations, +1 martial Focus). Add in some brawling armor to offset the minuses from TWF, and you would have a 6 hit full round attack at +23/+23/+18/+18/+13/+13 that each could hit for 1d10+15. A random sampling of cr 14 monsters showed an average AC of 28. Makes for 50% or better odds to hit with 2/3 of the attacks.
Since this is a fighter, you could instead change your feats to gauntlets and still get the same damage progression, and still be considered unarmed damage,but allow for using materials to overcome damage reduction and also enhancements built into the weapons. so you make those +3 or +4 to match the level and it is very high hit chance and damage output.
Once again up to late doing math, so I apologize if I am off. Also, it is an insainly one trick pony. All it really does is Unarmed fighting.
So, I don't have a horse in this race, but I just have some questions for the pro primary natural attack group.
Does that mean that even without dragon style they would get 1.5 strength damage with their unarmed strikes? Isn't that the case when you only have 1 natural attack? Also, do you need to take feral combat training to flurry then? Natural attacks can't normally be used with flurry without it right?
Sah wrote: So, I don't have a horse in this race, but I just have some questions for the pro primary natural attack group.
Does that mean that even without dragon style they would get 1.5 strength damage with their unarmed strikes? Isn't that the case when you only have 1 natural attack?
Yes, that is what I am asserting. And I have shown that the rules say so.
Sah wrote: Also, do you need to take feral combat training to flurry then? To Flurry with your Unarmed Strikes? of course not.
Flurry of Blows wrote: These attacks can be any combination of unarmed strikes Monk Unarmed Strikes are specifically what Flurry of Blows is meant for.
Sah wrote: Natural attacks can't normally be used with flurry without it right? Having a special ability to have your Unarmed Strikes treated in some special way does not mean they are no longer Unarmed Strikes. The whole idea of special abilities is that they grant special abilities that the rules wouldn't normally allow. They aren't meant to hurt you.
Let me give you a counter example. If you have a multiclassing character with 3 levels in Monk and 7 levels in Fighter,
Flurry of Blows wrote: For the purpose of these attacks, the monk’s base attack bonus from his monk class levels is equal to his monk level. The Flurry of Blows will not result in lowering your CMB. The CMB from BAB will be +10, not +3!
Flurry of Blows FAQ wrote: For the purpose of these attacks, the monk’s base attack bonus from his monk class levels is equal to his monk level. Flurry of Blows FAQ
I hope I did not misinterpret your question. I am sincerely trying to answer it in good faith.
Okay cool, the flurry party I got clear but I'm still confused by the strength bonus. If they are a natural attack, and they this get 1.5 strength on their attack, doesn't that render dragon style and dragon ferocity useless? (As far as the strength bonus goes, that is)
If you already are getting 1.5 strength then dragon style giving you 1.5 strength on your first hit is redundant. Unless your interpretation is that with dragon style your first hit gets a total of 2x your strength. But then dragon ferocity doesn't make sense, because that one makes your first one (quite clearly) 2x strength and the rest 1.5 strength, which would be just what you claim is normal for a monk.
It also means you wouldn't even need dragon style to get the bonus to power attack.
Could you clarify that for me? I'm still confused.
Sah wrote: doesn't that render dragon style and dragon ferocity useless? (As far as the strength bonus goes, that is) Good question. I don't think this is a problem. Remember that you don't have to be a Monk to take Style Feats, and so it looks like they were written with the assumption that the Unarmed Strikes would always count as Manufactured Weapons, not taking the Monk Class Ability into account.
Both Dragon Ferocity says it adds +.5 your ST Mod from Power Attack, so that doesn't seem to be a problem: you get an extra +0.5. Arguably, you might fail to enjoy stacking with Dragon Style, but I would allow it as a GM and ask for it as a Player. I'd consider it a small matter anyway.
That seems like iffy reasoning at best, it's a pretty weak argument in my opinion to say that dragon style wasn't made with monks in mind as the main users of it (or most of the early style feats) in general.
Going over it again, I'm pretty firmly in the "only natural attacks for specific things" camp.
Hope it gets FAQ'D soon, but at my table it's definitely going to be not a natural attack for power attack.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
In answer to the OP, Conor McGregor.
Sah wrote: That seems like iffy reasoning at best, it's a pretty weak argument in my opinion to say that dragon style wasn't made with monks in mind as the main users It's not iffy at all when you look at the Dragon Ferocity Feat:
Dragon Ferocity Benefit wrote: Benefit: 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 double your Strength bonus on the first attack and 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus on the other attacks. Between Dragon Style and Dragon Ferocity, you get +again your Strength bonus to Damage, and they say that would make your off-hand attacks +1.5. This means they suppose your off-hand Unarmed Strike would only get +0.5 your St Mod. They don't consider that Monks do not take a .5ST mod penalty for off-hand attacks.
Monk Unarmed Strike wrote: There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes. And they don't even mention what happens when you use Flurry of Blows.
Monk, Flurry of Blows wrote: A monk applies his full Strength bonus to his damage rolls for all successful attacks made with flurry of blows, whether the attacks are made with an off-hand or with a weapon wielded in both hands. I find it very surprising, myself, but there it is.
Sah wrote: Going over it again, I'm pretty firmly in the "only natural attacks for specific things" camp.... at my table it's definitely going to be not a natural attack for power attack. I live in a free country. I like it, and want that for everybody in the world. I think you should be able to camp pretty much wherever you want. I am giving my best counsel in good faith according to what the rules say. I feel like we should all be at liberty to play the game the way we want within the rules under the wise guidance of our GMs.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
I will give Scott a thumbs up for keep things civil in such a long debate. It can be hard on the internet, whether it be purposeful or accidential, a lot of these thread and get testy.
I think that you combined the two parts of my post that were separate. I still feel that the argument that monks weren't considered is pretty iffy, none of what you said changes that. All you added makes me lean more towards monks were absolutely considered, and using your interpretation would mean Dragon style does have a purpose for monks, since flurry states you get your full strength bonus, which I now see could be read as 1x or again with your interpretation 1.5x strength bonus, but could also mean that dragon style moves them back up to 1.5x when using flurry.
The second part of my post was from me rereading the thread, and I found the arguments for it only bring treated as a natural attack for those certain things more compelling than the opposition.
I expect you didn't mean anything by it, but I feel that telling me it isn't iffy felt like you were telling me my opinion was wrong, which came across as kinda rude. Like I said I expect you didn't mean it that way, just thought that you should know.
In answer to the OP, and because I haven't seen it mentioned in my scanning of the submissions. The king by far of unarmed combat is the summoners Eidolon. You can add tons of attacks with extra arms, make them energetic (flaming, acid, what ever), you get pounce (if your quad), and you have some dork following you around to buff you up. Plus it can be skinned to anything you like- kung fu master, bum fighter with electric brass knuckles, pillsbury dough boy. Hell, go synthesist, dump your physical stats and me a Master/ blaster in the thunderdome.
It will make your GM beg for the unchained version.
Sah wrote: I expect you didn't mean anything by it, but I feel that telling me it isn't iffy felt like you were telling me my opinion was wrong, which came across as kinda rude. I'm afraid I have to cop to that one. I am trying to be polite about it, but I kind of think it goes without saying that I think I'm right and you're wrong. Don't you think you're right and I'm wrong? Would we be debating this if it were otherwise?
I was more afraid of coming across as offensive by suggesting that you hadn't read the rules when I said, "It's not iffy if you look at the Dragon Ferocity Feat." What I really meant there was just to segue into a closer examination of the wording of the feat, not to suggest that you hadn't done your homework.
Anyway, even though you weren't offended by what I was afraid you might have been offended by, I do see reasons why some of what I said might have raised your hackles. I apologize.
Sah wrote: Dragon style does have a purpose for monks, Oh definitely! No argument there.
Sah wrote: All you added makes me lean more towards monks were absolutely considered You didn't get there from that, and I don't think I have more evidence to bring.
What I was pointing out is that Dragon Ferocity says that the characters would have some of their attacks, such as off-hand attacks, presumably, would only get 1/2 the ST modifier, and that's just not the case for Monk Unarmed Strikes, even for Monks using Two Weapon Fighting and not Flurry of Blows. If the author was thinking about how Monks are different from other Unarmed Fighters, he or she should have left out the part about "to a total of double your Strength bonus on the first attack and 1-1/2 times your Strength bonus on the other attacks." But there it is, in all it's unconsidered, obfuscating glory.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Sah wrote: I expect you didn't mean anything by it, but I feel that telling me it isn't iffy felt like you were telling me my opinion was wrong, which came across as kinda rude. I'm afraid I have to cop to that one. I am trying to be polite about it, but I kind of think it goes without saying that I think I'm right and you're wrong. Don't you think you're right and I'm wrong? Would we be debating this if it were otherwise? I'm not seeing any offense about us disagreeing on the rules, the offense was telling me that my opinion (that that argument is iffy) was wrong. I think the argument that monks weren't considered is iffy (again unrelated to the other rules questions) and you can't just tell me that's wrong. It is my opinion. If you want to discuss rules and us disagreeing that's fine, but you can't tell me how I feel.
Quote:
Sah wrote: All you added makes me lean more towards monks were absolutely considered You didn't get there from that, and I don't think I have more evidence to bring.
And this looks like basically more of the same. Yes I did get there from that. What you said made me think that monks absolutely were considered when they made the feat. You can't just tell me how my thought process worked.
|
