|
You'd have a point if INA said it affected the "base" damage of the weapon. It affects the damage, in general, as if the creature was one size larger.
As we've bolded and quoted for you, it is worded "The damage for this natural attack increases". The attack itself. The weapon itself. That's what's dealing more damage.
The reason size is mentioned at all is so ppl can reference the size chart in the Bestiary (where the feat is published).
Likewise, the spell Strong Jaw, which has the exact same language as Improved Natural Attack, would not stack with Sacred Weapon, either.
*imagines the heyday that low level Tengu Warpriests in PFS would have dealing 2d6 with their claw/claw/bite after drinking a potion of Strong Jaw*
Strong jaw creates its own problem. The sacred weapon damage table only goes up to large. So, once the warpriest starts counting as huge, you either need to extrapolate what the values would have been or stick to the last "legal" size.
How many times has this discussion been necroed?
Since I was part of this thread 4 years ago, now it's being necroed, does that make me an Undead?
Only one way to test it. *Pours a flask of holy water on Scott* Does that hurt?
Improved Natural Attack specifically states that unarmed strikes do not qualify for the feat.
A monk may treat their unarmed strikes as natural or manufactured, but they're still unarmed strikes.
Strongjaw increases the damage of a natural attack. The only way a natural attack's damage is determined is by the monster's size, so the spell mentions the monster's size, but the monster isn't increasing in size, or even treated as if it increased in size. The weapon itself deals increased damage.
I don't see how either could possibly work in conjunction with the proposed combinations.
Strongjaw, lead blades or the amulet would work for a monk. Improved Natural Attack won't, just as Strongjaw won't work for a warpriest.
Strongjaw increases the damage of the natural attack, sacred weapon replaces the weapon damage.
Strongjaw is just double impact for natural weapons.
"Each natural attack that creature makes deals damage as if the creature were two sizes larger..."
"An impact weapon... (deals) damage as if the weapon were one size category larger..."
"...his sacred weapon...is based on his level and not the weapon type..."
If strongjaw said the creature was treated as if it were two size categories larger, there might be precedent. But as it stands, you've got natural attacks that deal X. Strongjaw makes them deal (X+two sizes). Sacred weapon says they deal Y based on your level and size. Strongjaw doesn't say it increases your size, literally or virtually. It says your natural attacks deal damage as if you were larger. Just like impact and lead blades say your weapon deals damage as if it were larger. They both affect the weapon, not you.
If strongjaw said the creature was treated as if it were two size categories larger, there might be precedent.Ah, but it does say that.
Each natural attack that creature makes deals damage as if the creature were two sizes larger than it actually is.
It does not say the creature is treated as being two size categories larger, it says their natural attacks deal damage as if the creature was two size categories larger. It is a two-step virtual size increase for the weapons, not the creature making attacks with them.
Look at the sentence structure of strongjaw's description: Each natural attack that creature makes deals damage as if the creature were two sizes larger..." --the spell directly changes how much damage the attacks do, and nothing else. Ergo, the spell changes the damage of the weapon. Which means sacred weapon replaces it.
Why's it function differently for monks then? ...Looks like strong jaw wouldn't work for them either since their damage is set according to their table.
The damage on the monk's table is the base damage of the weapon, which lead blades, strongjaw and impact all work just fine with.
The difference is in the description for sacred weapon: "...his sacred weapon...is based on his level and not the weapon type..."
Sacred weapon REPLACES the weapon's damage. The monk's unarmed strike table IS the weapon's base damage.
Because in the Description of the Monk Class it specifically says that Monk Unarmed Strikes count as both natural and Manufactured Weapons for the purposes of effects that improve natural and manufactured weapons. Sacred Weapon doesn't have any text like that. That's why I believe that an Amulet of Mighty Fists with the Impact Enchantment would help a Monk, but not a Warpriest.
What's that got to do with it? The reason the warpriest's sacred weapon doesn't work with things like impact is because of how sacred weapon works, not because of anything in the monk's entry. Barbarian, fighters, rogues--none of them have an ability like the warpriest's that replaces a numerical value. That's why the warpriest's ability doesn't stack with these other effects, and why everyone else's does.
This really seems like a distinction without a difference. It is the Natural Attack Damage that we are talking about. What does size Medium Warpriest Sacred Weapon Damage with Weapon Focus Bite do at level 5? 1d8. What would that same Warpriest's damage be if it were 2 sizes bigger? 3d6. What does Strong Jaw do? Makes all the Warpriest's Natural attacks inflict Damage as if the Warpriest were 2 sizes bigger. What is that damage? 3d6.
RAI, you might have a case. But not RAW. This is a highly technical and exact permissive rules system. If there's a distinction, there's a difference.
We are talking about natural attacks, yes. But there is an important distinction between doing more damage because you have increased in size and doing more damage because your weapon(s) have increased in size.
It would have been easy enough to word it so that your stance was rhythm correct one; strongjaw could have said "the creature deals damage with all of it's natural attacks as if it were two size categories larger." That would mean that the spell makes you virtually bigger, at least in regard to your weapon damage rolls.
But it doesn't say that. It says your weapons (natural attacks) are virtually bigger, albeit in the only language available for this weapon type, i.e. your size.
That's the part that's tripping people up, obviously. It mentions the target's size, so it seems reasonable to assume that the virtual size increase applies to the target, not the weapon. But while it's reasonable, it is not correct.
You have already conceded that there is a distinction between increasing a weapon's virtual size and the wielder's, and that an effect targeting the weapon would not stack with lead blades or impact. Can you offer textual evidence that strongjaw is in fact targeting the creature itself, and not it's weapons?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
strongjaw could have said "the creature deals damage with all of it's natural attacks as if it were two size categories larger."Strong Jaw does say that.
Each natural attack that creature makes deals damage as if the creature were two sizes larger than it actually is.
"...the creature deals damage with all of it's natural attacks as if it were two size categories larger." --"the creature" is the subject of this sentence. The creature deals more damage.
"Each natural attack that creature makes deals damage as if the creature were two sizes larger" --"each natural attack" is the subject of this sentence. The natural attacks deal more damage.
So no, strongjaw does not say that. Strongjaw is a spell that modifies your natural attacks not you. It has the same sort of effect as impact or lead blades. It does not stack with sacred weapon.
I ask again: can you provide evidence that strongjaw effects you and not your attacks?
The distinction between a natural weapon and a natural attack is not one I am super familiar with. Perhaps that would be a place to start your search for evidence?
...A weapon is a tool or body part you can make attacks with. A Natural Attack is an extra attack that you can make as part of of your Full Attack.
Alright. There is quite a bit of information on the term "natural attack", but not on the term "natural weapon"; in fact, I couldn't find an instance of any Pathfinder source offering a definition of "natural weapon". I see the term used once in the section on the monk and once in the combat chapter under "unarmed attacks", but that's it.
At any rate, I was using the term "natural weapon" in the same way that you say you do in your example of the dog (i.e., the dog's bite is a weapon); not as a specific game term, but as a more general concept.
Natural Weapons and Natural Attacks cannot be the same thing. And nowhere in the description of Strong Jaw does it say that that any virtual size increase to any weapon, natural or otherwise is granted.
No, it says that it grants a virtual size increase to the subject's natural attacks. You still haven't shown me anything that counters my point: the spell strongjaw clearly states that the natural attacks deal more damage, not the subject. The spell enhances the claw/bite/slam, not the subject doing the clawing/biting/slamming.
I have to step in here, because sadly just about everything Scott Wilhelm wrote on natural weapons and natural attacks is wrong.
It's actually rather simple: The CRB describes natural attacks as "Attacks made with natural weapons" (CRB pg. 182). Basically, a dangerous body part that a creature possesses is a natural weapon; an attack with such a weapon is a natural attack. "Natural attack" is just short for "natural weapon attack".
A sword is a manufactured weapon, an attack with it is a weapon attack. A claw is a natural weapon, an attack with it is a natural attack. In both cases, you deal the weapon's damage as part of a successfull attack. If you have 2 claws, each one is a seperate natural weapon.
A Natural Attack is an extra attack that you can make as part of of your Full Attack.
Wrong. It has absolutely nothing to do with full attacks. Proof: The rules on "natural attacks" are under the standard attack action (the first rule that allows you to make an attack). If you make a standard attack action with a natural weapon, you make a naturla attack. If you use Cleave with a natural weapon, you make a natural attack, and you could make the additional attack with either the same or a different natural weapon, in each case, the bonus attack is a natural attack.
Monk Unarmed Strikes are natural weapons
Wrong! "Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons" (CRB pg. 149). The Monk ability does not change that!. A Monk's US is treated as a natural weapon for some spells and effects. Not for everything! A rule is not a spell or effect - it's a rule.
The entire rest of your post is all wrong because you don't make that distinction. Rules like "you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack" don't affect US not because of some distinction between natural attacks and natural weapons, but because US are neither. Unarmed Strikes never use any part of the natural attack rules. Not a single one.
Please, Scott. I'm really not trying to be mean or hostile or anything here, but you really need to learn that distinction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Everything I said is true.
Bull s+!@. I addressed two parts where you said something absolutely wrong. Did you even read my post? Here, I'll repeat them:
A Natural Attack is an extra attack that you can make as part of of your Full Attack.
This is false. A natural attack is an attack made with a natural weapon, full attack or not. Maybe you didn't mean it that way, but what you wrote defines a "natural attack" as part of a full attack, and that is simply not true.
Monk Unarmed Strikes are natural weapons, but not Natural Attacks.
This sentence is also not true - not because the second part is wrong, but because the first part (before the comma) is wrong. Stop saying that a Monk's Unarmed Strike is or counts as a natural weapon! Not only is such a statement wrong, every argument you make based on that is wrong, too. If you include the "for the purposes..." part, all is fine, without that part, not.
You are the one missing the point. I don't know if you have troubles with the language, if you just habitually only glance over my posts, or if it's some other reason, but you seem to understand no part of my post.
I did not make an argument for or against Strong Jaw. My post has nothing to do with Strong Jaw. Read my post - I didn't use the name, or even referred to the spell. You're acting defensively because you see me disagreeing with you, but you don't take the time to understand what I'm disagreeing with.
I'm not saying that you can't Great Cleave, make a standard action attack, make an attack of opportunity, and all that lovely stuff with your Bite Attack, because yes, a Bite is a weapon.
No, but what I called your Statement A says that these don't count as natural attacks, which is just wrong. If you describe natural attacks with something about full attack, these things don't count as natural attacks.
Are you saying that a Tengu can not make a Weapon Attack, an off-hand Weapon Attack and a Bite Attack as part of a Full Attack Action?
No, I'm not. Nothing in my post even talks about that. What part of my post makes you even think that?
Are you saying that any creature that cannot make such a Bite Attack in addition to iterative attacks as part of the Full Attack Action has a Bite Natural Weapon even though they don't have a Bite Attack?
No, I'm not. What part of my post makes you even think that?
The rule really do say that Monk Unarmed Strikes count as natural weapons for the purposes of effects that improve natural weapons, but the rules really do not say that Monk Unarmed Strikes count as natural attacks for the purposes of effects that improve natural attacks, and this is an important distinction to be made.
I'm not disagreeing with that. I only intervene when you leave the "for the purposes..." part off.
The reasons I gave for it are actually true, and I documented those reasons adequately.
The problem is that your reasons do not form a sound argument. Your argument (correct me if I'm wrong) is that if natural attack and natural weapon were the same thing, , and because of that there would be a bunch of changes to a monk's US, including getting 1.5xStr on damage. The argument is invalid because the first conclusion (the blue part) is false: If the Monk ability said that 'that Monk Unarmed Strikes count as natural attacks for the purposes of effects that improve natural attacks', Monks still would not get the 1.5xStr on damage, because that does not come from such an effect. The second conclusion is valid, but that doesn't help at that point.
I'm not saying that natural weapons and natural attacks are the same thing, quite the contrary. I'm saying that you did not present a sound argument.
And in fact, the Universal Monster Rules support this...
Can you show me a definition of "natural weapon" from Pathfinder, then? Thank you.
Yes, I have: again and again.Let's take a look at the dweomers of other virtual size increases side-by-side...
So, none of these things would work with Sacred Weapon because they affect the virtual size of the weapon...
You have not. All of your examples show the same thing--each one says that the effect makes the weapon/shield/whatever deal more damage. Just like strongjaw.
And incidentally, this also demonstrates your sentence-structure argument is clearly in error...It is actually typical in Paizo's rules that the description of what thing enjoys a Virtual Size Increase is placed in the prepositional phrase at the end of the sentence and not in the subject at the beginning.
See, this is what I was trying to say earlier about the misunderstanding with this ruling. Let me see if I can articulate it:
(A bashing shield) deals damage (as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger).
(An impact weapon) deals damage (as if the weapon were one size category larger).
(All melee weapons you are carrying) deal damage (as if they were one size category larger).
(Each natural attack) deals damage (as if the creature were two sizes larger).
--in each example you quoted, the first set of parentheses sets off the subject. A shield, a weapon, all melee weapons, each natural attack. Those are the subjects. The description of the rules is telling us that these things are performing an action.
What action? "deal damage". That's the predicate. That's the action. Bashing, impact, lead blades AND STRONGJAW all say that their subjects DEAL DAMAGE.
The second set of parentheses sets off the clause beginning with the conjunction "as if", used to compare the real situation of the subject dealing damage to an imaginary situation.
Answer me this: if, for a moment, we assume I am correct, how would you describe that effect?
A sword does more damage as if it were bigger. That works just fine, because a sword has a set amount of damage.
A claw does more damage as if it were bigger. That doesn't work as well, because there's so much variability of how much damage a claw can do. Because it's based off the bestiary charts that derive damage from creature size.
So yes, the clause after the conjunction mentions the creature's size, but the sentence clearly tells us that the subject--the entity taking the action or affected by the spell or ability--is the natural attack itself. The attack does more damage. How much more? Two steps up more. Two steps from where? From the damage the attack normally deals, based on the creature's size.
Does that make sense? Even if you still feel like it isn't correct, does it at least track?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Because you do not have a Bite Attack unless you can take those actions, and if you can't take those Actions, you do not have a Bite Attack. It's the ability to take that action that defines a Bite as a Bite Attack.
You realize that you didn't say which part of my post made you say that, right? That was my question. I'm honestly trying to understand you, but I just don't get it. Hint: Quoting the respective part of my post would help.
If you were to, for instance, Full Attack with 2 weapon fighting, sword and and alchemal tentacle
Please don't use the Tentacle discovery as an example. I'd say it works completely different from how you think it works, but even if it does (a big "if"), it's a unique ability and not an indication of how the general rules work.
It is the kind of action you are taking more than the weapon you use that defines a natural attack.
Still wrong. Indeed, the exact oopposite is true - a natural attack is defined only be the weapon used, and not in any way by the kind of action used. A natural attack is an attack with a natural weapon. Nothing less, nothing more. A natural weapon allows you to attack with it in exactly the same ways a a manufactured melee weapon does, with the kind of weapon used literally being the only difference.
Also, you are completely derailing the debate Quixote and I are having.
No. Just because you don't like my reply doesn't mean it's "derailing". What you wrote was wrong, and I corrected you. Since understanding the issue is vitally important to understanding Strong Jaw, my replies are not only very much on-topic, they're necessary for this thread, because you made them necessary with your wrong statements.
Want me to stop arguing against something you've said? Stop making false statements. It's that easy. And if you reply to my posts, it would help a lot if you responded to what I actually say, rather then something you may think can be read between the lines (or however you draw those things from my posts).
Scott Wilhelm, I would offer a bit of friendly advice: when someone on the forums asks you a question, it would probably behoove you to answer it. Simply and concisely.
Thus far, I have asked several questions and received zero direct answers. At best, I have been told that you have answered me, many times, but I have never been shown where exactly those answers are. At worst, My questions appear to have been ignored.
I don't mean to be offensive, but many of your responsey can be rather lengthy and can come across as rambling. Finding a specific phrase buried in those walls of text can be a daunting task.
I'm asking questions to better understand and to assistus both further this discourse. Avoiding those questions leads to frustration, and it certainly does not lend your argument credibility.
All but one...Strong Jaw uses the same sentence structure as Impact and Bashing, but it says something different.
Each natural attack that creature makes deals damage as if the creature were two sizes larger than it actually is....Strong Jaw is a virtual size increase on the creature itself. "as if the creature were two sizes larger than it actually is."
That last part is incorrect. Nowhere in the spell does it say the creature is treated as being bigger. It says the creature's natural attacks deal damage as if it were bigger. The spell doesn't effect the creature, it effects their natural attacks.
Do we agree
We agree with everything you listed there, yes. But again, my point is that strongjaw effects the creature's natural attacks, not the creature itself. It increases the damage of the creature's claws, bite, etc. in the same way bashing, impact and lead blades increases that of a shield or sword.
What if a level 5 Tengu Warpriest with Weapon Focus Bite and Claw drank a Potion of Enlarge Person or something and grew 1 size...
Then their sacred weapon would deal more damage, as they are now a larger warpriest.
Strong Jaw says that all the creature's natural attacks inflict more damage as if the creature were 2 sizes bigger.
Exactly. The NATURAL ATTACKS deal more damage as if they were bigger. If the creature dealt more damage with their natural attacks as if they were bigger, you'd be right. But it doesn't say that.
I don't understand why you keep arguing this. You keep saying that Strong Jaw says it applies vitural size increases on natural weapons, but Strong Jaw doesn't say "weapon" in its description anywhere. It does say creature.
As I stated before, I was not using the term "natural weapon" as a game term with a technical definition. What I meant was, strongjaw applies a virtual size increase on natural attacks, not on the creature. The second clause "as if the creature were two sizes larger..." is still only clarifying the first clause, which is "each natural attack the creature makes deals damage".
I hope I have made myself clear and that I have answered any questions and cleared up any confusion.
Question: do effects that increase a weapon's base damage stack with sacred weapon?
Question: is the damage of natural attacks determined by the attack itself, like a manufactured weapon?
example: a medium longsword deals 1d8 damage. What does a "medium bite" deal?
1d6 for most creatures.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Question: is the damage of natural attacks determined by the attack itself, like a manufactured weapon?
example: a medium longsword deals 1d8 damage. What does a "medium bite" deal?
Yes and no, From This table the default damage for a bite from a medium sized creature is 1d6. That being said the damage for the bite attack may be different depending on where it came from. The trait Tusked for example gives a bite attack that deals 1d4 dmg for a medium sized character.
So is it reasonable to say there is no official "bite" damage, and that instead the base damage is based on the creature's size and the specific ability that grants the attack, such as a racial ability, rage power or universal monster rule?
Alright. Is this official damage listed as being for a medium-sized bite or the bite of a medium-sized creature?
The difference:
A longsword has a size independent of the wielder. A bite does not.
If there was a spell or ability that enhanced natural attacks in the same way that bashing, impact and lead blades enhanced manufactured weapons, would it be reasonable to assume that it would be easiest to describe such a spell or ability's affect on natural attacks using the creature's size?
It (and most natural weapons however gained) are based on size so if the wielder gets bigger the natural weapon gets bigger same for smaller. The closest example would be strong jaws which of course (because of how nat weapons work with size) says the attacks are as if the creature were bigger and not the weapons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Quixote & Scott: You both seem to be more interested in fortifying your position, in some sort of trench warfare, than approaching the topic with an open mind to try and understand the exact interaction.
@Scott: You probably don't notice it, but your style of posting convinces no one. You often don't answer people's questions (which makes people feel you don't even cared to fully read their posts) or fail to adress things they said (which makes it look like you're ignoring anything you can't counter). It's also often not clear what you're talking about, because you seem to be very reluctant to quote others. What you instead do a lot is make rule quotes in [quote] tags, which kills any formatting, and would usually be better suited for use of quotation marks. Doing so would also allow you to better put a rule quote in context.
Your posts make people feel like you only care about not changing your position and aren't interested in what's actually correct. You don't adress other people's arguments, but instead you lash out against any post not agreeing with you as if you had been personally attacked. Meanwhile you're repeatedly displaying an unwillingness to overthink your understanding of the rules, repeating things others have argued to be wrong without making a proper counter-argument to show that you're indeed right. That's something that makes you appear very untrustworthy when it comes to rules.
In this case, it really backfired, because while I think you're ultimately right, your lack of proper argumentation in support of your position makes it hard for people who value such proper argumentation to accept your viewpoint as correct.
@Quixote: You're right that there is no official definition of natural weapons, Pathfinder did not copy the one from 3.5. Furthermore, the Natural Attack rules in the Bestiary don't seem to make any distinction between natural weapons and natural attacks. You should, however realize that a) the CRB pretty clearly does make a distinction (and is the prime rule source for PCs), and b) the part in the Bestiary is really weirdly written. The section starts with "" (B1 pg. 201) - that sentence already doesn't make sense on multiple levels. First, an attack is an action*, that's not something you can possess. Second, "weapons" really should say "manufactured weapons". The rules keep talking about "having" attacks. Most of these rules in the Bestiary should indeed refer to natural weapons rather than natural attacks.
With that in mind, look at Strong Jaw - it doesn't increase the damage done with the natural weapons, but with the natural attacks. Usually, there is no difference, because an attack uses the weapon's damage, so writer and editor likely didn't care about the distinciton between natural weapon and natural attack.
Normally, what happens is this: You make an attack roll, and "" (CRB pg. 179)
Sacred Weapon changes things, however, because it replaces the weapon damage with something different. Everything affecting the weapon get's ignored, but because of the unusual wording of Strong Jaw altering the attack rather than weapon, the spell works. Now, both abilities (Sacred Weapon and Strong Jaw) change the attack, but since we have to decide before making the attack roll to use Sacred Weapon or not ("" (ACG pg. 61)), the class feature is in place first, and the spell second. That gives the spell the power to change what the class feature does.
Now, this is all based on rules that are very unclearly written (natural weapons are oen of the worst rules-covered things in the game), because back then the people at Paizo had that weird idea that rulebooks should contain guidelines rather than rules. It is thus impossible to say that any interpretation is without any doubt correct. What we can do is try to figue out what's most likely the correct interpretation within the written rules; I believe I have done that.
*) I'm using the normal meaning of the word rather than the game term here.
You...seem to be more interested in fortifying your position, in some sort of trench warfare, than approaching the topic with an open mind to try and understand the exact interaction.
I am sorry my posts have left you work such an impression. I assure you, nothing could be further from the truth. Being right or "winning an argument" matter very little to me; I saw how the rules worked, made a declaration to the best of my ability, and have been struggling to make myself understood to the point that I outlined the exact sort of evidence I thought would counter my current argument.
It seems like your stance revolves around the more literal definition of "natural attack" versus "natural weapon". It effects the attack, not the weapon, so it's not replaced with sacred weapon. Is that the jist of it?
I think that's 100% acceptable. But as you say, it's hardly definitive. As far as I can tell, strongjaw is just a boosted, natural attack version of lead blades. It's a bigger bonus and can effect multiple "weapons", so that seems like a fair 4th level spell to me. The whole "natural attacks" and "as if the creature were two size categories larger" bits seem to be the closest thing the rules could get to the bashing /impact/lead blades language as they could, since they never laid down definitions for natural weaponry itself.