Monk + Improved Natural Attack


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 101 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Melkiador wrote:
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*


Bear Burning Ashes wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
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,

We've bolded the part for you, too!

INA only affects 1 of a creatures Natural Attacks, but it affects it as if the whole creature were 1 size larger, and if the whole Warpriest were 1 size larger, so would be its Sacred Weapon Damage.

I think it's worth pointing out that your supporting examples: Lead Blades, the Bashing Enchantment, the Kermabit, are all describing Manufactured Weapons. The Bashing Enchantment augments the Shield's Base Damage, not the Shield and it's wielder, not the shield as if it and its wielder were bigger. But that is what Improved Natural Attack does.

Also, I feel like its worth noting that Natural Attacks are actually part of the creatures' bodies. Improved Natural Attack would be a Feat taken by the entire Warpriest, limited in domain to only one of her natural attacks, but affecting that attack as if her whole body were larger. Sure, eagles have bigger talons than mockingbirds, but without the entire eagle behind those talons, they are just not the same. A Tengu Warpriest with Improved Natural Attack is not just improving her claws, filing them to sharper points or adding Shield Spikes or something. She is training her whole body, unifying it with her spirit, channeling her spiritual awakening and blessing from her deity and combining it with training toward physical perfection and beyond and with a primal need to defend her nest, offering to tear the heart out of any eagle that dares to pose a threat to her flock of worshippers as if she laid and hatched them herself.

I know. I have felt the talons of a mockingbird defending her nest. I will never forget.


Bear Burning Ashes wrote:
*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*

Just because people find a new way of playing a game doesn't mean it will ruin the game or keep you from playing the game your own way.

If Bach can handle your listening to his music on your 8track player, you can handle my listening to it on my cassette. And some day I imagine even my tape cassettes will be made obsolete by some other technology.

But it will still be Bach.

Just like Bach, Pathfinder is baroque. Totally overwrought with all manner of bizarre combination possibilities: Feats, Class Abilities, Spells cast on creatures, weapons, and creatures' natural weapons. Baroque is not for everybody, but Pathfinder is what it is.


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.


A few things should be clarified:
1) Normally, unarmed strikes are not also natural
2) Monk unarmed strikes are the exception to the previous rule, and they are natural
The issue here is the fact that the way “not unarmed strikes” is written could be interpreted as a rule, which would disqualify monks, or as a reminder to players that unarmed strikes generally aren’t natural.


How many times has this discussion been necroed?


Xelalego wrote:

A few things should be clarified:

1) Normally, unarmed strikes are not also natural
2) Monk unarmed strikes are the exception to the previous rule, and they are natural
The issue here is the fact that the way “not unarmed strikes” is written could be interpreted as a rule, which would disqualify monks, or as a reminder to players that unarmed strikes generally aren’t natural.

Yup.

Even though a Monk Unarmed Strike counts as a Natural Weapon, it is still an Unarmed Strike, and Improved Natural Attack says, "not an unarmed strike." Meanwhile, I don't think the writers were thinking, "oh, a MONK Unarmed Strike! I never thought it would be a Monk making an Unarmed Strike!"

Java Man wrote:
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?


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
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?


Derklord wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
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?

Yes, but it also seems to be helping with the bone spurs in my ankle...


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.


Quixote wrote:

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.

Yeah, Strong Jaw seems like the way to go.

Since Monk Unarmed Strikes count as both Natural and Manufactured Weapons, Lead Blades might also work. Arguably not since it only works on the weapons that are "carried."

Maybe an Amulet of Mighty Fists with the Impact enchantment?


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.


Quixote wrote:
Strongjaw won't work for a warpriest.

What makes you think that? Strong Jaw totally works on a Warpriest whose Sacred Weapons are Natural Attacks.


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.


Quixote wrote:
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.

Strong Jaw wrote:
Each natural attack that creature makes deals damage as if the creature were two sizes larger than it actually is.
Quixote wrote:
his sacred weapon...is based on his level and not the weapon type

Sacred Weapon does say that, but it also says that larger Warpriests of the same level do more damage, and amaller ones do less.

Sacred Weapon wrote:
The damage for Medium warpriests is listed on Table 1–14; see the table below for Small and Large warpriests

So if Strong Jaw made the Natural Weapon inflict damage as if the weapons were 1 size bigger, then Sacred Weapon Damage would be unaffected. But Strong Jaw causes the Attacks to inflict Damage as if the Warpriest were 2 sizes bigger, and bigger Warpriests inflict bigger damage.

Quixote wrote:
An impact weapon... (deals) damage as if the weapon were one size category larger

I just corroborated that with the rules. That's true: Impact weapons inflict Damage as if the Weapon were bigger, so that would not attack with Sacred Weapon at all. Of course, in my most recent post about Impact, I was not recommending that for a Warpriest, but for a Monk.


Quixote wrote:
"...his sacred weapon...is based on his level and not the weapon type..."

Why's it function differently for monks then?

Quote:
The damage dealt by a monk’s unarmed strike is determined by the unarmed damage column on Table 1–2: Monk. The damage listed is for Medium monks. The damage for Small or Large monks is listed below.

Looks like strong jaw wouldn't work for them either since their damage is set according to their table.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Quixote wrote:
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.

Strong Jaw wrote:
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.

willuwontu wrote:
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.


willuwontu wrote:
Quixote wrote:
"...his sacred weapon...is based on his level and not the weapon type..."
Why's it function differently for monks then?

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.

willuwontu wrote:
Quote:
The damage dealt by a monk’s unarmed strike is determined by the unarmed damage column on Table 1–2: Monk. The damage listed is for Medium monks. The damage for Small or Large monks is listed below.
Looks like strong jaw wouldn't work for them either since their damage is set according to their table.

I'm not sure that you and I disagree on this, but I do think that Strong Jaw works for both Monk Unarmed Strike Damage and Wearpriest Sacred Weapon Damage that is for Unarmed Strikes and Natural Attacks.

Quixote wrote:
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.

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.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
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.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
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?


Quixote wrote:
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.

Yes.

Strong Jaw causes your natural attacks to do more damage as if you were 2 sizes bigger, not as if your weapons were 2 sizes bigger.

Quixote wrote:
It mentions the target's size, so it seems reasonable to assume that the virtual size increase applies to the target

That is not an assumption at all! That is a factual statement of the rules.

Quixote wrote:
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.

Strong Jaw wrote:
Each natural attack that creature makes deals damage as if the creature were two sizes larger than it actually is.
Quixote wrote:
It says your weapons (natural attacks) are virtually bigger

Natural Attacks and Natural Weapons are not the same thing. Strong Jaw does not increase the virtual size of any weapon.

Strong Jaw does not say that it increases the damage of any natural weapon as if the weapons were bigger. It says that it increases the damage of ALL the creature's attacks as if the creature were bigger.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Quixote wrote:
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.

Strong Jaw wrote:
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?


Quixote wrote:
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.

Yes. That is what I've been saying.

Quixote wrote:
Each natural attack that creature makes deals damage as if the creature were two sizes larger"

Yes. All the creature's natural attacks do more damage as if the creature were bigger. There is no virtual size increase on the weapon. It is virtual size increase on the creature.


Quixote wrote:
The distinction between a natural weapon and a natural attack is not one I am super familiar with.

Fair enough.

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.

I don't like this example, but

Natural Attack wrote:
(attacks made without a weapon).

Honestly, I would say that a dog's mouth is a weapon, and that dog gets a Bite Attack. This says that the mouth is not a weapon at all, and I do not like that at all. But here is evidence that unambiguously and conclusively shows that Natural Attacks are not quite the same thing as Natural Weapons.

Like I was saying, Natural Attacks are not necessarily things you can make attacks with, but rather additional attacks you can make as part of your Full Attack Action:

Natural Attack wrote:
You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack... Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action

So, lets say I am a Tengu with Claws. I take a level in White Haired Witch and a level in Monk. I acquire a Helm of the Mammoth Lord. This character gets multiple Attacks/round: 1 Bite, 1 Gore, 1 Hair, 2 Claws, and 2 Unarmed Strikes. The Bite, Gore, Hair, and Claws are all Natural Attacks, meaning that they grant extra Attacks to that Tengu's Natural Attack. The Unarmed Strikes have to be made with the Tengu's regular, weapon Attacks.

Let's say this same Tengu dips 2 levels in Alchemist and grows a Tentacle. A Tentacle is a Natural Weapon, but an Alchemal Tentacle does not grant any Natural Attacks. If Natural Attacks and Natural Weapons were the same thing, then this Alchemist would not be able to attack with the Tentacle at all, since no Natural Attack has been granted. But a Natural Weapon has been granted, and so the Alchemist can use his regular weapon attack to make an attack with his Tentacle. So now his Attack Routine is Bite/Gore/Hair/2 Claws/1 Unarmed Strike/and 1 Tentacle as an Off-Hand Attack.

So, lets look at another negative example. Monk Unarmed Strikes are natural weapons, but not Natural Attacks.

Monk Unarmed Strike wrote:
A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

So a Monk Unarmed Strike counts as a Natural Weapon, meaning that it can benefit from Magic Fang and Strong Jaw. If a Fighter takes Weapon Training for the Natural Weapon Group, his Unarmed Strikes enjoy a +1 attack and damage at level 5 and an additional +1 for every 4 levels after that.

But a Monk Unarmed Strike is not a Natural Attack. There would be consequences if it were. For instance, a creature gets 1 Natural Attack for every qualifying body part: bite, claws, Gore, etc. How many body parts can you make unarmed strikes with?

Unarmed Strike wrote:
A monk’s attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet.

That would mean that a level 1 Human Monk would have 8 attacks/round!

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 times the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls.

If Monk Unarmed Strikes were Natural Attacks, then that Natural Attack would be a Human Monk's sole Natural Attack, and that means Human Monks should all enjoy 1.5 X Strength Mod in Damage, and they don't.

You might make the counter argument that just because a Monk Unarmed Strike counts as a Natural Weapon for the purposes of effects does not make it actually a natural weapon, but you are saying that Natural Weapons and Natural Attacks are the same thing, and that has consequences

Consider my earlier example of my Tengu with all those Natural Attacks.
If that Tengu Monk with Bite, Gore, Hair, and 2 Claws were to actually make his Full Attack including his 2 Unarmed Strikes, then he would suffer significant penalties on his attack roll.

Natural Attack wrote:
Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their available natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack,
Natural Attack wrote:
Secondary attacks are made using the creature’s base attack bonus –5 and add only 1/2 the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls.

But what if we interpreted things your way: that Natural Weapons are the same thing as Natural Attacks. Think of how we could interpret Monk Unarmed Strikes

if Monk Unarmed Strikes wrote:
A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural attack for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural attacks.

So that would mean that our Tengu Monk could go ahead and throw in 2 Natural Attacks into his Full Attack Routine with no penalties at all affecting his Natural Attacks! Also, if that Tengu also had an Alchemal Tentacle, he could throw in his Tentacle Attack, and the rules just don't allow that.

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.


"Scott Wilhelm wrote:
...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.

"Scott Wilhelm wrote:
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.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
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.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
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.


Derklord, you are completely missing the point, and you are completely muddying the waters. Everything I said is true. And I am did not falsify a single quote of the rules, nor did I take anything out of context.

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. But if you have a Bite Attack, you actually do have an additional attack you can make as part of your Full Attack Action. And if you do not have that, you do not have a Bite Attack.

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? 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?

I'm not the one who is not making a distinction between Natural Weapons, and Natural Attacks.

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. The reasons I gave for it are actually true, and I documented those reasons adequately.

And Strong Jaw in no place in the Spell Description says that it grants a virtual size increase to any natural weapon. That is true. I am the one who is making the distinction here.

Can you show that any weapon is made bigger by Strong Jaw?


Quixote wrote:
"natural weapon"; in fact, I couldn't find an instance of any Pathfinder source offering a definition of "natural weapon"

Well if there is no such thing as a Natural Weapon, then Strong Jaw clearly not affect a virtual size increase on one.

And in fact, the Universal Monster Rules support this, as I have said, and as I have shown you in the rules:

Quixote wrote:
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.

Yes, I have: again and again.

Let's take a look at the dweomers of other virtual size increases side-by-side:

Bashing wrote:
A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger
Impact wrote:
An impact weapon delivers a potent kinetic jolt when it strikes, dealing damage as if the weapon were one size category larger.
Lead Blades wrote:
All melee weapons you are carrying when the spell is cast deal damage as if one size category larger than they actually are.

So, none of these things would work with Sacred Weapon because they affect the virtual size of the weapon, and the size of the weapon has no bearing on Sacred Weapon. And we know that because those virtual size increases are all "as if the weapon were size catagories larger than they actually are."

And incidentally, this also demonstrates your sentence-structure argument is clearly in error:

Quixote wrote:
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..."

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.

And now lets take a look at Strong Jaw:

Strong Jaw wrote:
Each natural attack that creature makes deals damage as if the creature were two sizes larger than it actually is.

Sacred Weapon Damage is not affected by the size of the weapon, but it is affected by the size of the Warpriest, and it is the virtual size of the Warpriest that is being affected by Strong Jaw, "as if the creature were two sizes larger than the it actually is."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
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:

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
A Natural Attack is an extra attack that you can make as part of of your Full Attack.

Statement A 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.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
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.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
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.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
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?

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
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?

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
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.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
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, then the Monk ability would make a Monk's US count as natural attacks, 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.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
And in fact, the Universal Monster Rules support this...

Can you show me a definition of "natural weapon" from Pathfinder, then? Thank you.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:


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.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
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?


I wrote:
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?
Derklord wrote:
No, I'm not. Nothing in my post even talks about that. What part of my post makes you even think that?
I wrote:
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?
Derklord wrote:
No, I'm not. What part of my post makes you even think that?

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.

If you were to, for instance, Full Attack with 2 weapon fighting, sword and and alchemal tentacle, your tentacle would not suffer a -5 on the attack roll. The reason for this is that is that you are not making a natural attack with the tentacle, even though the tentacle is a natural weapon. If you then made a Bite Attack as an Attack of Opportunity, you wouldn't suffer a -5 on that, either.

If you were in a crowd of opponents 2 ranks deep, and you were to Great Cleave using your Bite on opponents 5' away and your Lucerne Hammer 10' away, then you don't take a -5 on your Bite Attack then, either. The reason why is that those Natural Attack rules only apply to the Full Attack, not to things like Great Cleave or Attacks of Opportunity.

It is the kind of action you are taking more than the weapon you use that defines a natural attack.

Also, you are completely derailing the debate Quixote and I are having. The context of my differentiating natural attacks and natural weapons is in the context of Strong Jaw and Warpriest Sacred Weapon. Your criticism of my points run roughshod over the context, even if you happen to be technically correct about some of what you are saying.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
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.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
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.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
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.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
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).


Quixote wrote:
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.

All but one:

Bashing wrote:
A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger
Impact wrote:
An impact weapon delivers a potent kinetic jolt when it strikes, dealing damage as if the weapon were one size category larger.
Lead Blades wrote:
All melee weapons you are carrying when the spell is cast deal damage as if one size category larger than they actually are.

These all say the same thing. These all state that they are virtual size increases on weapons. Bashing and Impact even use the same sentence structure.

Bashing and Impact wrote:
as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger... as if the weapon were one size category larger.

Strong Jaw uses the same sentence structure as Impact and Bashing, but it says something different.

Strong Jaw wrote:
Each natural attack that creature makes deals damage as if the creature were two sizes larger than it actually is.

Same structure, different words. Lead Blades, Bashing, and Impact all state they are virtual size increases on the weapons: "as if the weapon were sizes bigger." Strong Jaw is a virtual size increase on the creature itself. "as if the creature were two sizes larger than it actually is."

The rules say that.

We agree that Sacred Weapon replaces weapon damage.
We agree that the weapon size and therefore virtual size increases on a weapon do not confer any benefit that stacks with Warpriest Sacred Weapon Damage.
We agree that bigger Warpriests inflict more damage than smaller ones.

Do we agree?

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. Do you think that that Warpriest's Sacred Weapon Damage would go up from 1d8 to 2d6? What if a higher level Tengu Warpriest cast Righteus Might on himself? Are you saying that Warpriest's Sacred Weapon base damage would not increase?

Look, the rules allow for Size Increases on the Warpriest to increase the Base Damage for Sacred Weapon. The rules have both actual and virtual size increases.

The answer to the question of what happens when a level 5 Warpriest with Weapon Focus on Natural Attacks has Strong Jaw cast on him is clear.

The base damage of a level 5 Size Medium Warpriest Sacred Weapon is 1d8.

Strong Jaw says that all the creature's natural attacks inflict more damage as if the creature were 2 sizes bigger.

What damage would a that same Warpriest do if he were 2 sizes bigger?

3d6.

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.


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.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

All but one...Strong Jaw uses the same sentence structure as Impact and Bashing, but it says something different.

Strong Jaw wrote:
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.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
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.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
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.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
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.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
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.


Quixote wrote:
Simply and concisely.

Ok.

I wrote:
hat if a level 5 Tengu Warpriest with Weapon Focus Bite and Claw drank a Potion of Enlarge Person or something and grew 1 size...
Quixote wrote:
Then their sacred weapon would deal more damage, as they are now a larger warpriest.

Good. We agree.

Strong Jaw will cause the Warpriest to inflict more damage as if they were a larger Warpriest.

Strong Jaw wrote:
Each natural attack that creature makes deals damage as if the creature were two sizes larger than it actually is.

That is exactly what Strong Jaw says it does: cause the Damage to be as if they were a larger Warpriest.


Question: do effects that increase a weapon's base damage stack with sacred weapon?


Quixote wrote:
Question: do effects that increase a weapon's base damage stack with sacred weapon?

Nope.

Bashing wrote:
A bashing shield deals damage as if it were a weapon of two size categories larger
Impact wrote:
An impact weapon delivers a potent kinetic jolt when it strikes, dealing damage as if the weapon were one size category larger.

Those don't stack with Warpriest Sacred Weapon because "as if it were a weapon ____ size(s) bigger" indicates it is a virtual size increase on the weapon. And we agree that Sacred Weapon Damage replaces the regular weapon Damage.

Strong Jaw wrote:
Each natural attack that creature makes deals damage as if the creature were two sizes larger than it actually is.

This one does stack with Warpriest Sacred Weapon Damage because it says differently from the other 2. It doesn't say "Each natural attack deals damage as if they were 2 sizes bigger than they actually are."

It says "as if the creature were 2 sizes larger."

And we agree on what happens in the case of a larger Warpriest: larger Warpriest = larger damage.


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.
Quixote wrote:

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.


Quixote wrote:

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?

You are asking if a longsword does longsword damage = 1d8, or if all 1 handed, martial slashing weapons do the same damage, and do all animals do the same kind of damage, and the base damage is based on size, not on the particular weapon?

There is a Natural Attack Table in the Unieversal Monster Rules that lists damage done by all sorts of Natural Attacks for different sized creatures. Based on that, it does seem that any given kind of Natural Attack for any given size creature inflicts a given amount of damage. But I can think if some exceptions: Barbarian Lesser Fiend Totem inflicts 1d8 Damage where usually a Gore from a Size Medium Creature does 1d6. Usually a Gore from a Huge Creature does 2d6, but a Triceretops does 2d10 and an Arsinotherium does 4d8.


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?


Quixote wrote:
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?

I wouldn't say so. It seems to me that the Universal Monster Rules do indeed give an official Bite Damage based on creatures' sizes, but there are exceptions.


Alright. Is this official damage listed as being for a medium-sized bite or the bite of a medium-sized creature?


Quixote wrote:
Alright. Is this official damage listed as being for a medium-sized bite or the bite of a medium-sized creature?

I don't understand the distinction you are drawing. I think 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 "Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon)." (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 "If your attack succeeds, you deal damage. The type of weapon used determines the amount of damage you deal." (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 ("this must be declared before the attack roll is made" (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.


Quixote wrote:

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.

Really? Where does it say it sets the base damage of the weapon?

Quote:
The damage dealt by a monk’s unarmed strike is determined by the unarmed damage column on Table 1–2: Monk. The damage listed is for Medium monks. The damage for Small or Large monks is listed below.

This doesn't seem to include the words "base damage", instead it says that the damage dealt by an unarmed strike is set by the table.

Quote:
Whenever the warpriest hits with his sacred weapon, the weapon damage is based on his level and not the weapon type. The damage for Medium warpriests is listed on Table 1–14; see the table below for Small and Large warpriests.

Similarly, the damage for a sacred weapon is set by the table.

So why does strong jaw function differently for both?


Derklord wrote:
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.

51 to 100 of 101 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Monk + Improved Natural Attack All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.