Monk + Improved Natural Attack


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Does this combo still work? In 3.5 it did, and in pathfinder it says a monks unarmed strikes count as both manufactured and natural weapons for spells and effects that enhance or improve. Does this mean you qualify for the Improved Natural Attack feat which requires you to have a natural attack and base attack +4?


JimmyNids wrote:
Does this combo still work? In 3.5 it did, and in pathfinder it says a monks unarmed strikes count as both manufactured and natural weapons for spells and effects that enhance or improve. Does this mean you qualify for the Improved Natural Attack feat which requires you to have a natural attack and base attack +4?

The official answer is monk's can't use it to up their unarmed damage. Ask your DM for their games.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

There is errata planned that states monks may not. However, there are adventure path npc monks with the feat. Take it as you will. I personally allow it.


Not to step on toes {as your DM always has the final say}, but I just read the PRD and it says explicitly:

"Choose one of the creature's natural attack forms (not an unarmed strike). The damage for this natural attack increases by one step on the following list, as if the creature's size had increased by one category."

So it seems to me that RAW says no. As someone who just starting playing a Druid/Monk, after reading this thread and checking this out, I am now considering taking Imp Natural Attack {Claw} for when I'm wild shaped. That would be legal by RAW, wouldn't it?

But I am not sure what the book actually says; perhaps the PRD has updated text. I don't know. Can anyone check the Printed Word? Does it have that clause about unarmed strike?

Scarab Sages

I don't see the mechanical benefit to improved natural attack, or much synergy beyond the wis to ac, and potentially the speed bonus if you sacrifice enough druid levels.

When wildshaped, you can either make your monk unarmed strikes with or without flurrying at your monk unarmed strike damage, or you can make your natural attacks just like a regular druid would. You don't get to do both, or apply your monk unarmed strike damage to your natural attacks. I'd think taking more than one level in monk would significantly impact the fun factor, waiting for that next form size.

Stunning fist would synergize, but without heavy wisdom investment, the dc gets less useful as you level. That's just true of stunning fist in general.

Anyhow, to get back on topic, there is already officially released errata *the errata for the bestiary 1.0* that explicitly excludes unarmed strikes from benefiting from improved natural attack. The errata is for the printed book, which lacks the phrase.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Magicdealer wrote:
Anyhow, to get back on topic, there is already officially released errata *the errata for the bestiary 1.0* that explicitly excludes unarmed strikes from benefiting from improved natural attack. The errata is for the printed book, which lacks the phrase.

Good thing the monk's unarmed strike explicitly states that it counts as a natural weapon, which works itself around the wording of that errata :P

Scarab Sages

Except that it doesn't. The monks unarmed strike also counts as a natural weapon.

Then you go to apply the feat. Unfortunately, since it's also still an unarmed strike, it can't be applied.

When applying a feat, you don't just check one thing to see if you can use it. If anything prohibits it from working, it doesn't work. Even if another thing would allow it to work.

Otherwise, it's like saying you can take power attack with a strength of 10 because you can still make melee attacks.


Magicdealer wrote:

Except that it doesn't. The monks unarmed strike also counts as a natural weapon.

Then you go to apply the feat. Unfortunately, since it's also still an unarmed strike, it can't be applied.

When applying a feat, you don't just check one thing to see if you can use it. If anything prohibits it from working, it doesn't work. Even if another thing would allow it to work.

Otherwise, it's like saying you can take power attack with a strength of 10 because you can still make melee attacks.

Um no its not at all, because the prerequisite is 13 str. It's more like saying you can't cast charm person on a giant. It is a humanoid, but it's also a giant subtype. Unarmed strikes ARE natural weapons.

The only proviso I would make about a monk taking this feat (regardless of retarded errata) is they have to choose a weapon. Meaning fists, knees, etc. If your monk is carrying something in each hand and he took his fists as improved weapons, he can still strike with knees etc but without the improved damage dice.

my 2cp


It has already been said in a thread that it isn't viable to up a monk's unarmed damage.

Dark Archive

Monks don't have a natural weapon so that wouldn't let them get the feat as it is a requirement.

The fact their improved unarmed attacks can be improved as if they are natural weapons would mean if they somehow got this feat, by say way of bonus to which they can bypass the requirements then they would be able to get the bonus, as it enchances their unarmed attack. Just like how they gain the benefits of TWF without needing to have the prereqs.

As it reads I don't interpret anything in improved unarmed attack(monk) nothing gives the monk a natural weapon.

______

I'd love to see some sort of draconic sorcerer cross-classed with a high BAB class throwing out wicked shocking grasp charged improved natural attack claws.

kind of a high level req to do all that for what it is, but i like the flavour and would be a cool way to mesh two low level/spells abilities and make them better.


I agree with those who state that the monks attacks arent natural weapons. The proves, I beleive, are stated in other peoples posts. My reasoning would be, that a monk uses his whole body for attacks, not just his fists. He throws in a knee, headbud, arsebud (?) and so on to the cocktail. Then it would only be approptiate to take the improved natural attack for every attack option he uses - Improved Natural Attack (Arse) for starters. Like a dragons bite attack is different from its tail attack, and it would need to take the feat for each of its attack type.

BUT...

We all know that monks need the extra damage, so what the hell... allow it ;0)

Cheers!

EDIT: ya.. something like what meatrace said


Hi,
Unarmed Strike is not a "natural Weapon". Its a set of fist, elbows, feet, martial art technic in somme sort.

RAW "A monk' unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and natural weapon FOR THE PURPOSE OF SPELL AND EFFECTS THAT..."

So... its a Unarmed Strike. A named hability/power. Name it differently if you whant.. But that power is excluded by the rules of Imp Nat Weapon.

PS: sorry for my poor english. Im a french guy!


Magicdealer wrote:


When wildshaped, you can either make your monk unarmed strikes with or without flurrying at your monk unarmed strike damage, or you can make your natural attacks just like a regular druid would. You don't get to do both...

Actually you are wrong about this part. Although the feat doesnt affect the monk's unarmed damage, you do still get to do both if you so choose. The natural attacks just come after the other attacks albeit with a -5 penalty. Unless you have multiattack in which case they are only at -2.

AtD


If only Feral Combat Training were a two-way street. Which it should be. That just makes sense.

Question, do your natural attacks get the unarmed monk damage after FCT? If not, damn, that feat should be way better than it is.


Frosty Ace wrote:

If only Feral Combat Training were a two-way street. Which it should be. That just makes sense.

Question, do your natural attacks get the unarmed monk damage after FCT? If not, damn, that feat should be way better than it is.

Not anymore. They used to, but that feature has been errata'd away.

What you could do is be a Natural Attacking Warpriest. Take Weapon Focus for your Natural Attacks, and do Sacred Weapon Damage instead of your regular Natural Attack Damage. There's no reason you can't take Improved Natural Attack for your regular Natural Weapons.

Getting lots of Natural Attacks isn't too hard.

Orcs and Goblins can start off with a Bite Attack.

Catfolk can start off with 2 Claws.

Tieflings can start off with either a Bite or 2 Claws.

Tengu can start off with 2 Claws and a Bite.

Take a level in White Haired Witch, and you can get a Hair Attack.

Feral Mutagen is an Alchemal Discovery which gives you 2 Claws and a Bite.

Alter Self will let you Polymorph into humanoids with Natural Attacks.

Acquire a Helm of the Mammoth Lord, and you get a Gore Attack.

A Tentacle Cloak will give you 2 Tentacle Attacks.

As you gain levels in Warpriest, your Sacred Weapon Damage on all your Natural Attacks keeps going up. Plus, Warpriests have lots of options for buffing themselves.


Monk Unarmed Strikes would benefit from the Strong Jaw Spell. If the Monk dips even 1 level in Ranger or Druid, she might use a Wand of Strong Jaw, should she acquire one.

Sovereign Court

Scott Wilhelm wrote:


Alter Self will let you Polymorph into humanoids with Natural Attacks.

Not in Pathfinder. You're thinking 3.5.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:


Alter Self will let you Polymorph into humanoids with Natural Attacks.
Not in Pathfinder. You're thinking 3.5.

Are you sure? I thought for sure.

The Pathfinder Alter Self Spell says it's a Polymorph Spell. The description of Polymorph Spells says that if you Polymorph into a creature with natural attacks, you gain the natural attacks of the creature. The specifics of Alter Self would trump the generals of Polymorph, but Alter Self doesn't say you don't gain the creature's Natural Attacks, if any. So, you can as long as you can find a humanoid that has natural attacks, you get them. If you can't, I guess you have to resort to Monstrous Physique.


Charon's Little Helper wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:


Alter Self will let you Polymorph into humanoids with Natural Attacks.
Not in Pathfinder. You're thinking 3.5.

alter self

When you cast this spell, you can assume the form of any Small or Medium creature of the humanoid type

transmutation (polymorph)
In addition to these benefits, you gain any of the natural attacks of the base creature, including proficiency in those attacks.

Troglodyte
CE Medium humanoid (reptilian)
2 claws +2 (1d4+1), bite +2 (1d4+1)

Alter self into troglodyte gets you three natural attacks for the duration of the spell.

Sovereign Court

My bad. I didn't bother reading the polymorph section of the rules - just Alter Self specifically.

Liberty's Edge

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
What you could do is be a Natural Attacking Warpriest. Take Weapon Focus for your Natural Attacks, and do Sacred Weapon Damage instead of your regular Natural Attack Damage. There's no reason you can't take Improved Natural Attack for your regular Natural Weapons.

Improved Natural Attack doesn't stack with Sacred Weapon, though, so although there's no reason you can't take Improved Natural Attack, there's also no reason why you would want to.


Ahpook The Destroyer wrote:
Magicdealer wrote:


When wildshaped, you can either make your monk unarmed strikes with or without flurrying at your monk unarmed strike damage, or you can make your natural attacks just like a regular druid would. You don't get to do both...

Actually you are wrong about this part. Although the feat doesnt affect the monk's unarmed damage, you do still get to do both if you so choose. The natural attacks just come after the other attacks albeit with a -5 penalty. Unless you have multiattack in which case they are only at -2.

AtD

You realize you replied to a post that is nearly six years old, right?


Bear Burning Ashes wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
What you could do is be a Natural Attacking Warpriest. Take Weapon Focus for your Natural Attacks, and do Sacred Weapon Damage instead of your regular Natural Attack Damage. There's no reason you can't take Improved Natural Attack for your regular Natural Weapons.
Improved Natural Attack doesn't stack with Sacred Weapon, though, so although there's no reason you can't take Improved Natural Attack, there's also no reason why you would want to.

Sure it does. Why wouldn't it?

Improved Natural Attack wrote:
The damage for this natural attack increases by one step on the following list, as if the creature's size had increased by one category.

Improved Natural Attack scales up the Natural Weapon Damage as if the Wapriest were 1 Size bigger.

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

And Sacred Weapon Damage scales up with the Warpriest's size.

What's the problem?


fretgod99 wrote:
Ahpook The Destroyer wrote:
Magicdealer wrote:


When wildshaped, you can either make your monk unarmed strikes with or without flurrying at your monk unarmed strike damage, or you can make your natural attacks just like a regular druid would. You don't get to do both...

Actually you are wrong about this part. Although the feat doesnt affect the monk's unarmed damage, you do still get to do both if you so choose. The natural attacks just come after the other attacks albeit with a -5 penalty. Unless you have multiattack in which case they are only at -2.

AtD

You realize you replied to a post that is nearly six years old, right?

No, I missed that. Still, I've never understood why necroing old threads on these forums is frowned upon. That just means I'm updating an old discussion with new information. Having new information is a perfectly reasonable justification for bringing up an old argument.

But, looking at Ahpook The Destroyer's necroing post, arguably he is really the OP, and he is inviting us to re-have our old argument. I was meaning to reply to your PM--sorry--and from your reply here, I get the sense that you'd rather I do that than re-have our old argument in public. I can still have out this argument with you in private, if you prefer.

Aphook, I comprehensively disagree with precisely what you said. I have very strong evidence. It is an old argument, refined under severe testing. Initially, I refrained from arguing with you about this because it is perhaps off-topic from the OP, and now I am also reticent about arguing with you about this on Fretgod99's grounds that this is a thread necro.

If you want to have it out, I am willing to. But perhaps it would be best if you start a new thread, and link to it here. I will keep my eye on this thread for a few days.

Liberty's Edge

You highlighted the problem. Sacred Weapon is solely determined using the Warpriest's size. Effects that increase the damage of your weapon (Bashing, Impact, Lead Blades, etc.) don't stack with it. You simply choose the better of the two.

Say your 1st level medium-sized Warpriest chose Light Shield (1d3) as their Sacred Weapon (1d6), and somehow activated a wand of Lead Blades. The spell increases the 1d3 to 1d4. When you attack, you then choose whether you want to deal the weapon's damage (1d4) or your Sacred Weapon damage (1d6).

Sacred Weapon was worded to specifically prevent the sort of stacking you're suggesting. Otherwise every Warpriest would choose Heavy Shield and enchant it with Bashing for (1d6 => 1d8 => 2d6) at 1st level.

Sczarni

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
I've never understood why necroing old threads on these forums is frowned upon.

Not just these forums; forums in general. Because a lot has happened since the thread was put to rest.

There could have been new content released, errata, an FAQ, a reversal of an FAQ, a Developer clarification, the OP could have changed their stance, the OP may no longer be around, and/or the thread could have been created during a time when such threads were common, or a particular viewpoint was common, and its context is simply lost on us today. Or any number of other similar reasons.

It's like going into a political science forum and necroing a thread on Bush declaring war on Iraq, and saying something like "you know there's no nukes there, right?".

It's just better to let that discussion lay where it died. If you wanted to bring up a similar discussion, just start a new thread.


Bear Burning Ashes wrote:
Sacred Weapon is solely determined using the Warpriest's size.

Yes.

Bear Burning Ashes wrote:
Effects that increase the damage of your weapon... don't stack with it.

Yes, but Improved Natural Attack actually increases the Warpriest's effective size, not the effective size of the Natural Weapon.

Improved Natural Attack wrote:
The damage for this natural attack increases... as if the creature's size had increased by one category.

So Improve Natural Attack would make a Medium-Sized Tengu's Sacred Beak inflict damage as if it were a Large Tengu, not as if it were a Size Medium Tengu with a Large, Sacred Beak. Were that the case, I would agree with you.

Liberty's Edge

The part that should be bolded wrote:
The damage for this natural attack increases

It only references creature size so that people could then easily thumb to the back of the Bestiary and find out how much damage the attack does.

Your Tengu Warpriest remains medium-sized. With Improved Natural Attack you could then choose between dealing (1d3 => 1d4) damage, or sticking with 1d6 damage.

Scarab Sages

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Bear Burning Ashes wrote:
Effects that increase the damage of your weapon... don't stack with it.

Yes, but Improved Natural Attack actually increases the Warpriest's effective size, not the effective size of the Natural Weapon.

Improved Natural Attack wrote:
The damage for this natural attack increases... as if the creature's size had increased by one category.

So Improve Natural Attack would make a Medium-Sized Tengu's Sacred Beak inflict damage as if it were a Large Tengu, not as if it were a Size Medium Tengu with a Large, Sacred Beak. Were that the case, I would agree with you.

Once again, you are not reading the entire feat you are quoting.

Improved Natural Atttack wrote:

mproved Natural Attack

Attacks made by one of this creature's natural attacks leave vicious wounds.

Prerequisite: Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4.
Benefit: Choose one of the creature's natural attack forms (not an unarmed strike). The damage for this natural attack increases by one step on the following list, as if the creature's size had increased by one category. Damage dice increase as follows: 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6.

Only the natual attack itself has a virtual size increase. The base creature is still the same size.

So you can have the choice of the large bite damage of 1d3 increased to 1d4, or you can replace that with the sacred weapon damage of a medium warpriest for 1d6.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Meanwhile, Ninja/Warpriests...


Imbicatus wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Bear Burning Ashes wrote:
Effects that increase the damage of your weapon... don't stack with it.

Yes, but Improved Natural Attack actually increases the Warpriest's effective size, not the effective size of the Natural Weapon.

Improved Natural Attack wrote:
The damage for this natural attack increases... as if the creature's size had increased by one category.

So Improve Natural Attack would make a Medium-Sized Tengu's Sacred Beak inflict damage as if it were a Large Tengu, not as if it were a Size Medium Tengu with a Large, Sacred Beak. Were that the case, I would agree with you.

Once again, you are not reading the entire feat you are quoting.

Improved Natural Atttack wrote:

mproved Natural Attack

Attacks made by one of this creature's natural attacks leave vicious wounds.

Prerequisite: Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4.
Benefit: Choose one of the creature's natural attack forms (not an unarmed strike). The damage for this natural attack increases by one step on the following list, as if the creature's size had increased by one category. Damage dice increase as follows: 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6.

Only the natual attack itself has a virtual size increase. The base creature is still the same size.

So you can have the choice of the large bite damage of 1d3 increased to 1d4, or you can replace that with the sacred weapon damage of a medium warpriest for 1d6.

You and Bear Burning Ashes are making a distinction I can't see.

A level 1 beclawed Tengu Warpriest with Weapon Focus Claws does 1d6 Damage/Claw. Sacred Weapon says that.

If this Warpriest were size Large instead of size Medium, her claws would do 1d8, not 1d6. The description of Sacred Weapon Says that.

If the Warpriest took Improved Natural Attack, Claws, her Claws would do damage as if the Tengu Warpriest were size Large, not size Medium. The description of Improved Natural Attack says that.

So, 1d8.

I really don't get the problem.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If a warpriest used a large kermabit, the damage would be 1d6. The kermabit is increased to large size, not the warpriest, so they have the choice of doing their sacred weapon damage based on their size, or the weapon damage of 1d3 increased to 1d4 for the large kermabit.

Likewise, if you use improved natural attack, only the natural attack damage is improved. You have the choice of using the base weapon damage, or sacred weapon damage. Exactly the same as the large kermabit.

Sacred Weapon damage is based solely on your size, and does not change if the size of the weapon - real or virtual - changes.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Ahpook The Destroyer wrote:
Magicdealer wrote:


When wildshaped, you can either make your monk unarmed strikes with or without flurrying at your monk unarmed strike damage, or you can make your natural attacks just like a regular druid would. You don't get to do both...

Actually you are wrong about this part. Although the feat doesnt affect the monk's unarmed damage, you do still get to do both if you so choose. The natural attacks just come after the other attacks albeit with a -5 penalty. Unless you have multiattack in which case they are only at -2.

AtD

You realize you replied to a post that is nearly six years old, right?
No, I missed that. Still, I've never understood why necroing old threads on these forums is frowned upon. That just means I'm updating an old discussion with new information. Having new information is a perfectly reasonable justification for bringing up an old argument.

I wasn't criticizing anybody else commenting in the thread after it was resurrected. You were all discussing things relevant now.

But resurrecting a thread six years later to say, "You're wrong" doesn't really add much. Of course things are different now. We have more than just the CRB now. We have a wealth of different rules and abilities now that weren't in existence then. Plus, it's almost a certainty that the poster isn't going to respond, so there's not conversation to be had.

Resurrecting a thread can make sense when you've got new information to clarify an old point of contention (that is still being debated), an old question hasn't been answered or a similar question is raised, etc. This doesn't really seem to fit that. It's just a response to a six-year-old thread.


Necroing is also bad because there's a lot to read to catch up on what's going on to see how the new post makes sense. And often the old posts don't matter to that. So it's if you started every post you did by quoting a random page from the CRB, there's no reason to include it and it's not relevant to the rest of your post.


Imbicatus wrote:

If a warpriest used a large kermabit, the damage would be 1d6. The kermabit is increased to large size, not the warpriest, so they have the choice of doing their sacred weapon damage based on their size, or the weapon damage of 1d3 increased to 1d4 for the large kermabit.

Likewise, if you use improved natural attack, only the natural attack damage is improved. You have the choice of using the base weapon damage, or sacred weapon damage. Exactly the same as the large kermabit.

Sacred Weapon damage is based solely on your size, and does not change if the size of the weapon - real or virtual - changes.

It's not against the rules for Warpriest Sacred Weapon Damage to benefit from a Virtual Size Increase.

And what's a kermabit?


Yes it is. If a medium warpriest using a large longsword, huge dagger, or greatsword would all do the same damage, since the warpriest is still medium sized for all of them.


For warpriest, it depends on if the virtual size increase is being applied to the warpriest itself or just to its weapons. Most virtual size increases are applied to the weapons, which wouldn't stack with the Sacred Weapon damage increase.

Compare the following:
Impact says, "An impact weapon delivers a potent kinetic jolt when it strikes, dealing damage as if the weapon were one size category larger."
INA says, "The damage for this natural attack increases by one step on the following list, as if the creature's size had increased by one category."

Scarab Sages

Sacred Weapon damage is a substitution of your class granted damage for the weapon damage. The amount of damage is set by your size, not the size of the weapon. If a weapon is under a virtual size increase, the weapon is increased, not your class feature.

The only way to change the size of sacred weapon damage is to actually change size, either via enlarge person, or a polymorph effect.

And a kermabit is a curved dagger that only does 1d3. I chose it because it has the same 1d3 base damage as a tengu beak.


They may have been mentioning your typo. It's kerAMbit.

Scarab Sages

Yes, yes. My dyslexia strikes again. I sometimes transpose letters.


But to reiterate:

INA says, "The damage for this natural attack increases by one step on the following list, as if the creature's size had increased by one category."

Sacred Weapon says, "The damage for Medium warpriests is given on the table above; see the table below for Small and Large warpriests."

So, if the feat allows the creature itself to count as if its size were increased by one category, instead of just its weapon, then the creature would logically use the chart for large creatures.


Imbicatus wrote:
The only way to change the size of sacred weapon damage is to actually change size, either via enlarge person, or a polymorph effect.

I'm not aware of any rule that says that Sacred Weapon can never be augmented by a Virtual Size Increase. Can you cite the source?

Scarab Sages

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
The only way to change the size of sacred weapon damage is to actually change size, either via enlarge person, or a polymorph effect.
I'm not aware of any rule that says that Sacred Weapon can never be augmented by a Virtual Size Increase. Can you cite the source?

There is not one. However, every virtual size increase in the game specifically enhances a weapon. Lead Blades, Impact, Improved Natual attack, strong jaw, shillelagh, and shield spikes all enhance the base damage of a specific weapon.

Sacred Weapon replaces that base damage with the damage based on the size of the character, not the size of the weapon. If there was a virtual size increase that enlarged the character, then it would apply, but there is no such effect.


I haven't seen a counter that INA doesn't make the warpriest count as one size larger.

"The damage ... increases ..., as if the creature's size had increased by one category."

So would the warpriest's sacred weapon do more damage if he were one size larger? Yes. So, INA boosts the damage of the sacred weapon.

Scarab Sages

Melkiador wrote:

I haven't seen a counter that INA doesn't make the warpriest count as one size larger.

"The damage ... increases ..., as if the creature's size had increased by one category."

So would the warpriest's sacred weapon do more damage if he were one size larger? Yes. So, INA boosts the damage of the sacred weapon.

You didn't quote the entire feat. The text is "The damage for this natural attack increases". It is increasing the base damage of the natural weapon. If you replace the base damage of that natural weapon with sacred weapon damage, that is not increased because you are still your original size.


Your bolded part doesn't matter. The damage increases as if the creature increased size. If the warpriest had increased size, then he would be using the warpriest chart for larger creatures.

Liberty's Edge

Indeed. If the Warpriest had increased size.

They didn't.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bear Burning Ashes wrote:

Indeed. If the Warpriest had increased size.

They didn't.

But his damage increases as if he had increased size. And if he had increased size his sacred weapon damage would have increased, as in the chart.

Scarab Sages

Except if you read the description of sacred weapon it does.

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. The warpriest can decide to use the weapon’s base damage instead of the sacred weapon damage—this must be declared before the attack roll is made. (If the weapon’s base damage exceeds the sacred weapon damage, its damage is unchanged.)

The damage of sacred weapon is set by your size and level. You can instead choose to use the base damage of the weapon. INA improves the base damage of the natural weapon, so if you use sacred weapons damage it replaces the weapon damage.


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.

1 to 50 of 54 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Monk + Improved Natural Attack All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.