| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Right, so my 8th-level monk likes to take advantage of enlarge person to boost his damage output to 2d8 + strength, but now the party druid has discovered strong jaw.
So how much damage does my monk do now? Unfortunately the SMALL OR LARGE MONK UNARMED DAMAGE table doesn't go up to Gargantuan, and enlarged monk damage doesn't map to the weapon size table, so that doesn't help.
You can apply the weapon damage by size table, the Improved Natural Attack chart, or the Natural Attacks By Size chart. They should agree, but there's a few places they don't and your GM will have to make a call. Personally, I'd say use the weapon damage table if you can, and fall back to natural attacks by size if you can't. And remember that it's perfectly acceptable to break damage down - 2d6 sized up gives you the same thing as 1d6+1d6 sized up does.
Ah, now that's useful. I couldn't get the weapon damage or natural attack damage tables to make sense in this context, but the improved natural attack chart seems to work. Thanks Bobson!
So I'd be looking at 4d8 + strength damage per hit?
| 4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Ah, now that's useful. I couldn't get the weapon damage or natural attack damage tables to make sense in this context, but the improved natural attack chart seems to work.
So I'd be looking at 4d8 + strength damage per hit?
Thanks!
8th level monk does 1d10. WDbS and INA both say that sizes up to 2d8, NAbS doesn't have anything relevant. So enlarge person gets you 2d8.
2d8, on WDbS sizes up to 3d8. On INA it sizes up to 3d8. On NAbS, which the strong jaw description copies, it sizes up to 4d6.
3d8 would size up to 6d6 on WDbS (1d8+1d8+1d8 => 2d6+2d6+2d6). On INA, 4d8. On NAbS, it doesn't come up.
4d6 would size up to 6d6 on WDbS (2d6+2d6 => 3d6+3d6). On INA, 6d6. On NAbS, 4d6 is where it caps out.
So it's really up your GM whether you get 6d6 (by applying either Attack by size chart, then any of the sizing rules) or 4d8 (by applying INA alone, even though you don't have that feat and nothing in the feat says it'd apply to sizing that didn't involve it).
A FAQ entry or errata on universal sizing rules would be useful.
Side note:
6d6: 6-36
Average = 21.0
Spread = 4.18330013267
Mean deviation = 3.35262345679
4d8: 4-32
Average = 18.0
Spread = 4.58257569496
Mean deviation = 3.69140625
Considering that the Developers have said Improved Natural Attack does not work with a monks unarmed strike and the spell says only natural attacks and does not mention unarmed strike. It is likley that it will not have ANY effect on a monks damage.
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.
Which actually makes me wonder what would happen if you cast both strong jaw and Lead Blades on a monk... I really don't think a monk is supposed to be able to benefit from +3 size categories as a medium creature (+4 when enlarged)...
(INA doesn't work because it's neither a spell nor an effect)
Considering that the Developers have said Improved Natural Attack does not work with a monks unarmed strike and the spell says only natural attacks and does not mention unarmed strike. It is likley that it will not have ANY effect on a monks damage.
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.Which actually makes me wonder what would happen if you cast both strong jaw and Lead Blades on a monk... I really don't think a monk is supposed to be able to benefit from +3 size categories as a medium creature (+4 when enlarged)...
(INA doesn't work because it's neither a spell nor an effect)
On rule argument against allowing it, is that they are similar magical effects, so only the strongest one apply. By that ruling lead blades are redundant, as the "deal damage as if one size category larger than they actually are" are lesser than "deals damage as if the creature were two sizes larger than it actually is". They both mention making a change on the basis of the original creature/weapon size, not one affected by other abilites.
Sidenote: If you want a nit-pick argument against it, you can say that lead blades doesn't work as it affects "all melee weapons you are carrying", and you aren't carrying natural weapons or fist.On the OP question: I would strongly suggest using the improved natural weapon table. I think it is the best approach, as you can refer to the same table for all sizes and monk levels. That is sadly not possible with the natural attacks table, as Bobson mentioned.
Which actually makes me wonder what would happen if you cast both strong jaw and Lead Blades on a monk...
The wording of lead blades suggests that it only applies to the ranger's own weapons, and specifically notes that the spell stops working if the weapon is given away, so a monk wouldn't benefit unless he also had five levels of ranger and could cast it himself.
Anyway, the improved natural attack description suggests that my monk would be doing 4d8 damage, and the weapon damage table appears to agree, based on the following calculations:
M:1d10 scales up to L:2d8, which matches with the table given in the monk class description.
M:1d8 scales up to L:2d6, so as Bobson says above, one might reasonably assume that 2d8 would scale to 4d6.
M:1d6 scales up to L:1d8, so again one would assume that 4d6 would scale up to 4d8, which tallies with the text of improved natural attack.
Thanks everyone!
The wording of lead blades suggests that it only applies to the ranger's own weapons, and specifically notes that the spell stops working if the weapon is given away, so a monk wouldn't benefit unless he also had five levels of ranger.
Good catch. Lead blades is a personal spell. Still, a monk could cast it on themselves via potion or UMD...
The wording of lead blades suggests that it only applies to the ranger's own weapons, and specifically notes that the spell stops working if the weapon is given away, so a monk wouldn't benefit unless he also had five levels of ranger.Good catch. Lead blades is a personal spell. Still, a monk could cast it on themselves via potion or UMD...
umd for a wand mayby. Personal spells can't be made into potions.
Good catch. Lead blades is a personal spell. Still, a monk could cast it on themselves via potion or UMD...umd for a wand mayby. Personal spells can't be made into potions.
...or Crafted into a Wondrous Item.
(1) On rule argument against allowing it, is that they are similar magical effects, so only the strongest one apply.(2) lead blades are redundant, as the "deal damage as if one size category larger than they actually are" are lesser than "deals damage as if the creature were two sizes larger than it actually is". They both mention making a change on the basis of the original creature/weapon size, not one affected by other abilites.
(3) If you want a nit-pick argument against it, you can say that lead blades doesn't work as it affects "all melee weapons you are carrying", and you aren't carrying natural weapons or fist.
Nit-picking...
I disagree with (1) although both (2) and (3) are valid.And I note that "larger than you actually are" means that it doesn't stack efficiently with Enlarge Person.
Nit-picking...
I disagree with (1) although both (2) and (3) are valid.
And I note that "larger than you actually are" means that it doesn't stack efficiently with Enlarge Person.
On the notion of not stacking with Enlarge Person, I disagree. Size changes does change your actual size, thereby creating a new baseline for the strong jaw effect.
I can't find any rule-wise argument stating that an enlarged monk, is 'actually' a medium monk.
|
Nit-picking...
I disagree with (1) although both (2) and (3) are valid.
And I note that "larger than you actually are" means that it doesn't stack efficiently with Enlarge Person.On the notion of not stacking with Enlarge Person, I disagree. Size changes does change your actual size, thereby creating a new baseline for the strong jaw effect.
I can't find any rule-wise argument stating that an enlarged monk, is 'actually' a medium monk.
actually = permanently?
if you think that actually means that, in the absence of effects, the character defaults to that, then the medium monk will always actually be medium.
If you think actually means that, as is right now, with all effects running, then the medium monk will actually be large.
Stupid, unclear language :/
But again, rule argument against allowing it is the whole INA not applying to monk thing.
But again, rule argument against allowing it is the whole INA not applying to monk thing.
Strong jaw has nothing to do with improved natural attack. It's irrelevant in this context. Strong jaw affects natural weapons, and "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".