Logic? THIS IS INTERNET!
Actually it all comes down to the numbers -- Paizo staff crunched them and didn't like where they ended up if this was allowed and disallowed it.
No I don't like it either -- but then I'm not paid to like it so I simply run it differently in my games.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(deep sigh)
It seems that Pathfinder is a game where in-game consistency takes a back seat to "crunching the numbers." This is disappointing.
Here's another example: remember, back in August, the questions about synthesists and whether their eidolons could be affected by spells such as enlarge person? Ever since the Summoner had been published, PCs had been casting enlarge person on their eidolons, through the Share Spells ability.
Then, in August, the design team (a) announced that Share Spells requires that the spell have a range of Self, rather than being able to have the caster himself as a valid target. And then, (b) a couple of weeks later, the designers realized that the ruling affected all summoners, not just synthesists, and reversed that call.
Now, I think (b) was the right move. But I could see (a), if that had been the vision behind Share Spells. What disappoints me is the rationales used, which didn't seem interested in the actual wording of the ability. The designers made the first ruling to restrict the power of synthesists. They made the second call because they didn't want to reduce the power of all summoners.
This style of ruling damages any sense of mastery over the game system a player / GM might have. If the game rulings were being made on the basis of in-world consistency, we could understand the underlying concepts and apply them to new circumstances. But if, as is the case here, a general principle (monks' unarmed attacks are treated as natural weapons) is being undermined by Jason's number crunching, then we can't foresee how a rules question ought to go, since we don't have access to the same data as the designers.
Yeah its similiar to how monks have to pay 2.5x the gold to enchant there weapons up to only half what everyone else gets simply because they can't be disarmed/sundered and are closer to natural weapons yet we can't treat them as bigger through a feat thats for natural weapons.
The feat might have been legal for 3.5 but it was never intended for monks, it was intended to be used by monsters with actual natural attacks.
Applied to monk and unarmed strike it will be abused to ludricous proportions by stacking as many increase size effects as possible, initially the feat only increases damage by 1 or 2 points, about the same as specialization, but stacking it up will probably increase the damage by an additional 9 damage or so.
I should also say that a monk has become much better since UC came out and it is quite possible to make a solid monk now, and if I am not mistaken you can get specialization with an archetype or two if you are interested in a feat like that without the abuse for size stacking.
The feat might have been legal for 3.5 but it was never intended for monks, it was intended to be used by monsters with actual natural attacks.
Applied to monk and unarmed strike it will be abused to ludricous proportions by stacking as many increase size effects as possible, initially the feat only increases damage by 1 or 2 points, about the same as specialization, but stacking it up will probably increase the damage by an additional 9 damage or so.
I should also say that a monk has become much better since UC came out and it is quite possible to make a solid monk now, and if I am not mistaken you can get specialization with an archetype or two if you are interested in a feat like that without the abuse for size stacking.
Improved natural attack can be selected multiple times... for DIFFERENT natural attacks. It can't be stacked.
Polymorph description in the core rulebook states that you can only benefit from one size affecting spell at any one time, so at max they could stack 2 size increases (INA then Enlarge), and by the point that was adding a decent amount of damage other classes do more.
Look I hate to point this out, but sadly the devs are usually not the ones who know about the broken combos that the game they made spawns, thus why in games they are often reacting to what players do, rather than just stopping it happen. Now, i don't think monks are useless but they definatly need work, something that allows them to move and full attack, and a feature like the paladins divine bond would have been excellent.
EDIT:- Just to clear up, my point is they have limited man power, and we have the advantage of numbers. A large fan base can crunch through countless different combinations far faster than even the most expierenced testers, not that devs are teh nubs lulz.
enlarge person: +1 size
lead blades: +1 size (monk's strike counts as manufactured weapon) and is only lvl 1 spell.
strong jaw: druid 4, ranger 3, buffs all natural attacks by 2 sizes.
Currently, it looks like you could enlarge, lead blades and strong jaw your monk for +4 sizes to unarmed damage.
This would be solved by defining the bonuses as enhancements/competence/whatever so that they didn't all stack.
The only difference between the spells above and improved natural attack is the duration.
I suggest you ask your GM for their ruling, and then move on :)
enlarge person: +1 size
lead blades: +1 size (monk's strike counts as manufactured weapon) and is only lvl 1 spell.
strong jaw: druid 4, ranger 3, buffs all natural attacks by 2 sizes.Currently, it looks like you could enlarge, lead blades and strong jaw your monk for +4 sizes to unarmed damage.
This would be solved by defining the bonuses as enhancements/competence/whatever so that they didn't all stack.
The only difference between the spells above and improved natural attack is the duration.
I suggest you ask your GM for their ruling, and then move on :)
I can assure you at level 8 this wouldn't be as impressive as the big nasty damage die would have you think, espically adding buffing time.
|
turkishproverb wrote:
I mean, I can understand, agreement or not, the idea of giving a buff to wizards (Free metamagic) when as were in 3.5 form they were enough to destroy most pathfinder classes left and right. I might not agree, but I can understand. If nothing else, they needed to motivate wizard players to change over with everyone else.
But actively nerfing something that was legal in 3.5 and even Paizo's own Adventures?
On a class that isn't exactly power incarnate even with the new toys it's gotten?
I really don't get it. I'm trying. I'm not obsessed with "balance" like the 4e nuts, but I really don't see the...
Well I know for a fact it got ridiculous in 3.5 when combined with certain classes. I believe Frozen Berserker + Fist of the Forest PRC's + Monk + INA + Superior Natural Att (book of Nine Swords) + mantis Leap lead to incredible amounts of damage.
It was one feat in a link but once dice get above a certain level they start increasing by 2 die then 4 die - I remeber seeing some opt builds with 8d8 / 12d8 and even one with 14d8 unarmed strike dmg. In PF that is not possible... just throwing my 2 cents into the conversation.
2d10 > 4d8 (large) > 6d8 (huge) > 8d8 (gargantuan) > 12d8 (colossal)
It can't go over colossal unless your DM liberally decides to rule that Improved Natural Attack's 'as if one size larger' clause ignores the actual size limit, at which point it becomes 16d8.
Having played with such, I can tell you now that there are certain levels where this stuff is not broken at all.
As long as you aren't hitting 12d8 before level 10ish, you aren't breaking anything.
Do note that 12d8 only averages 54 damage, there's really nothing that special about 54 damage at higher levels.
It would still be one feat adding 7 to 18 damage to every attack at that point, seems a bit much, closes thing is probably eldritch strike which comes in at +5 damage for a lvl 20 magus as a swift action. It seems a bit much, but maybe it is just that increasing the base damage of the monk by level is a bad idea to start with.
|
|
2d10 > 4d8 (large) > 6d8 (huge) > 8d8 (gargantuan) > 12d8 (colossal)
It can't go over colossal unless your DM liberally decides to rule that Improved Natural Attack's 'as if one size larger' clause ignores the actual size limit, at which point it becomes 16d8.
Having played with such, I can tell you now that there are certain levels where this stuff is not broken at all.
As long as you aren't hitting 12d8 before level 10ish, you aren't breaking anything.
Do note that 12d8 only averages 54 damage, there's really nothing that special about 54 damage at higher levels.
I agree if your playing in this kind of world:
Charger 1/2 Orc
- PA
- Shocktrooper
+ combat Brute
- Leap attack
- Power lunge
- Battle Jump
- Headlong Rush
but alas many do not...
A monk that can flurry at 12d8 @ Lv 10 + assorted magic that can accompany it would be out of place in a normal powered game.
Seems pretty reasonable to me. A normal person does 1d3 with an unarmed attack. A monk does up to 2d10. Seems they already strike much harder than a normal person, why would they be able to get Improved Natural Attack when they basically already get it.
I have not allowed it, and I let monks get away with a ton of stuff the devs don't. 12d8 is silly considering all of the conditions that a monk can inflict.
Full disclosure: in our games we consider the monk a special case. The monk's special UA Dmg class feature creates an exception. The monk's UA strike is both a natural and manufactured weapon (singular). This means his body is a single weapon, stacking effects for separate natural attacks don't apply. Bites and wing buffets can not be added to a flurry of blows as they are already subsumed into the ability.
Flurry of Blows is a technique that incorporates any conceivable attack a monk can make with his body or a light weapon or a weapon meant to enhance his flurry. It overrides any of the inferior boosts to bodily attacks. This includes feats (especially monster feats), weapons like gauntlets or Cestii, or other class abilities. Basically if you want to improve flurry, level up as a monk.
We do NOT allow TWF or Multiattack to stack with Flurry. Improved Natural Attack is treated the same way, it's already built in to the class. This simplifies the math and the combat round.
This also frees the monk from the ubiquitous Amulet of Mighty Fists. It's still available just not required. A single +1 Cestus grants a +1 bonus to kicks, headbutts and punches. In a situation where a monk has 2 magic fist weapons he has to pick which modifies his attack(s) for the round, it's a free action to choose which but no swapping mid round.
This was to wordy but it's helped running games without hosing players. That's what Jason's goal seems to be, not number crunching.