This is a pretty basic question, but I'm having trouble tracking down the information. Does anyone know of a chart or place where I can see the incremental increase in dice? Something like this:
D4 -> D6 -> D8 -> 2D6
Or whatever the increments are? This is in regards to increase the damage dice by one increment.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/equipment.html
Just a little bit down the page there is the table for this.
It is also in the CRB in the equipment chapter.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/equipment.html
Just a little bit down the page there is the table for this.
It is also in the CRB in the equipment chapter.
Thanks for the info. I guess the basis of my question is that my buddy is playing a monk and took one of the feats from a monster manual that increases his damage die. He went from a D10 to 2D8 and that leap seemed way too high, however according to this:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/monk.htm
That would be correct (based on 3.5 rules anyway). Anyone have any thoughts on this? At level 8, he was rolling 10D8 (hasted) if he hit with all of his attacks, plus his strength and whatever else he had...seemed WAY too high.
Sounds like he took Improved Natural Attack? If so, there's some debate over whether that actually improves a monk's attacks or not (and the monk has to have an actual Natural Weapon to qualify--unarmed strikes are not Natural Weapons strictly speaking). If you want to allow a feat like this that does bump up the monk's damage, then just use the standard monk table, i.e. a 1d10 becomes 2d6 in PRPG.
Sounds like he took Improved Natural Attack? If so, there's some debate over whether that actually improves a monk's attacks or not (and the monk has to have an actual Natural Weapon to qualify--unarmed strikes are not Natural Weapons strictly speaking). If you want to allow a feat like this that does bump up the monk's damage, then just use the standard monk table, i.e. a 1d10 becomes 2d6 in PRPG.
Unfortunately, the wording in the PRPG handbook is: "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, according to all of the wording, it's correct to go from a D10 to 2D8, though that seems a bit ridiculous if you ask me.
http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/equipment.html
Just a little bit down the page there is the table for this.
Specifically: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/equipment.html#table-6-5-tiny-and-large- weapon-damage
Unfortunately, the wording in the PRPG handbook is: "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, according to all of the wording, it's correct to go from a D10 to 2D8, though that seems a bit ridiculous if you ask me.
For the purposes of spells and effects--feats are not mentioned and are not necessarily "effects" like magic. That's the crux of the debate. Given the monk already has a defined progression, I fall into the middle of the debate (allowing a feat to improve the damage, but basing it on the monk table) rather than allowing it as-is or denying it straight-out.
If so, there's some debate over whether that actually improves a monk's attacks or not
I think Jason said it doesn't.
If so, there's some debate over whether that actually improves a monk's attacks or notI think Jason said it doesn't.
Yep, that's my recollection as well, but until there's an "official" FAQ or errata or whatever, debates will rage on...
This is the thread you are looking for...
HA!
And I'm flip flopping AGAIN!
Jason crunched his numbers and the official errata is this—the Improved Natural Attack feat can not be applied to unarmed strike. We'll be issuing an errata for that feat that adds this sentence to the feat:
"Improved Natural Attack can not be applied to unarmed strikes."
Unarmed strikes ARE still treated as natural weapons for most effects (particularly for the spell magic fang and for amulets of magic fang), but the Improved Natural Attack feat is an exception to that rule.
So! There ya go! Official errata! Sorry it took so long to nail it down.
This is the thread you are looking for...
If you seek to the thread's last posts, you'll have this instead: "Monks who take this feat instead gain the damage dice of a monk 4 levels higher. This does not stack with Monk Robes."
Curious, though. Crunching some numbers imply the Monks get a very downgraded version of the feat. And it's actually the same effect Superior Unarmed Strike has (with the added restriction of not being stackable with the Monk's Robe).
And I'm also interested in what you think INA actually means. The Bestiary merely suggests that the attacks leave vicious wounds. Is this because the claws are sharper? Stronger? Faster? Longer?
The same goes with the monk's unarmed damage progression. The PRD merely says that the monk deals more damage than the average person, but not why. Is this because of their knowledge of the opponent's weak points? Is this because their hands are harder? Is this because they know techniques to maximize the velocity of their strikes? Some of these reasons are not incompatible with an Improved Natural Attack feat. Come to think of it, they aren't incompatible with using knuckles duster (aka Gauntlets) either ;-)
This is the thread you are looking for...If you seek to the thread's last posts, you'll have this instead: "Monks who take this feat instead gain the damage dice of a monk 4 levels higher. This does not stack with Monk Robes."
I think you are referring to this:
Jason (via James) made it quite clear how the errata will work - although until it is official I will throw my lot in with the variant versions, i.e:
Improved Natural Attack
...
Special: Monks who take this feat instead gain the damage dice of a monk 4 levels higher. This does not stack with Monk Robes.
So, as you can see, this is actually a homebrew modification to the feat - the official one that still stands (AFAIK) is that of Jason (via James).
I personally have nothing against giving access to Imp. Nat. Attack to a Monk, but it probably would be a house rule, not the official one.
Jason (via James) made it quite clear how the errata will work - although until it is official I will throw my lot in with the variant versions, i.e:So, as you can see, this is actually a homebrew modification to the feat - the official one that still stands (AFAIK) is that of Jason (via James).
My mistake. Since I skimmed the thread, I didn't read the part after the dash. As you can infer from my posts, I'd allow INA for monks as well.