So lets say I'm a monk who has a set of claws that do 1d4 damage. Now I decide to take Feral combat training, now my claws do the same as my unarmed strike damage. So what happens if I take Improved Natural weapon? Do my claws jump to 1d8, and if so what happens when my unarmed damage increases to 1d8 from monk levels, do my claws jump to 1d10 due to have improved natural attack?
No one has an answer?
Claws deal Claw damage.
Feral Combat Training doesn't alter that.
I beg to differ
Benefit: Choose one of your natural weapons. While using the selected natural weapon, you can apply the effects of feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite, as well as effects that augment an unarmed strike.
I fail to see how a monks increase to unarmed damage isn't an augment to an unarmed strike.
aug·ment
/ôgˈment/
Verb
Make (something) greater by adding to it; increase: "he augmented his income by painting houses".
So now lets assume we all know what the word augment means and move on before this becomes a RAW/RAI argument.
Claws deal Claw damage.
Feral Combat Training doesn't alter that.
I beg to differ
Benefit: Choose one of your natural weapons. While using the selected natural weapon, you can apply the effects of feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite, as well as effects that augment an unarmed strike.
I fail to see how a monks increase to unarmed damage isn't an augment to an unarmed strike.
aug·ment
/ôgˈment/
Verb
Make (something) greater by adding to it; increase: "he augmented his income by painting houses".So now lets assume we all know what the word augment means and move on before this becomes a RAW/RAI argument.
Yeah, sorry, I (and you'll find the majority of people here) agree that that monk's unarmed damage does not apply to your claws.
It's not an effect that augments your unarmed strikes any more than buying a shortsword is an effect that augments your dagger. It changes the base damage of a weapon. That's it.
The main purpose of the feat is so you can make full flurry attacks with a natural weapon and apply unarmed feats (especially Style feats like Dragon style) to it. This is especially awesome for, say, a Druid with 1 level of Monk turning into a T-Rex. It is pretty crappy and pointless for a catfolk full Monk.
Claws deal Claw damage.
Feral Combat Training doesn't alter that.
I beg to differ
Benefit: Choose one of your natural weapons. While using the selected natural weapon, you can apply the effects of feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite, as well as effects that augment an unarmed strike.
I fail to see how a monks increase to unarmed damage isn't an augment to an unarmed strike.
aug·ment
/ôgˈment/
Verb
Make (something) greater by adding to it; increase: "he augmented his income by painting houses".So now lets assume we all know what the word augment means and move on before this becomes a RAW/RAI argument.
Yeah, sorry, I (and you'll find the majority of people here) agree that that monk's unarmed damage does not apply to your claws.
It's not an effect that augments your unarmed strikes any more than buying a shortsword is an effect that augments your dagger. It changes the base damage of a weapon. That's it.
The main purpose of the feat is so you can make full flurry attacks with a natural weapon and apply unarmed feats (especially Style feats like Dragon style) to it. This is especially awesome for, say, a Druid with 1 level of Monk turning into a T-Rex. It is pretty crappy and pointless for a catfolk full Monk.
So you don't think an increase in damage is an augmentation?
Edit:
I'm sorry I'm a bit frustrated today and I don't mean to sound so rude, so lets start over.
My GM agrees that the monks unarmed damage increase is an augmentation and that the wording of the feat grants my claws that damage, what we are confused with is how this would be effected by the improved natural attack feat and would like the input of the community.
So you don't think an increase in damage is an augmentation?
Do you think putting down a shortsword and picking up a longsword is an augmentation?
My GM agrees that the monks unarmed damage increase is an augmentation and that the wording of the feat grants my claws that damage, what we are confused with is how this would be effected by the improved natural attack feat and would like the input of the community.
It's hard to give you an answer on something that doesn't work. The best we could do is give opinion, because there's no rules to back it up.
And in my opinion, if you're houseruling this so that the damage increases as if it were a monk's unarmed strike, then you'd have to choose between the improved natural attack damage (1d6) or the unarmed strike damage and they wouldn't stack in any meaningful way.
So you don't think an increase in damage is an augmentation?Do you think putting down a shortsword and picking up a longsword is an augmentation?
As far as the damage is concerned yes this is an augmentation and a bad example. A shortsword and a longsword are different weapons that have diferant statistics that have there own individual benefits so calling the complete change of weapons an augmentation is a matter of opinion. What is happening here is only an increase in damage to the claw with no other statistics being changed.
So I ask you, do you think increasing the damage of a shortsword to 1d8 from 1d6 is an augmentation? This is not a change in weapons, but an increase of the weapons capability, all statistics remain the same except now it can do more damage thus making it an augmentation.
my interpetation:
monk's unarmed strikes:
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.
(A monk's unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon for the purpose of effects that enhance or improve natural weapons)
feats are NOT effects as it has been said numerous times by paizo staff (usually in regards to if you are able to pick up race specific traits with dual bloodlines and stuff)
if you consider feats to be effects, then you can take improved natural weapon with a monk without having a natural attack (which btw you can't)
feral combat training:
Choose one of your natural weapons. While using the selected natural weapon, you can apply the effects of feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite, as well as effects that augment an unarmed strike.
improved natural attack:
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.
so: all toghether:
even if your DM allows you to do unarmed damage with your claws, you CANNOT simultaneously use feral combat training AND improved natural attack because:
feral combat training you can apply the effects of UNARMED STRIKES and improved natural attack clearyl states that you cannot apply this feat to UNARMED STRIKE
Thank you sir I was unaware of the "feats are not effects" rule, but if you could link to a post that verifies this would be handy?
Also if feats aren't effects the doesn't that make the critical mastery feat useless.
I hate this game sometimes.
Damn it how hard is it to be clear with this kinda of stuff?
One thing says that feats AREN"T effects but another Feat allows you to apply the EFFECTS of other feats!? So which is it damn it?!
I'm sorry, again a frustrating day.
I'm not upset at the clarification of the improved natural attack feat, you were very clear on that and I thank you for the explanation.
My issue is that WTF paizo?! There shouldn't be an issue of RAW vs RAI with your rules, and if one is found you should have people to fix them and make RAW and RAI the same thing.
I have my own tabletop rpg that I have been working on by myself for almost 7 years and everytime it gets play tested I make sure that when a rule has this issue it becomes the first thing I fix. Why is it so hard to do this for you? You have multiple people that work on this game and based on the fact that your forum has a whole section to get rules clarification means your either lazy or you don't care about clarifying your rules.
Now I like this game and all but damn it it's not like you even have to go through and find the issues your self, plenty of your players have already done that and are so very patiently waiting for you to fix them. So please take a small break from trying to push new books and fix the ones you already have.
Sorry...again.