So, making a RAW rules argument, backing it up with supporting RAW text, and expecting PFS GMs to abide by the rules is "holding my breath until I get my way"?
Noted.
It was the "you are obligated..." Part i was i was aiming at and pehaps a littel the lawyer approach. This is a game not criminal law and any gm can ask you to leave if you are obstructing the game. (At least i think she can)
Any way, making an argument about argumentation, even one supportet by kobold tail weapons, is not nessesary the same as being correct and in PFS, as in most games, the GM need to agree.But as did say you may be rigth, i dontt think you are, but you may be.
|
"your paladin didn't charge into battle on the first round, he acted cowardly and falls. I'm writing on your chronicle that you fell and can't use paladin abilities. I'm the GM so I'm in charge. Leave my table. "
PFS GMs are bound by the rules. I've shown RAW why FCT should add monk unarmed damage to natural attacks. Unless you have explicit reasons why increased damage is somehow not an augmentation (like a rules team ruling or FAQ) you MUST accept it. If all you have to the contrary is vague "I don't like it, oh my feelings" sentiment, you're out of luck. Feel free to house rule it out in your home games.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
So, making a RAW rules argument, backing it up with supporting RAW text ... have a chat with the GM afterwards.
I think the point he was making is that since there is no actual RAW covering this situation, that the DM may have a different RAW reading than you and as such disagree what RAW is and whether or not the different damage dice is an augment and applies.
you MUST accept it.
I must follow the rules, and I believe I am when I reject your reading of the rules.
|
|
Please post any rules, FAQs, rules question answers, dev team posts, or dev blog posts that indicate that increasing the damage of an unarmed strike from 1d4 to 1d6 is not an augmentation.
"any effects that augment an unarmed strike" is an inclusive, non-exclusionary, umbrella statement with no qualifications, contingencies, exceptions, or conditions.
chain of logic:
-Feral Combat Training adds "any effects that augment an unarmed strike" to the selected natural weapon.
-increasing the base damage die of an attack is augmenting the attack (see: previously posted rules quote about tail terror kobolds and attachments)
-Monks gain increased base damage dice to their unarmed strikes
Therefore, the Monk increased base damage dice to unarmed strikes is an augmentation to an unarmed strike and is applied by Feral Combat Training to the selected natural attack.
QED.
"my feelings!" is not a valid logical argument. "My opinions!" is not a rules quote.
I had a TWF fighter that main-handed a heavy shield and offhanded a punching dagger. It was pointed out to me at a PFS session that RAW, shield slams can only be off-hand attacks in a full attack routine when using two weapon fighting. I disagree with the logic, and I think the rule is stupid, but I had to live by the RAW in PFS - as do you.
"your paladin didn't charge into battle on the first round, he acted cowardly and falls. I'm writing on your chronicle that you fell and can't use paladin abilities. I'm the GM so I'm in charge. Leave my table. "
PFS GMs are bound by the rules. I've shown RAW why FCT should add monk unarmed damage to natural attacks. Unless you have explicit reasons why increased damage is somehow not an augmentation (like a rules team ruling or FAQ) you MUST accept it. If all you have to the contrary is vague "I don't like it, oh my feelings" sentiment, you're out of luck. Feel free to house rule it out in your home games.
This is what i am talking about. Imagine someone disagreenig with you coming on like this.
Saying "you MUST do as my version of RAW say"Pick any of the arguments against your position. Like the feat nameing flurry as a special thing. Pehaps the damage would be named if is was in?
|
|
Pick any of the arguments against your position. Like the feat nameing flurry as a special thing. Pehaps the damage would be named if is was in?
Flurry does not augment an unarmed strike. Flurry of Blows is a full action attack available to the monk, which may be carried out in any combination of unarmed strikes and manufactured monk weapon attacks. The unarmed strike of a monk making a single attack as a standard action is identical to the unarmed strike of a monk using flurry of blows as a full round action. Thus, the feat description must specifically state that FCT allows a monk to flurry with the selected natural weapon. In the absence of this line, FCT would NOT allow a monk to flurry with the natural weapon.
The "as well as effects that augment an unarmed strike" line remains unconditional. One might imagine that if the developers intended for limitations to be applied to this feature, they would have noted it in the feat description. The RAI is crystal clear - FCT is intended to allow a monk (or anyone who takes the feat) to power up (dare I say 'augment'?) their natural weapon attack with everything that boosts their unarmed strike.
Until such time as you produce rules that place a limitation on the statement "as well as effects that augment an unarmed strike", FCT gives the increased monk base damage to the natural weapon by RAW.
Pick any of the arguments against your position. Like the feat nameing flurry as a special thing. Pehaps the damage would be named if is was in?Flurry does not augment an unarmed strike. Flurry of Blows is a full action attack available to the monk, which may be carried out in any combination of unarmed strikes and manufactured monk weapon attacks. The unarmed strike of a monk making a single attack as a standard action is identical to the unarmed strike of a monk using flurry of blows as a full round action. Thus, the feat description must specifically state that FCT allows a monk to flurry with the selected natural weapon. In the absence of this line, FCT would NOT allow a monk to flurry with the natural weapon.
The "as well as effects that augment an unarmed strike" line remains unconditional. One might imagine that if the developers intended for limitations to be applied to this feature, they would have noted it in the feat description. The RAI is crystal clear - FCT is intended to allow a monk (or anyone who takes the feat) to power up (dare I say 'augment'?) their natural weapon attack with everything that boosts their unarmed strike.
Until such time as you produce rules that place a limitation on the statement "as well as effects that augment an unarmed strike", FCT gives the increased monk base damage to the natural weapon by RAW.
I get the feeling that i am not making my point very well here:(
Pehaps you will get there without my help. And sorry if that sounds patronising.And good luck with your local PFS GMs.
Design Manager
|
Red, just to make what I'm saying clear-
If unarmed strike damage actually increases base damage, then it may qualify as an augment. If the situation exists however, where if your base damage would be higher than that provided by Monk UAS then using that ability would actually lower your damage, than it is not an augment, because it is not actually an increase, it is a set change in base value. It doesn't matter whether you choose to use it or not, if using it would lower your damage it is not an augment, and so it would not be a valid target for the ability.
Your example of the kobold tail attachment is not the same, in that any time the kobold equips an appropriately sized tail attachment it will always increase the base damage based on the weapon die/size. There isn't a case where the kobold's base tail damage would be lowered via the attachment (except possibly if he were to take Improved Natural Attack, though the possibility of the attachment augmenting could still exist, since the attachment could be providing enhancement bonuses and additional damage types).
|
So then if the Monks damage dice *is* higher than the NA, RAW you get it and it's an augment, if it's lower it's not an augment and doesn't change your dice. I'd agree wholeheartedly with this, an increase to the damage, be it variable or set, is an augment, whenever that occurs you get the extra damage if you possess the appropriate FCT.
|
|
Funny, I can say the same thing. You don't have a direct rules quote saying the Unarmed Strike is an augmentation. So without it there is no RAW supporting your view.QED.
"my feelings!" is not a valid logical argument. "My opinions!" is not a rules quote.
Red does however provide a series of RAW that logically follows on.
-Feral Combat Training adds "any effects that augment an unarmed strike" to the selected natural weapon.-increasing the base damage die of an attack is augmenting the attack (see: previously posted rules quote about tail terror kobolds and attachments)
-Monks gain increased base damage dice to their unarmed strikes
Therefore, the Monk increased base damage dice to unarmed strikes is an augmentation to an unarmed strike and is applied by Feral Combat Training to the selected natural attack.
You have provided no alternative RAW which clearly says this is incorrect. If you can find something, *please* post it, more clarification on this subject can only be good, regardless of which which way it falls.
However if we're just going to play at being silly, *you* don't have a 'direct rules quote' saying your characters can breathe. So they all just died.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Funny, I can say the same thing. You don't have a direct rules quote saying the Unarmed Strike is an augmentation. So without it there is no RAW supporting your view.QED.
"my feelings!" is not a valid logical argument. "My opinions!" is not a rules quote.
"Augment" is not a defined term in Pathfinder. Do a search on the PRD for "augment" and tell me I'm wrong. HERE is such a search, for your convenience. Among the results we get such examples:
Honeyed Tongue
School transmutation; Level bard 2, inquisitor 2, paladin 1 Casting Time 1 standard action Components V, M/DF (a drop of honey) Range personal Target you Duration 10 minutes/levelThis spell augments your diplomacies. While under the effects of spell, you roll two dice each time you make a Diplomacy check to change a creature's attitude, taking the highest roll. (snip)
Augment (Sp): As a standard action, you can touch a creature and grant it either a +2 enhancement bonus to a single ability score of your choice or a +1 bonus to natural armor that stacks with any natural armor the creature might possess. At 10th level, the enhancement bonus to one ability score increases to +4. The natural armor bonus increases by +1 for every five wizard levels you possess, to a maximum of +5 at 20th level. This augmentation lasts a number of rounds equal to 1/2 your wizard level (minimum 1 round). You can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + your Intelligence modifier.
Room Augmentations
Augmentations modify a room to be more productive, durable, or useful. Augmentations are permanent and can't be removed. If you upgrade a room you have augmented, the augmentation carries over to the upgrade, but the augmentation's cost isn't considered when you look at the difference between the base and upgrade room.
You can put more than one augmentation in a room, as long as they aren't the same augmentation.
Augment Summoning
Your summoned creatures are more powerful and robust.
Prerequisite: Spell Focus (conjuration).
Benefit: Each creature you conjure with any summon spell gains a +4 enhancement bonus to Strength and Constitution for the duration of the spell that summoned it.[/b]
Augmented Critical (Ex, 1 CP): Increase the threat range for the animated object's melee attacks by 1 or the threat multiplier by 1. This cannot combine with itself or with the piercing attack or slashing attack object abilities.
Augmented Form (Su): At 9th level and every four levels thereafter, a naga aspirant can choose one of the following abilities to enhance her naga form. Once chosen, this augmentation cannot be changed and always applies to her naga form. The caster level for these abilities is equal to her druid level, and unless otherwise stated, the DC is equal to 10 + 1/2 the druid's class level + the druid's Charisma bonus. This ability replaces venom immunity, a thousand faces, and timeless body.
Charming Gaze (Sp): The druid gains a gaze attack that affects creatures within 30 feet as a charm person spell.
Darkvision (Su): The druid gains darkvision with a range of 60 feet.
Detect Thoughts (Su): The druid can use detect thoughts at will.
Guarded Thoughts (Ex): The druid gains a +2 racial bonus on saves against charm effects and immunity to any form of mind reading (such as detect thoughts).
Poison Immunity (Ex): The druid gains immunity to all poisons. The druid's naga form must have at least one poison-based natural attack in order to select this ability.
Poisonous Sting (Ex): The druid's stinger becomes venomous. The naga form must have a tail stinger to take this ability. Sting—injury; save Fort DC 10 + 1/2 the druid's class level + the druid's Constitution modifier; frequency 1 round; effect sleep for 2d4 minutes; cure 1 save.
Spit Venom (Ex): The naga form can spit her venom up to 30 feet as a standard action. This is a ranged touch attack with no range increment. Any opponent hit by this attack must make a successful save (see above) to avoid the effect. The naga form must have a venomous bite to take this ability.
Sting (Ex): The naga form grows a stinger on the end of her tail, granting her a sting natural attack that deals 1d6 points of piercing damage.
Swim (Ex): The naga form gains a swim speed equal to her base speed.
Tough Scales (Ex): The druid's enhancement bonus to her natural armor increases by +2. The druid may select this ability more than once. Its effects stack.
Venomous Bite (Ex): The naga form's bite attack becomes poisonous. Bite—injury; save Fortitude DC 10 + 1/2 the druid's class level + the druid's Constitution modifier; frequency 1/round for 6 rounds; effect 1 Constitution damage, cure 1 save.
Breath Weapon (1 RP): (SNIP). Once per day, as a standard action, members of this race can make a supernatural breath weapon attack that deals 1d6 points of the damage type chosen in the area chosen. All creatures within the affected area must make a Reflex saving throw to avoid taking damage. The save DC against this breath weapon is 10 + 1/2 the user's character level + the user's Constitution modifier. Those who succeed at the save take no damage from the attack. Special: You can take this trait more than once. Each time you do so, the cost of this trait increases by 1 RP. When do, you can augment the breath weapon in the following ways (augmentations marked with an asteriskcan be taken more than once). Extra Breath*: The member of this race can use its breath weapon an additional time per day.
Increased Area: Increase the cone's size to 30 feet or the line to 50 feet.
Increased Damage*: Increase the damage by an additional d6.
Powerful Breath: The breath weapon deals half damage on a failed saving throw.
Kobold Tail Attachments: A kobold with the Tail Terror feat (see below) can slip this device over the tip of his tail to augment his natural attack. Each tail attachment provides just enough weight, balance, and striking power to increase the damage of his tail slap. You have strengthened your tail enough to make slap attacks with it.
Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +1, kobold.
Benefit: You can make a tail slap attack with your tail. This is a secondary natural attack that deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage. Furthermore, you can augment your tail slap attack with a kobold tail attachment. For the purpose of weapon feats, you are considered proficient with all kobold tail attachments.
|
|
THEREFORE: We have no official definition of the word "augment" as an in-game term. The term "augment" and "augmentation" are used in the rules for everything from static damage increases, to base damage die increases, to extra damage dies, to ability bonuses, and to entirely new abilities. "augment" is CLEARLY a catch-all term that is being used in the exact same manner as the definition of the english word "Augment". Look at any online dictionary and you'll find the definition to match how Paizo uses the word exactly.
For the last friggin' time: The monk's increase to base damage with his unarmed strike IS AN AUGMENTATION, and applies with Feral Combat Training.
To prove me wrong, you must do one of the following:
1)find a direct rules quote to the contrary
2)find a definition of "augment" in the rules that contradicts me
3)find any developer commentary that contradicts me
Please fill me in: What exactly constitutes an "augmentation"? Be sure to use rules quotes like I have.
|
|
That's a very well detailed post! Thank you to the others too for continuing this discussion!
I've been away for a few days. Your post really picks up where I was heading with this. -- An in-game definition of the word augment.
With the above information, it seems to me, that Paizo's use of "augment" would support monk levels changing the damage of an unarmed strike being considered an augment, thus also applying to the natural attack.
It would seem that both RAI, and RAW are on the side of it applying.
|
Design Manager
|
I think the issue continues to be:
What happens in a situation where the creature is not using a d2,d3, or d4 as the starting die for his unarmed strike or natural attack? If that base damage would be larger than that provided by Monk UAS does Monk UAS progress that number, or would he use the better base damage? If the answer is that he'd use the better base damage, the ability is not an augment, because it isn't increasing or positively modifying anything, it is supplying a value at the given points that may or may not be an improvement.
If it does progress the base number, how do you determine those steps? Monk progression does not actually follow a straight size increase progression, it just runs mostly (but not entirely) parallel to the increases you would see via size increase. Further, if it is an effective size increase, does that mean that Monk unarmed strike damage is not affected by abilities like Lead Blades or Strong Jaw since abilities that affect size do not stack with other size affecting abilities?
There's a little bit of a deeper element to consider here since a ruling either way will have repercussions. I honestly prefer the interpretation where it is not an augment, because then it simply doesn't interact with FCT and that's the end of the issue. If it is an augment, how does it work? If it grants an effective size increase, suddenly whole swaths of character builds are invalidated (all those caster/monk combos who like to buff up with Lead Blades, Strong Jaw, etc.). If it isn't an effective size increase, what is it? How do you determine progression for characters who are not using the anticipated base damage die?
I'd say Red might have a stronger case by pure RAW, but most people's perception of RAI and precedent are going to be against him. Like a couple people have said, barring an official ruling it's going to be an uphill battle getting most GMs to allow it. There's just enough ambiguity in the RAW to make things messy.
|
|
Do a search on the PRD for "augment" and tell me I'm wrongI did. I think you are wrong.
Are you trolling me? Please provide me the RAW definition of "augments", with a supporting citation.
reasonable arguments
I get what you're saying. I don't think FCT introduces any problems that monk damage doesn't already have. An Enlarged monk under the influence of a strong jaw spell and who uses UMD to activate a wand of Lead Blades is already a rules nightmare. FCT merely substitutes the natural weapon for the unarmed strike. A monk's unarmed strike is already considered both a manufactured weapon and natural weapon for effects that improve either. I confess that I do not know the RAW for all that stacking, but FCT doesn't add to that problem.
|
THEREFORE: We have no official definition of the word "augment" as an in-game term. The term "augment" and "augmentation" are used in the rules for everything from static damage increases, to base damage die increases, to extra damage dies, to ability bonuses, and to entirely new abilities. "augment" is CLEARLY a catch-all term that is being used in the exact same manner as the definition of the english word "Augment". Look at any online dictionary and you'll find the definition to match how Paizo uses the word exactly.
For the last friggin' time: The monk's increase to base damage with his unarmed strike IS AN AUGMENTATION, and applies with Feral Combat Training.
To prove me wrong, you must do one of the following:
1)find a direct rules quote to the contrary
2)find a definition of "augment" in the rules that contradicts me
3)find any developer commentary that contradicts mePlease fill me in: What exactly constitutes an "augmentation"? Be sure to use rules quotes like I have.
This might be the greatest post ever conceived and/or written.
That sound you hear is not us laughing with you, but rather laughing at you!Thank you so much for making my day. I needed it.
Cheers!
D
|
|
Here I'll prove you wrong with your own words "Augment has no official definition as an in game term" With those words you just admitted that its COMPLETELY up to the GM. It doesn't matter how you read it or what the "english" definition is because in this context its a game term. The same way that Daze has one definition and one in game definition. Without a ruling one way or another the GM has the right to go no to this IMO cheesy munchkinism. Other GM's will go great, but the burden will be on the player to prove it NOT that nothing says it doesn't.
Daze has a defined in-game meaning that supercedes the general english usage of the term. Augment has no in-game definition, so we must assume the common usage.
Words have meanings. There's no in-game definition of "as", "well", "effect", "that", or "an", either, yet you get hung up on "augment" in the rules text of "as well as effects that augment an unarmed strike"
Either the sentence means what it says in plain english or it means nothing.
|
|
I think the issue continues to be:
What happens in a situation where the creature is not using a d2,d3, or d4 as the starting die for his unarmed strike or natural attack? If that base damage would be larger than that provided by Monk UAS does Monk UAS progress that number, or would he use the better base damage? If the answer is that he'd use the better base damage, the ability is not an augment, because it isn't increasing or positively modifying anything, it is supplying a value at the given points that may or may not be an improvement.
Red's quote "reasonable arguments" made me laugh. Not because it's not, but just because it was funny.
You do have a reasonable point. The only thing I see is how likely is this an issue vs current in game situations? If you look up all of the different type of natural attacks for a medium sized creature, they do not exceed a d6. Granted, I did not do a search of the bestiary, I am not saying there isn't one out there. That's where the may would come into play on the feat. If it doesn't make sense, don't do it. An exception to the rule shouldn't trump the broadest use of natural attacks.
If the concern is that when a new type of natural attack emerges and it's greater than a d6, it might be a problem. I would expect this new attack, like all other things that have cascaded in precedence, would have a special section that addresses this case. Much in the way that FCT specifically has the special flurry section.
Enlarged monk...strong jaw spell...Lead Blades... I confess that I do not know the RAW for all that stacking, but FCT doesn't add to that problem.
I agree, I don't know either. When talking this thread with a peer, he seems to have changed views on this debate. His concern was stacking rules need to be laid out for this feat to work. I countered with what about current monk abilities, how do they stack?
We agreed that there would be no difference. An allowance like this wouldn't make the situation any more complex.
|
Design Manager
|
*** I confess that I do not know the RAW for all that stacking, but FCT doesn't add to that problem.
It does though, based on how it ends up being interpreted. If it sets the base damage to a given value (say 1d8) than Strong Jaw increases that 2 size categories to 3d6. Easy-peasey, although this interpretation isn't compatible with FCT.
But if that 1d8 is already an effective size increase up from 1d3, than Strong Jaw does nothing because the monk's die is already benefiting from an effect allowing it to be treated as though it were 3 size categories larger.Also, if my Bite does 2d6 (for all those dragons with monk levels) and I take Feral Combat training, if we assume that Monk UAS is an augment, how do I determine the new damage of my Bite? The easy thing would be to start at 2d6 on the chart and move up from there, but we already know that the Monk UAS doesn't actually follow the Size Increase chart. Is there a factor of improvement? How do we determine what damage the dragon's Bite should actually be using?
|
Design Manager
|
A dragons bite does follow the size progression for a natural attack.
You could do monk d6, size increase (to dragon size) just like you did in your example for a monk. Easy-peasy.
Monk UAS doesn't actually follow the size progression chart was my point. It doesn't matter if Bites follow natural attack size progression, because you're treating it as an Unarmed Strike. So do you raise the base damage up X steps? How do you determine those steps?
|
|
not really I'm just telling you that is what the GM will say and without a FAQ your opinion on how to read it wont mean squat. Without an in game definition the GM gets to decide what's an augment and what's not
This is factually incorrect. In a home game the GM may interpret and house rule as he sees fit, but a PFS GM is bound by RAW, and the RAW says "as well as effects that augment an unarmed strike".
Again, if there is no in-game definition of a term, its meaning is the same as its dictionary definition. Counting monk increased base damage is consistent with both the dictionary definition of "augment" and other uses of the word "augment" in the Pathfinder rules, including a die increase to base damage of a natural attack.
Standing challenge for those who disagree with my assessment: What constitutes an augmentation? Please give examples and cite RAW to differentiate your example from the monk's increased base damage.
So do you raise the base damage up X steps? How do you determine those steps?
Alright, I'll take a stab at it.
For the purpose of this example I shall consider a Tengu monk with the "claw attack" alternate racial trait (two 1d3 claw attacks), and the Feral Combat Training (claws) feat. He has UMD and successfully activates a wand of Lead Blades. A friendly druid casts Strong Jaw on him, and a friendly wizard casts enlarge upon him.
At first through third levels, the monk is capable of making an unarmed strike that does 1d6 damage. When the monk activates the wand of Lead Blades, his unarmed strike is treated as one size larger than it really is. When Strong Jaw is cast upon the monk, the unarmed strike is treated as two sizes larger. I would argue that this makes his effective size three sizes larger, because one spell effects natural weapons and the other manufactured. Lastly, the Enlarge spell changes his size to large. Thus we have a size large character who's unarmed strikes deal damage as if they were Colossal. A Large monk deals 1d8 damage at first level, increased to 4d6 if you follow the Improved Natural Atack table, which is what I've seen used to scale huge and colossal weapons. Note that this might not be strict RAW, there may be a table somewhere that I don't know about that covers such enormous weapons. If you know of one, please educate me.
Now, this same monk applies the benefits of his unarmed strike to his natural weapons. With the literal reading of FCT, any effect that augments an unarmed strike also augments the natural attack. Thus, this buffed up tengu's claw attacks are also doing 4d6 damage.
The monk damage table only gives values for small, medium, and large monks. Because there is no table for huge, gargantuan, or colossal monks, I believe the only guide we have to go by is the improved natural attack table. I would thus set the correct order of operations as "calculate the Large monk damage due to the Enlarge spell, then advance size categories as per the improved natural attack table".
I'm not making any definitive claims here, and you better believe that I'd expect table variation if I showed up with a claw-fighting monk who chugged potions of Get Bigger Weapons Through All Means Possible. That's the point, though - there is no RAW for how to handle monks and multiple size stacking effects.
There IS RAW for applying the monk damage increase to the selected natural weapon with FCT. It's quite clearly written, and doesn't depend on a GM judgement call to use this table or that table and kludge together something to try and handle the situation. It's simple: The natural attack does the same damage as the unarmed strike.
|
Design Manager
|
Just a quick note, Lead Blades and Strong Jaw no workie, it's one or the other. Enlarge and Strong Jaw is gray-ish, but it's one I normally allow since they aren't actually doing the same thing. This is also why it's important to know whether Monk UAS progression is supposed to reflect an effective size increase.
And what do you do when you have a natural attack that is greater than the anticipated starting point? Not for nothing, but Tengu claws kind of evade the issue by starting at the same die as an UAS. What if you're a druid/monk Wildshaped into a Hippopotamus?
**EDIT** As an additional quick note, I'm not trying to be contrary here, I'm just trying to explore this thing from all the angles.
|
|
Monk UAS doesn't actually follow the size progression chart was my point. It doesn't matter if Bites follow natural attack size progression, because you're treating it as an Unarmed Strike. So do you raise the base damage up X steps? How do you determine those steps?A dragons bite does follow the size progression for a natural attack.
You could do monk d6, size increase (to dragon size) just like you did in your example for a monk. Easy-peasy.
I didn't say it did. I said dragon's bite does. If you look at the natural attack chart, medium bite is x. Enlarge it up to the size the dragon is, and it will match up. That's not a specific thing to the dragon, or the attack. It's due to the size of the creature.
Start with the appropriately leveled monk, and add that many size categories.
Doesn't really seem to be any confusion. Monk applies effects the same way you would with a natural attacks.
How and which abilities (spells, effects, etc) stack, isn't really under discussion though. If it applies to a natural attack, unarmed strike, or manufactured weapon; it works. I think it's important to keep in mind that duplicate type bonuses don't stack unless they specifically do.
|
Design Manager
|
Monk UAS doesn't actually follow the size progression chart was my point. It doesn't matter if Bites follow natural attack size progression, because you're treating it as an Unarmed Strike. So do you raise the base damage up X steps? How do you determine those steps?A dragons bite does follow the size progression for a natural attack.
You could do monk d6, size increase (to dragon size) just like you did in your example for a monk. Easy-peasy.
I didn't say it did. ***Start with the appropriately leveled monk, and add that many size categories.
How? I started with a 2d8 Bite because I'm a Druid 6 / Monk 14 Wildshaped into a Hippo. I've taken Feral Combat Training. What's my damage die? How did you get there? I'm applying FCT as an augment to my 2d8 Bite right, so what's my damage? How did I get there?
But if the damage of the natural attacks is simply overridden by the monks unarmed attack damage is it then still being agumentet by the dictionary definition?
We are still building on dictionary and kobold tails yes?
Edit: my spelling is terribly and also sorry if Sound rude.
|
Design Manager
|
But if the damage of the natural attacks is simply overridden by the monks unarmed attack damage is it then still being agumentet by the dictionary definition?
We are still building on dictionary and kobold tails yes?
This is where I was coming at it from. If the Monk damage replaces the base damage, it's not an augment. It is an improvement for a standard monk, but that's because he starts with a d3. If he started with a 2d8 as described above, how do you determine his damage progression? And if the answer is " you can replace the base damage with the Monk UAS damage listed in the table, which may or may not be better" than it isn't truly an augment, going by the examples and definition we've established, so it doesn't work. And if it is a progression that advances that 2d8 to a new value, how do you determine that value? It's not "start with the monk damage and then scale based on your natural attack" because
a)That would be your natural attack augmenting your Monk UAS class feature, not the other way around which is the only thing we have rules for, andb)we still haven't established what that progression is, because the Monk UAS does not actually follow standard size progression, it has it's own scale that corresponds in parts.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
GM will say and without a FAQ your opinion on how to read it wont mean squat.This is factually incorrect ... PFS GM is bound by RAW, and the RAW says "as well as effects that augment an unarmed strike".
Actually the rules say augments apply, as a PFS GM this isn't an augment as the RAW saying it is doesn't prove to my satisfaction it is. So if you sit down at my table with this, I will reject it.
I don't understand why so many of you are against this, so he wants to use claws instead of fists, as far as I can tell it's just a flavor option whats the big deal? Why would anyone want to tell someone they can't add a little flavor to their character?
I've used the feat in this way many times, both as a PC and a GM and it has never caused any balance issues.
No if that were the issue I'd agree its just a flavor thing. What he's saying is that after his unarmed attacks he gets his natural attacks and that the natural attacks use the better damage of the unarmed attack.I don't understand why so many of you are against this, so he wants to use claws instead of fists, as far as I can tell it's just a flavor option whats the big deal? Why would anyone want to tell someone they can't add a little flavor to their character?
I've used the feat in this way many times, both as a PC and a GM and it has never caused any balance issues.
Since variable damage is on average unimportant does it really matter? It's not like he can flurry twice a turn. All he gets to do is add on add on one additional attack, which even if the feat didn't increase the die he would get anyway.
Also your response make you sound as if the only reason you disagree with the others is because of a couple points of damage. If your going to argue about RAW you should try to be a bit less bias.
|
|
No if that were the issue I'd agree its just a flavor thing. What he's saying is that after his unarmed attacks he gets his natural attacks and that the natural attacks use the better damage of the unarmed attack.I don't understand why so many of you are against this, so he wants to use claws instead of fists, as far as I can tell it's just a flavor option whats the big deal? Why would anyone want to tell someone they can't add a little flavor to their character?
I've used the feat in this way many times, both as a PC and a GM and it has never caused any balance issues.
This is not my argument at all. Nobody's talking about mixing unarmed strikes and natural weapon attacks. As a tangent, a character with natural weapons CAN also attack with a manufactured weapon or unarmed strike in the same full attack action. Natural attacks made in the same round as manufactured weapon attacks are considered secondary attacks, incur a -5 penalty to hit, and only apply 1/2 str bonus to damage. The tengu monk earlier can, at first level, attack with an unarmed strike and follow it up in the same action with his two claw attacks. Its a terrible option but it's legal.
My natural weapon character utilizes Dragon Style to gain 1.5x strength to damage on his claws, and never makes unarmed strikes.
You are correct in stating that I claim the natural weapon gets the Monk unarmed damage, however. It's really not a huge deal - the difference in average damage at 12th level between 1d4 claws and 2d6 claws is 4.5 damage per hit. The game isn't going to explode and catch on fire because of 4.5 damage at 12th level.
No my argument is the same one I've been making. Without a in game definition of augment or that word appearing in the monk increase in damage to unarmed strike its completely up to the GM because its a grey area. Some will some wont and IMO the pro argument isn't very strong basically breaking down into it makes it better therefore its an augment. Well it isn't called one its called an increase in damage so once again GM's call even in PFS.
From my original post:Caution. A lot of what you're trying to do is very grey area requiring a lot of DM approval. Some Dm's are all for it and others are gonna say its cheesy, but allowed and others are just gonna say NO. Even in PFS.
Sir I hate to tell you this but if you INCREASE the die type your AUGMENTING the attack. Also there have been plenty of posts that have clearly proven pathfinders definition of the word augment.
|
|
No my argument is the same one I've been making. Without a in game definition of augment or that word appearing in the monk increase in damage to unarmed strike its completely up to the GM because its a grey area. Some will some wont and IMO the pro argument isn't very strong basically breaking down into it makes it better therefore its an augment. Well it isn't called one its called an increase in damage so once again GM's call even in PFS.
From my original post:Caution. A lot of what you're trying to do is very grey area requiring a lot of DM approval. Some Dm's are all for it and others are gonna say its cheesy, but allowed and others are just gonna say NO. Even in PFS.
I am incredulous that you think this is a grey area that requires GM approval. The rules are right there in plain english. Please, explain why increased damage is not augmenting the unarmed strike. Please give an example of something you consider to be an augment to an unarmed strike, and explain how it is more applicable than monk damage increases.