Pal I hate to tell YOU this, but a number of people disagree with this and getting pissy doesn't change the fact that I think its a grey area. At least 2 PFS GM's have come out and stated that they wouldn't allow it at their table so once again I say GM call.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.
Who's being pissy and that is exactly what I don't understand, How is this a grey area and what is the reason to not allow it. So far what I've gotten is that it's a grey are because you said so ("you" not meaning you personally) and it's not allowed because you (again not you personally) don't think a claw should do the same damage as a monks unarmed strike.
How much evidence do you guys need? How much more clearly doe the word Augment need to be defined before you realize that this is NOT a grey area.
You're the one missing the point. Without a FAQ its NOT plain English its not called that in the monk description. It doesn't follow the pattern of size augmentation. Its not called an augmentation therefore to some GM's(call it a class ability instead of an augment if that helps) making it GM call. Its called something else therefore without FAQ its gonna stay a grey area. The burden is gonna be on the player and a number of GM's will say no as evidenced by the above posts.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.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.
Unless stated otherwise a class ability is by definition an Augmentation.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're the one missing the point. Without a FAQ its NOT plain English its not called that in the monk description. It doesn't follow the pattern of size augmentation. Its not called an augmentation therefore to some GM's(call it a class ability instead of an augment if that helps) making it GM call. Its called something else therefore without FAQ its gonna stay a grey area. The burden is gonna be on the player and a number of GM's will say no as evidenced by the above posts.
FCT does not apply "an Augment" (noun) to the natural attack. It applies effects that "augment" (verb) the unarmed strike. It may seem like semantics quibbling to you but it's important. "Augment" (verb) is a normal english word with a clear dictionary meaning. It is just as silly to require an in-game definition of "increase" or "improve" as "augment". Your lack of understanding about the meaning of english words does not construe a lack of clarity or grey area in the meaning of "as well as effects that augment an unarmed strike".
this is NOT a grey area.It is grey to me, and I'll continue to rule this way until errata or FAQ alters it.
But only because you refuse to accept the proof that has been laid in front of you.
I'm sure your an absolute pleasure to play with.
Also do you understand what RAW means exactly? Because you and the others seem to be arguing RAI not RAW
|
|
Or until your venture-captain straightens out your mistaken beliefs about your authority as a PFS GM.The RAW isn't clear and I welcome an official response. Until such time, you don't have the right to assert your reading as the only reading of the rules.
Your lack of english comprehension does not construe lack of rules clarity.
|
The RAW isn't clear and I welcome an official response. Until such time, you don't have the right to assert your reading as the only reading of the rules.
Could you help me understand what you feel isn't clear in RAW, or RAI?
There's been a very compelling, and articulate discussion had here.
Its your prerogative to disagree. I'm not trying to force an opinion on you. You state that it's unclear, so I would like to attempt to offer clarity.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
At the risk of committing a strawman fallacy, lets exhaustively deal with every single possible objection.
Claim: Feral Combat Training applies the increase in damage dice that a monk gets via class feature to the natural weapon selected in choosing FCT.
Justification: "As well as effects that augment an unarmed strike"
Objection 1: The word "augment" is unclear.
Rebuttal 1: "augment" is a clearly defined word in the English language. Unlike "Daze" or "Stunned", "Augment" has no rules-defined meaning that supersedes its common English usage. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "augment" as "1: to increase the size or amount of (something) 2: to add something to (something) in order to improve or complete it".
Objection 2: Increasing the base damage dice of a natural attack is not "augmenting" it.
Rebuttal 2: Increasing the damage done by the natural attack clearly improves the attack. The objective of making an attack is to deal damage to the target. Increasing the amount of damage done is clearly improving the attack. Furthermore, it is an improvement via increasing the size of the die rolled to determine variable damage. Increasing the base damage dice of a natural attack fits both definitions of the word "augment" in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
Objection 3: The monk's increased damage is a class feature, and therefore not legal to apply via Feral Combat Training.
Rebuttal 3: Feral Combat Training contains no limitation, express or implied, to the scope of effects that augment unarmed strikes.
Objection 4: There is no way to determine if the developers meant a specific set of abilities to be legal as effects that "augment an unarmed strike"
Rebuttal 4: Numerous examples have been posted in this thread, taken from official rules text, of the word "augment" being used to describe adding everything from extra d20 rolls, to static damage, to variable die damage, to ability score increases, to supernatural abilities. Increasing the base damage die of an attack is described as "augmenting" that attack in multiple rules entries.
Objection 5: The monk bonus damage increase does not follow the same pattern as size increases to damage.
Rebuttal 5: Irrelevant; the description of Feral Combat Training does not specify or exclude any metric or pattern of effects.
Objection 6: Allowing Feral Combat Training to increase the damage of a natural attack causes confusion in adjudicating stacking effects that increase damage dice.
Rebuttal 6: Feral Combat Training introduces no new variables into the rules problem of stacking size increases to damage dice. It merely starts the damage dice at a slightly higher level. Additionally, complexity of effect interaction does not overrule or invalidate the rules text of effects.
Objection 7: Monk increases to unarmed strike damage are not explicitly allowed as effects legal for Feral Combat Training.
Rebuttal 7: Irrelevant; Feral Combat training does not explicitly allow or disallow any effect by name. Feral Combat Training applies to feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite and to effects that augment an unarmed strike. An effect or feat that satisfies either of those conditions is legal to apply to a natural attack via Feral Combat Training.
Objection 8: If the developers meant for Feral Combat Training to increase the base damage dice, they would have called it out in the special rules section like Flurry of Blows.
Rebuttal 8: Flurry of Blows does not augment an unarmed strike - it's a special full attack option available to the monk. It does not meet either of the listed criteria for inclusion, and must therefore be added in separately. Additionally, what the developers intended is RAI. This is a RAW discussion.
Objection 9: There exists a special case where applying the monk damage to unarmed strikes to a natural attack would result in a lower damage dice for the natural attack.
Rebuttal 9: Feral Combat Training states that an effect "may" be applied. It is optional. Having the ability to lower the damage of a natural attack in a very specific case (multiclass monk/druid using wild shape with a Large form and high-damage natural attack) does not invalidate any part of the rules text.
If I have missed any objections, please post them that I may address them.
Wow that's an impressive post sir and I'd say that about sums up the argument so far.
I think we should all just nerd rage and get the thread locked, it really would be for the best.
None of the FAQs or dev responses/explanations have ever suggested or implied IUS increased the damage of the natural weapon FCT was taken with. The explanation given in the exisiting FAQ state it works like a monk weapon, which incidentally doesn't get increased damage due to a monks unarmed strike class ability.
It isn't like this hasn't come up repeatedly since the feat was introduced, an obnoxious amount of times. They still haven't put anything out saying it does work that way. Feel free to FAQ and maybe get an answer, not sure what else to tell you when you obviously know the "correct" answer. I'm not even sure what you're doing here at this point.
At the risk of committing a strawman fallacy, lets exhaustively deal with every single possible objection.
Claim: Feral Combat Training applies the increase in damage dice that a monk gets via class feature to the natural weapon selected in choosing FCT.
Justification: "As well as effects that augment an unarmed strike"
Objection 1: The word "augment" is unclear.
Rebuttal 1: "augment" is a clearly defined word in the English language. Unlike "Daze" or "Stunned", "Augment" has no rules-defined meaning that supersedes its common English usage. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "augment" as "1: to increase the size or amount of (something) 2: to add something to (something) in order to improve or complete it".
Objection 2: Increasing the base damage dice of a natural attack is not "augmenting" it.
Rebuttal 2: Increasing the damage done by the natural attack clearly improves the attack. The objective of making an attack is to deal damage to the target. Increasing the amount of damage done is clearly improving the attack. Furthermore, it is an improvement via increasing the size of the die rolled to determine variable damage. Increasing the base damage dice of a natural attack fits both definitions of the word "augment" in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary.
Objection 3: The monk's increased damage is a class feature, and therefore not legal to apply via Feral Combat Training.
Rebuttal 3: Feral Combat Training contains no limitation, express or implied, to the scope of effects that augment unarmed strikes.
Objection 4: There is no way to determine if the developers meant a specific set of abilities to be legal as effects that "augment an unarmed strike"
Rebuttal 4: Numerous examples have been posted in this thread, taken from official rules text, of the word "augment" being used to describe adding everything from extra d20 rolls, to static damage, to variable die damage, to ability score increases, to supernatural abilities. Increasing the base damage die of an...
I guess it is a shame you aren't one of the designers... I mean heck you've got it all figured out and apparently have the right answer for everything.
Do you find logical or factual fault with anything I've said? Any objections that I haven't covered?
Did you mention the FAQ that says it work like a monk weapon?
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
So until a FAQ comes down the non augment interpretation is just as valid a reading.
Really until a Dev or FAQ is posted. Red is the type to keep posting he is right until we all stop objecting to his position. So this thread may make it to 800 posts this week.
Do you find logical or factual fault with anything I've said? Any objections that I haven't covered?
The FAQ would have mentioned that it advanced the die of the natural weapon when handling Flurry with the weapon if it was considered to advance. JJ is the only Paizo person to respond to whether or not it advances die with "no".
So until you get them to address it or reverse their opinion, you are going against the Paizo grain with your fringe interpretation.
|
Previously discussed, replacing a d3 with a d6 is an augment. Damage goes from 1-3 to 1-6.
So a huge dragon is x sizes more than medium. The dragons medium sized bite is augmented to the monk's level appropriate dice, then apply x size adjustments.
You are completely ignoring my question of how you actually do this. Tell me what my end damage is if I'm a Wildshaped hippopotamus druid 6 / Monk 14 who's taken Feral Combat Training and chosen my Bite.
I start with 2d8. If Monk UAS is an augment, what is my damage, and how did you get there? I don't care about 1d3 claw attacks, it evades the issue and doesn't address the core question of whether this is truly an augment and how it works if it is.|
|
Well, looks like we have another objection.
Objection 10: Nuh-uh! Words have no meaning! Unless James Jacobs explicitly clarifies every single rule in the game, I get to make up any kind of crap I want! LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!
Seriously, guys. The worst natural attack in the game is the "mother's teeth" trait, 1d2 damage bite. A 12th level monk with that and feral combat training does 2d6 damage with that bite. Average damage for 1d2 is 1.5. Average damage for 2d6 is 7.
The most impact this has is 5.5 damage per hit - at 12th level. You're picking a pretty dumb hill to die on.
My challenge still stands: Post what you consider a valid "effect" that "augments" an unarmed strike.
|
|
You are completely ignoring my question of how you actually do this. Tell me what my end damage is if I'm a Wildshaped hippopotamus druid 6 / Monk 14 who's taken Feral Combat Training and chosen my Bite.
I start with 2d8. If Monk UAS is an augment, what is my damage, and how did you get there? I don't care about 1d3 claw attacks, it evades the issue and doesn't address the core question of whether this is truly an augment and how it works if it is.
Out of the scope of PFS, but here: Corner Case the hippo Druid has a 2d8 bite and 2d6 unarmed strike. Taking FCT(Bite), by RAW, would not allow him to increase this damage. He could, at his option, do 2d6 damage, but is not forced to.
|
|
Claim: Feral Combat Training applies the increase in damage dice that a monk gets via class feature to the natural weapon selected in choosing FCT.
Justification: "As well as effects that augment an unarmed strike"
Objection 1: The word "augment" is unclear.
Rebuttal 1: "augment" is a clearly defined word in the English language. Unlike "Daze" or "Stunned", "Augment" has no rules-defined meaning that supersedes its common English usage. The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "augment" as "1: to increase the size or amount of (something) 2: to add something to (something) in order to improve or complete it".
Objection 2: Increasing the base damage dice of a natural attack is not "augmenting" it.
Rebuttal 2: Increasing the damage done by the natural attack clearly improves the attack.
Counter-argument- No one has yet to prove what happens if the base natural attack is greater than the damage provided by Monk UAS. IF Monk UAS does not increase the damage in these instances, than it is not an augment per the definition we have created.
Objection 5: The monk bonus damage increase does not follow the same pattern as size increases to damage.
Rebuttal 5: Irrelevant; the description of Feral Combat Training does not specify or exclude any metric or pattern of effects.
Counter-argument If Monk Unarmed Strike is an augment that can be applied to natural attacks, it has to be possible to adjudicate it as such. If the monk has moved from 1d3 to 2d6 with his unarmed strike, you have to be able to apply that same formula to the natural attack and come up with where that progression would take it. If I'm applying it to a 2d8 Bite, easily doable within the rules, what is my damage?
Objection 9: There exists a special case where applying the monk damage to unarmed strikes to a natural attack would result in a lower damage dice for the natural attack.Rebuttal 9: Feral Combat Training states that an effect "may" be applied. It is optional. Having the ability to lower the damage of a natural attack in a very specific case (multiclass monk/druid using wild shape with a Large form and high-damage natural attack) does not invalidate any part of the rules text.
Counter-argument Rebuttal is irrelevant. If it is an augment, it will improve the ability it is applied to in every instance. Augments, as we have established, improve what they are being applied to. If there exists a circumstance where Feral Combat Training would lower the damage of a natural attack, than Monk UAS is not truly an augment and therefore is not a legal target for the ability.
|
|
Ssalarn, thanks for giving me actual arguments and not just throwing a tantrum like the other posters.
Counter-argument- No one has yet to prove what happens if the base natural attack is greater than the damage provided by Monk UAS. IF Monk UAS does not increase the damage in these instances, than it is not an augment per the definition we have created.
by RAW, if the UAS damage is less than the natural weapons damage, there is no increase to the natural weapons damage with FCT. Trying to put in a formula like "increases UAS damage by X steps along Y progression" is not RAW.
Counter-argument If Monk Unarmed Strike is an augment that can be applied to natural attacks, it has to be possible to adjudicate it as such. If the monk has moved from 1d3 to 2d6 with his unarmed strike, you have to be able to apply that same formula to the natural attack and come up with where that progression would take it. If I'm applying it to a 2d8 Bite, easily doable within the rules, what is my damage?
2d8 bite remains 2d8. You could legally lower the dice to 2d6 if you so chose - but are not forced to do so. "you CAN apply the effects". There is no progression formula to follow, and no implication of increasing X by Y steps.
Counter-argument Rebuttal is irrelevant. If it is an augment, it will improve the ability it is applied to in every instance. Augments, as we have established, improve what they are being applied to. If there exists a circumstance where Feral Combat Training would lower the damage of a natural attack, than Monk UAS is not truly an augment and therefore is not a legal target for the ability.
This is your strongest argument right here. Recall, though, that there exists no in-game quality called "augment", tested by "does x ability improve y feature every single time in every single way with no exceptions". FCT imposes a simple set of tests:
If effect is a feat with IUAS as a pre-requisite, then it applies to the natural weapon.
ELSE IF effect augments an unarmed strike, then it applies to the natural weapon
ELSE effect does not apply to the natural weapon.
Sensei Claw the Tengu meets the criteria, Corner Case the hippomonk does not.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
RR,
In the dictionary definition and (I believe) every other instance in the game so far that you have provided that has used the word augment, it did not have the "if X, than Y is actually B" kind of strangeness we experience with the Monk UAS. I am of the position, that for something to qualify as an augment, it must quantifiably improve what it is being added to in every instance (excepting of course, non-stacking affects, since the augment would do something if another affect weren't already doing it. I do not consider polymorph effects to fall into this category since that is one of the primary ways of gaining the natural attacks in question here). If this is not consistently true, than the thing in question is not truly an augment as it is not actually improving something from its baseline, but is instead replacing it with a different value. I believe that in the instance we are discussing, a replacement rather than an augment is what is occurring with the Monk UAS. It acts like an augment in most commonly experienced instances, but doesn't hold up to close scrutiny when you start introducing factors that vary from the expected baseline.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is your strongest argument right here.
The strongest argument is the FAQ discussing a Monk Flurring doesn't mention the damage dice is increased for the Natural Attacks, but rather that they were only considered Monk weapons for the attacks.
@Red Ramage:
There is no point in arguing with people that don't want to be wrong, no matter how much proof you show them they will refuse to except the facts because they don't want to be wrong no matter how obviously wrong they are.
|
|
This is your strongest argument right here.The strongest argument is the FAQ discussing a Monk Flurring doesn't mention the damage dice is increased for the Natural Attacks, but rather that they were only considered Monk weapons for the attacks.
Using a natural weapon in a Flurry of Blows attack is a completely separate issue
Feral Combat Training (page 101): What does “with” in the Special line for this feat mean for monks making a flurry of blows?
Normally a monk who has natural attacks (such as a lizardfolk monk with claw attacks) cannot use those natural attacks as part of a flurry of blows (Core Rulebook 57). Feral Combat Training allows you to use the selected natural attack as if it were a monk weapon—you can use it as one of your flurry of blows attacks, use it to deploy special attacks that require you to use a monk weapon, apply the effects of the natural weapon (such as a poisonous bite) for each flurry of blows attack, and so on.
The feat does not allow you to make your normal flurry of blows attack sequence plus one or more natural attacks with the natural weapon. In other words, if you can flurry for four attacks per round, with this feat you still only make four attacks per round... but any number of those attacks may be with the selected natural weapon.
Nothing in that FAQ deals with, references, or modifies the "As well as effects that augment an unarmed strike". It's purely a question about Flurry of Blows.
|
|
@Red Ramage:
There is no point in arguing with people that don't want to be wrong, no matter how much proof you show them they will refuse to except the facts because they don't want to be wrong no matter how obviously wrong they are.
Posts like this, which are actually just veiled insults, do not contribute to the conversation. Neither do posts that consist of repeating the same thing over and over punctuated with "so you're wrong!"
There are valid points on both sides of this argument and only by calmly presenting your point of view and avoiding snideness, rudeness, and inflammatory attacks will this thread be able to actually achieve anything. If you don't have anything to add that isn't an attack on another poster, directly or indirectly, either go back to the drawing board and come up with a reasonable presentation for what you think and why you think it, or wait until someone posts something that inspires you to think of something else.
Above all, RTMIR.
|
|
RR,
In the dictionary definition and (I believe) every other instance in the game so far that you have provided that has used the word augment, it did not have the "if X, than Y is actually B" kind of strangeness we experience with the Monk UAS. I am of the position, that for something to qualify as an augment, it must quantifiably improve what it is being added to in every instance (excepting of course, non-stacking affects, since the augment would do something if another affect weren't already doing it. I do not consider polymorph effects to fall into this category since that is one of the primary ways of gaining the natural attacks in question here). If this is not consistently true, than the thing in question is not truly an augment as it is not actually improving something from its baseline, but is instead replacing it with a different value. I believe that in the instance we are discussing, a replacement rather than an augment is what is occurring with the Monk UAS. It acts like an augment in most commonly experienced instances, but doesn't hold up to close scrutiny when you start introducing factors that vary from the expected baseline.
I understand what you're saying, and that's a reasonable argument. However, the subject of the verb "augment" is NOT the natural weapon, but the unarmed strike.
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.
Monk unarmed damage will still augment the unarmed strike of your hippo druid. Whether or not that improves the natural weapon is irrelevant.
Does your hippo monk/druid have the ability, in his base form, to perform an unarmed strike? Yes.
Does the 1d6 monk damage augment the normal 1d4 unarmed strike damage? Yes.
Therefore, the monk unarmed strike damage augments an unarmed strike, and meets the criteria for the second clause of Feral Combat Training.
As you've pointed out, in certain circumstances the monk enhanced unarmed damage is less than the damage of a natural weapon to which we may wish to apply Feral Combat Training.
In this circumstance it is LEGAL to substitute the monk's unarmed strike damage for the higher damage of the natural weapon, but not mandatory.
|
|
That was actually exactly what I was looking for RR. Since the effect is always "targeting", as it were, the unarmed strike, than it doesn't really matter what the damage of the natural attack is. You'd pick either the damage for your unarmed strike or the damage provided by your natural attack yes? So if you're the aforementioned Druid 6 / Monk 14 hippo doing martial arts, you'd use either the hippo's 2d8, or have the option to use the 2d6 damage provided by the Monk UAS class feature, yes? You're not increasing the damage of the hippo's Bite by any number of steps, you're using the augmented damage of the unarmed strike instead. Correct?
If this is the case than you've won me over and I'm on board.
|
|
That was actually exactly what I was looking for RR. Since the effect is always "targeting", as it were, the unarmed strike, than it doesn't really matter what the damage of the natural attack. You'd pick either the damage for your unarmed strike or the damage provided by your natural attack yes? So if you're the aforementioned Druid 6 / Monk 14 hippo doing martial arts, you'd use either the hippo's 2d8, or have the option to use the 2d6 damage provided by the Monk UAS class feature, yes? You're not increasing the damage of the hippo's Bite by any number of steps, you're using the augmented damage of the unarmed strike instead. Correct?
If this is the case than you've won me over and I'm on board.
Yes, that's correct.
don't want to be wrong no matter how obviously wrong they are.The cool thing is that I can't be wrong, as I'm saying there is no RAW that either side can show that proves which side is right.
But there is, all the proof you need has been posted already but you have chosen to ignore it as to better validate your own argument which is why arguing with you is pointless.
|
That was actually exactly what I was looking for RR. Since the effect is always "targeting", as it were, the unarmed strike, than it doesn't really matter what the damage of the natural attack is. You'd pick either the damage for your unarmed strike or the damage provided by your natural attack yes? So if you're the aforementioned Druid 6 / Monk 14 hippo doing martial arts, you'd use either the hippo's 2d8, or have the option to use the 2d6 damage provided by the Monk UAS class feature, yes? You're not increasing the damage of the hippo's Bite by any number of steps, you're using the augmented damage of the unarmed strike instead. Correct?
If this is the case than you've won me over and I'm on board.
That's exactly my reading of it as well, no step increases to figure, etc.
|
|
You are completely ignoring my question of how you actually do this. Tell me what my end damage is if I'm a Wildshaped hippopotamus druid 6 / Monk 14 who's taken Feral Combat Training and chosen my Bite.
I start with 2d8. If Monk UAS is an augment, what is my damage, and how did you get there? I don't care about 1d3 claw attacks, it evades the issue and doesn't address the core question of whether this is truly an augment and how it works if it is.
I'm sorry if you feel I gave that impression.
I'll attempt to answer it.
Start with a 2d8 bite. A hippo is a large creature, so need to make sure your apples to apples, A 14th level large sized monk, has an unarmed strike of 3d6.
Which is greater? 2-16, or 3-18? I'd go with the 3d6.
Because of the FCT feat, Your hippo would have a bite attack that should do 3d6, it would count as a natural weapon, manufactured weapon, usable in a flurry, and able to have all UAS feats, and effects applied to it.
---
Lets say you were just looking at the 2d6 of a medium sized monk, your bite attack still would gain all the other features.
Assume that you opted to use the may part of the feat, and went with 2d8, instead of 2d6. The bite would still count as a natural weapon, manufactured weapon, usable in a flurry, and able to have all UAS feats, and effects applied to it.
|
|
You are completely ignoring my question of how you actually do this. Tell me what my end damage is if I'm a Wildshaped hippopotamus druid 6 / Monk 14 who's taken Feral Combat Training and chosen my Bite.
I start with 2d8. If Monk UAS is an augment, what is my damage, and how did you get there? I don't care about 1d3 claw attacks, it evades the issue and doesn't address the core question of whether this is truly an augment and how it works if it is.I'm sorry if you feel I gave that impression.
I'll attempt to answer it.
Start with a 2d8 bite. A hippo is a large creature, so need to make sure your apples to apples, A 14th level large sized monk, has an unarmed strike of 3d6.
Which is greater? 2-16, or 3-18? I'd go with the 3d6.
Because of the FCT feat, Your hippo would have a bite attack that should do 3d6, it would count as a natural weapon, manufactured weapon, usable in a flurry, and able to have all UAS feats, and effects applied to it.
Sorry Dash, I finally got what you were getting at when RR presented it above. I'm on board.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a person explains something to you, and you say it's still grey, that's a loosely veiled request for more explanation. If you have enough input to make a decision, it's not grey. You either agree, or don't. Black or white.
For those claiming it's not in the RAW, it's been shown where it directly is. It's in the RAW like many other rules.
If your definition of RAW is that "it doesn't directly state monk levels apply to the natural attack selected", I agree with you it doesn't.
Red has offered compelling information with his research about how monk levels are considered an augment by other in game examples.
FTC doesn't directly say monk levels any more than a specific weapon is listed in the weapon focus feat. It lists all light weapons, just like FTC lists all augments.
Therefore, RAW doesn't need to specifically state it in the feat, special or any other way, any more than weapon finesse doesn't list out each of it's weapons.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For those claiming it's not in the RAW, it's been shown where it directly is.
No, it has been show where it could mean the Monk advances natural weapons like that. But it is also RAW that it doesn't apply. Because the question was not directly addressed in the ability.