|
I'm not emotionally invested in the answer to this question. The character I play that uses FCT is an unarmed fighter who dipped two levels of MoMS monk. The difference in rulings has an outcome of +/- 1.5 points of damage per attack. His static damage modifier is +22 at 9th level. 1d3 damage or 1d6 damage, he's fine. I'm annoyed at people who read a logically argued post full of rules citations, respond to it by saying "lol nope", and never, ever, have any arguments against it.
Language is precise. Words have exact meanings. For the third time: If a monk's unarmed strike is not an "effect" that "augments" an unarmed strike, what is? Please provide an example.
By the definition of Augment, by change it in any way makes it an Augmentation. You can Augment to make it do less damage, more damage look different, smell different, light up and say hello it doesn't matter it''s all an augmentation.
|
|
Thank you, Proftobe. Obviously I don't agree with your opinion, but "Class abilities are generally a special case" is infinitely better than "nuh-uh, you're a poopyhead!"
I'm still waiting for someone to post an example of an "effect" that "augments" an unarmed strike. What does that second clause mean? Why is it in there?
Thank you, Proftobe. Obviously I don't agree with your opinion, but "Class abilities are generally a special case" is infinitely better than "nuh-uh, you're a poopyhead!"
I'm still waiting for someone to post an example of an "effect" that "augments" an unarmed strike. What does that second clause mean? Why is it in there?
Off the top of my head...
Magic Weapon, which cannot be used on a natural attack "normally" (Magic Fang would be required). But it can be used on an unarmed strike and so the wording allows it to be used on a natural attack when the character/creature has FCT for it.
|
|
Off the top of my head...
Magic Weapon, which cannot be used on a natural attack "normally" (Magic Fang would be required). But it can be used on an unarmed strike and so the wording allows it to be used on a natural attack when the character/creature has FCT for it.
Great! I agree with that completely. But now it's Devil's Advocate Time.
1) Magic Weapon is not an "effect", it's a spell.
2) Magic Weapon is not "an augment", it grants a typed bonus.
Based on those two points, would I be justified in disallowing Magic Weapon from working on natural attacks in a PFS game?
Off the top of my head...
Magic Weapon, which cannot be used on a natural attack "normally" (Magic Fang would be required). But it can be used on an unarmed strike and so the wording allows it to be used on a natural attack when the character/creature has FCT for it.
Great! I agree with that completely. But now it's Devil's Advocate Time.
1) Magic Weapon is not an "effect", it's a spell.
2) Magic Weapon is not "an augment", it grants a typed bonus.
Based on those two points, would I be justified in disallowing Magic Weapon from working on natural attacks in a PFS game?
He he good one. Not a bad point. And if you as a GM gave me that i think i would 1. Play with you this once and then look for clarification. Or 2. Assume you were on fin to play with and go enjoy my self somwere else.
Out of game i could properly ask him to clarify a lot of things because i would be forcer to conclude that him and ditent read the same books:0)
Racial Heritage and Elf/Orc Blood call out "effects" related to race, and include traits, class archetypes, and feats. So a class feature should definitely be an "effect." As should feats, traits, and spells.
Does monk "augment" unarmed strike? Well, non-monks can make unarmed strikes, and monk makes better unarmed strikes (but they still are unarmed strikes). That definitely seems like "augmenting" them to me.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
class feature should definitely be an "effect." As should feats, traits, and spells.
No doubt class features are effects, the core question is whether or not Monk Unarmed Strike augments Unarmed Strike or is a different type of attack. I see it as replacing "size based unarmed strike" with "level based unarmed strike."
Off the top of my head...
Magic Weapon, which cannot be used on a natural attack "normally" (Magic Fang would be required). But it can be used on an unarmed strike and so the wording allows it to be used on a natural attack when the character/creature has FCT for it.
Great! I agree with that completely. But now it's Devil's Advocate Time.
1) Magic Weapon is not an "effect", it's a spell.
2) Magic Weapon is not "an augment", it grants a typed bonus.
Based on those two points, would I be justified in disallowing Magic Weapon from working on natural attacks in a PFS game?
Technically a spell causes an "effect." If you cast a spell on an invalid target there is no effect (as the spell fails to do what it was intended and wasted). If cast on a valid target the spell creates an effect, typically the effect augments the target increasing its effectiveness (in this spell's case better to hit and damage).
Normally the Magic Weapon spell needs to target a weapon, not a part of a creature. FCT makes the natural weapon it was taken with an exception and can gain the effect of the spell that it wouldn't be able to.
Read the spell, you cannot target natural weapons with Magic Weapon, but you can unarmed strikes. It isn't allowed in PFS already. FCT makes an exception to this rule, as its effect is allowed on US.
class feature should definitely be an "effect." As should feats, traits, and spells.No doubt class features are effects, the core question is whether or not Monk Unarmed Strike augments Unarmed Strike or is a different type of attack. I see it as replacing "size based unarmed strike" with "level based unarmed strike."
But you are "replacing" "size based unarmed strike" with "sized based level adjusted unarmed strike".
When you are "replacing" an ability with the same thing by the same name but improved, are you replacing it or just making it better?
|
|
so, how would the spell Stone Fist be taken into account with a monk and/or a natural attack utilizing FCT?
Stone Fist
This spell transforms your hands into living stone. While this spell is in effect, your unarmed strikes do not provoke attacks of opportunity and deal 1d6 points of lethal bludgeoning damage (1d4 if you are Small). In addition, your unarmed strikes ignore the hardness of any object with a hardness less than 8.
situation 1:
would a 1 druid/1 monk with this spell in effect, do 1d6 stone or 1d6 monk interchanged where the player sees fit?
or would the monk's unarmed damage be increased 2 dice categories due to the spells augmentation of the typical d3 UAS?
situation2:
take a tiefling with this spell in effect with FCT
are its claws now increased from 1d4 to 1d6 or from 1d4 (1 die category higher than a human's d3) to a d8 (1 die category higher than the d6 from this spell, or are they completely unaffected?
|
|
Off the top of my head...
Magic Weapon, which cannot be used on a natural attack "normally" (Magic Fang would be required). But it can be used on an unarmed strike and so the wording allows it to be used on a natural attack when the character/creature has FCT for it.
Great! I agree with that completely. But now it's Devil's Advocate Time.
1) Magic Weapon is not an "effect", it's a spell.
2) Magic Weapon is not "an augment", it grants a typed bonus.
Based on those two points, would I be justified in disallowing Magic Weapon from working on natural attacks in a PFS game?
Technically a spell causes an "effect." If you cast a spell on an invalid target there is no effect (as the spell fails to do what it was intended and wasted). If cast on a valid target the spell creates an effect, typically the effect augments the target increasing its effectiveness (in this spell's case better to hit and damage).
Normally the Magic Weapon spell needs to target a weapon, not a part of a creature. FCT makes the natural weapon it was taken with an exception and can gain the effect of the spell that it wouldn't be able to.
Read the spell, you cannot target natural weapons with Magic Weapon, but you can unarmed strikes. It isn't allowed in PFS already. FCT makes an exception to this rule, as its effect is allowed on US.
FCT doesn't say "spell effects". It says "effects". If the devs had meant to include spells they would have explicitly called it out like they did with flurry of blows. Disallowed.
|
|
FCT doesn't say "spell effects". It says "effects". If the devs had meant to include spells they would have explicitly called it out like they did with flurry of blows. Disallowed.Off the top of my head...
Magic Weapon, which cannot be used on a natural attack "normally" (Magic Fang would be required). But it can be used on an unarmed strike and so the wording allows it to be used on a natural attack when the character/creature has FCT for it.
Great! I agree with that completely. But now it's Devil's Advocate Time.
1) Magic Weapon is not an "effect", it's a spell.
2) Magic Weapon is not "an augment", it grants a typed bonus.
Based on those two points, would I be justified in disallowing Magic Weapon from working on natural attacks in a PFS game?
Technically a spell causes an "effect." If you cast a spell on an invalid target there is no effect (as the spell fails to do what it was intended and wasted). If cast on a valid target the spell creates an effect, typically the effect augments the target increasing its effectiveness (in this spell's case better to hit and damage).
Normally the Magic Weapon spell needs to target a weapon, not a part of a creature. FCT makes the natural weapon it was taken with an exception and can gain the effect of the spell that it wouldn't be able to.
Read the spell, you cannot target natural weapons with Magic Weapon, but you can unarmed strikes. It isn't allowed in PFS already. FCT makes an exception to this rule, as its effect is allowed on US.
I disagree with that assessment. (if you were being serious, it seems you are being glib)
The effect that allows this to work is that a monks unarmed strike is augmented to be treated like a manufactured weapon. A manufactured weapon is a valid target for the spell. The FCT feat allows that augment to also apply to the Natural Attack. Thereby becoming a valid target for the spell.
Spell effect/effect discussion is not needed.
