Advice: Feral Combat Training


Advice

1 to 50 of 173 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
The Exchange

11 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hello again,

I have another question in the lines of my feral Tiefling idea.

As a monk fighter, this is my build:

Tiefling Race - Maw or Claws (Claw)

1 Fighter (Unarmed)
- Lev 1 Feat: Weapon Focus (Claw)
- Bonus Feat: - Boar Style
- Bonus Feat: - Improved Unarmed Strike

2 Monk - Master of Styles
- Bonus Feat: - Boar Ferocity

3 Fighter
- Lev 3 Feat: Feral Combat Training (Claw)
- Bonus Feat: - Belier's Bite

---------------------------------

Could someone confirm that I am reading the rules correctly -

Spoiler:

Feral Combat Training wrote:

You were taught a style of martial arts that relies on the natural weapons from your racial ability or class feature.

Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Strike, Weapon Focus with selected natural weapon.

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.

Special: If you are a monk, you can use the selected natural weapon with your flurry of blows class feature.

Belier's Bite wrote:

Prerequisites: Improved Unarmed Strike.

Benefit: When you damage an opponent with an unarmed strike, you deal an extra 1d4 bleed damage.

Special: This ability does not stack with other special abilities, attacks, or items that allow you to deal bleed damage

Unamed Strike wrote:

Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.

Usually a monk's unarmed strikes deal lethal damage, but he can choose to deal nonlethal damage instead with no penalty on his attack roll. He has the same choice to deal lethal or nonlethal damage while grappling.

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 also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown above on Table: Monk. The unarmed damage values listed on Table: Monk is for Medium monks. A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with his unarmed attacks, while a Large monk deals more damage; see Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage on the table given below.

The way I see this is:

With the claw or maw trait, I gain a pair of D4 claw attacks.
As a monk, I have a D6 Unarmed Strike.
With Belier's Bite, My Unarmed Strike becomes a D6, with a D4 bleed.

With FCT, both claw attacks now also has this ability. Meaning they are a D4 dmg, with a D4 bleed. (Though, bleeds do not stack). My reasoning is that first part of FTC says "While using the selected natural weapon, you can apply the effects of feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite,".

This is my first question I don't think there's much grey in this, but I'm getting push-back from some saying this isn't true. Am I correct in that interpretation?

The second question, and cause for quite a bit more push-back is this: The second part about the FTC feat says ", as well as effects that augment an unarmed strike."

As I interpret this, the normal unarmed strike that non-monks have is a D3. When you take a monk, per the class feature, your unarmed strike is modified per the table. It now becomes a D6, then increases in die category as you level.

I believe, that this should also apply to the claw, since it's an effect that augments an unarmed strike.

That said, I believe that the above Monk/Fighter should have:

A pair of claw attacks that do D6dmg + D4 bleed.
And a single unarmed strike, that does a D6dmg + D4 bleed.

When you post, could you please address each question differently? (like 1 true - 2 true, or 1 true - 2 false because...)

Thanks again.


Are you permitted 3rd party material? Because the super genius games Talented Monk solves this problem explicately. You take the natural weapon fighting style (which includes unarmed strikes). No need for feral combat training. The rules for the fighting styles already does that. And the deadly strikes talent means they will scale the way unarmed strike does.

Keep in mind though when attacking with an unarmed strike or manufactured weapon, natural weapons all become secondary (at a -5 penalty to attack) unless you have multiattack (which reduces it to -2).

The Exchange

No, this is for Pathfinder Society play.

Yes, there are plenty of threads for this, but I don't see an official ruling.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One thing to remember is that the Monk class augments Unarmed Strike by increasing the damage dice, so it also increases the damage dice of your claw attacks.


Dash Lestowe wrote:

Hello again,

I have another question in the lines of my feral Tiefling idea.

As a monk fighter, this is my build:

Tiefling Race - Maw or Claws (Claw)

1 Fighter (Unarmed)
- Lev 1 Feat: Weapon Focus (Claw)
- Bonus Feat: - Boar Style
- Bonus Feat: - Improved Unarmed Strike

2 Monk - Master of Styles
- Bonus Feat: - Boar Ferocity

3 Fighter
- Lev 3 Feat: Feral Combat Training (Claw)
- Bonus Feat: - Belier's Bite

---------------------------------

Could someone confirm that I am reading the rules correctly -

** spoiler omitted **

...

1. Yes its all technically legal, but a LOT of DM's don't like stacking unarmed with claws plus a bite. They consider it cheesy. Secondly if you're gonna go bel. bite I'm not sure it would stack with boar style so that's another grey area. Unless you're gonna tank str Dragon style is much better choice with the first 2 feats its almost doubles your str damage. one attack at double and the others at 1.5.

2 No. Monk unarmed damage isn't an effect so your claws don't suddenly do more damage. It just allows you to roll better dice because of your class on unarmed strikes. re read FCT improved unarmed combat isnt a preq for improved unarmed combat.

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 unsure whether FCT works like that. When it mentions feats, effects, and abilities, I would more imagine that it meant you could do things like stunning fist.

Well, while I can't make a conclusive argument about FCT, I can give you legitimate build advice. My question is this: do you need Belier's Bite?

I ask since you are already dealing 2d6 bleed damage with Boar Style when you full attack and bleed effects do not stack. The 1d4 bleed does not add up just because you hit with multiple attacks. The only advantage I see for that feat is that you can do a standard attack with it.

Another problem: I am fairly sure that unarmed strikes count as manufactured weapons for the purposes of how they work with natural attacks. So your claws would be secondary (1/2 strength damage and -5 to attack). Unfortunately, you cannot take multiattack (reduces the penalty to -2) outside of the 10 level combat feat for a natural attack ranger (which is generally useless in PFS since you are almost done)

Now, for a stylistic discussion: Do you need to combine two claws and some...kick? You can make fine bestial fighting styles with either a natural attack ranger (bite/claw/claw works well in the level range of PFS) or maybe just unarmed strikes and boar style (it is what a lot of the flavor text around the style is built around) and maybe TWF.

Sczarni

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.

Have you looked at the "Brawling" armor enchantment? It specifically says that it does not augment natural attacks, but I believe FCT would be the specific rule that trumps it.

It certainly adds more controversy to your already controversial build.

The Exchange

Thanks for the input so far!!

proftobe wrote:
1. Yes its all technically legal, but a LOT of DM's don't like stacking unarmed with claws plus a bite. They consider it cheesy. Secondly if you're gonna go bel. bite I'm not sure it would stack with boar style so that's another grey area. Unless you're gonna tank str Dragon style is much better choice with the first 2 feats its almost doubles your str damage. one attack at double and the others at 1.5.

Some clarification, while Belier's Bite sounds like it might be some sort of bite attack, it's not actually a bite. I don't see where that's being cheesy. Also, not saying that this build's full attack would be two claws, and an unarmed. They would be OR. (eg - two claws, or one unarmed)

I agree that there's some grey here, but that's because there's no definitive ruling on the topic. It seems there's many posts, and request's for FAQ, but the only official word is that claws can be used in a flurry. (In the FAQ)

-----------

As for the bleeds, I know they don't stack. There's many reasons for having both though. For example if one claw misses, you still get bleed. If both hit, you get a better bleed. AoO is just a single attack, move and attack, ready an attack, etc...

Nefreet wrote:

Have you looked at the "Brawling" armor enchantment? It specifically says that it does not augment natural attacks, but I believe FCT would be the specific rule that trumps it.

It certainly adds more controversy to your already controversial build.

Nope, I didn't look into that, but now that I see it, I would agree with you in that because of FCT, it should. It's not augmenting the Natural Attack. It's altering the unarmed strike, and because it's doing that, the FCT says that it would also apply to the selected natural attack.

The Exchange

Is anyone aware of an official post pertaining to these?

It seems the consensus here is that question one is correct. The posts so far have been split on question 2.


When it talks about "effects that augment Unarmed Strike", it's talking about things that add bonuses; ie. something that gives +2 specifically to Unarmed Strike damage would also give the +2 to your Claws with FCT. The Monk class feature Unarmed Strike is changing the damage dice of your Unarmed Strike weapon and is generally considered not an Augmentation. Also, it would involve calculating how d4 grows based on monk progression since Monk brings a non-monk d3 UAS up to d6 at lvl 1; what would d4 non-monk FCT(Claws) be raised to as a monk? d6? d8? It's more complicated than simply "+2 to unarmed strike damage" which can be adjudicated the same whether it's adding to a d3 mundane unarmed strike, a 2d10 lvl 20 Monk unarmed strike, or any variety of Claw or other natural weapon via FCT.

Grand Lodge

Indeed.

The extra damage provided by the Brawling enchantment cannot be seen as anything other than an effect that augments the Unarmed Strike.

Feral Combat Training would apply.

Sczarni

Keep in mind, though, that you can only take FCT once. It's not one of those feats that specifies you can take it multiple times.

Tengu might be a good race choice, too. If you choose the "claws" alternate racial trait you gain the added benefit of qualifying for feats that have IUS as a prerequisite. You wouldn't need to take levels in Monk.

Dark Archive

Kazaan wrote:
When it talks about "effects that augment Unarmed Strike", it's talking about things that add bonuses

I can completely understand and agree from an ease of figuring it out point of view that this makes sense, however PFS goes by RAW, and as written I'm not aware of anything in the rules which defines 'augment' as only applying to numerical bonuses (though I could certainly be wrong given the volume of the rules nowadays!).

A normal unarmed strike does d3, an effect of being a higher level monk is to have an increase in unarmed strike damage, thus, the power of your unarmed strike is... augmented. It really does open a can of worms as to whether the monk damage sets your claws to the same amount, if it increases it by a step or more, etc. But reading the abilities exactly as written, nowhere does it limit them to simple number increases.

The Exchange

I didn't really want to turn this into a post talking about semantics of words. Ruling out the increased damage that monks give unarmed strike wouldn't apply because of an interpretation of 'augment' seems to be heading in that direction though.

People interpret words with meanings differently, so to bring everyone to the same page, what does augment mean?

Miram Webster wrote:

Main Entry: 1aug·ment

Pronunciation: \ȯg-ˈment\
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French augmenter, from Late Latin augmentare, from Latin augmentum increase, from augēre to increase — more at eke
Date: 14th century
transitive verb
1 : to make greater, more numerous, larger, or more <the impact of the report was augmented by its timing> 2 : to add an augment to 3 : supplement <augmented her income>

http://i.word.com/idictionary/augment

Per the definition of the word both the <increase size abilities> +<different abilities> are augmenting. Now, that isn't in it of itself a definitive ruling, just a clarification of the word.


Dash Lestowe wrote:
I didn't really want to turn this into a post talking about semantics of words. Ruling out the increased damage that monks give unarmed strike wouldn't apply because of an interpretation of 'augment' seems to be heading in that direction though.

While that is a somewhat valid analysis, it has two errors:

1) It discounts mechanical restriction. This is a game system and that sometimes means it takes a far more restrictive meaning for the words used in order to maintain systematic balance.

2) It conflates the higher unarmed dice that a Monk gets at certain level thresholds as "increases" just because they are higher. Consider a person working at a company and, at different ranks, he is entitled to different pay grades. Say at rank F, his pay is $2,000, rank E it's $3,000, rank D it's $5,000, so on and so forth. When he's promoted from rank F to rank E, you might say that he "got a raise" with the promotion but, in reality, he's merely being set at a new pay threshold and, considering the difference in work and responsibility involved, if those properties could be unitized, his pay per unit of work and responsibility would likely come out roughly the same, maybe even lower. By contrast, if he proved to be highly capable in his rank, but unqualified to go up in rank due to lack of experience, desire, etc. he may remain at the same rank but be given an actual raise, say he's still rank E, but he gets paid $3,500. That would be an augmentation. In other words, Augmentation is like building an addition to your house while Monk unarmed increases are more like moving into a bigger house; the bigger house was already the size that it is and it should not be viewed as if your previous, smaller house had "grown" or "gotten bigger" or "been augmented".

Dark Archive

I understand the point, and it's well made, but *where* in the Pathfinder rules does it suggest that this is the correct interpretation as opposed to "anything that improves unarmed attacks, improves natural attacks". Lacking any such direction or FAQ from Paizo, I think it's going to be down to GM decision on how it works, so for PFS expect table variation.


Suthainn wrote:
I understand the point, and it's well made, but *where* in the Pathfinder rules does it suggest that this is the correct interpretation as opposed to "anything that improves unarmed attacks, improves natural attacks". Lacking any such direction or FAQ from Paizo, I think it's going to be down to GM decision on how it works, so for PFS expect table variation.

It's suggested by how it's lined up in a table rather than saying your damage dice "increases by 1 step" or implies that it's "growing". It simply states that you deal "more than a normal human" (big house vs small house argument) and it's based on set values on a table/chart rather than stating you "increase your damage dice by 1 step at each level threshold".


A monks unarmed strike isn't an augment to the weapon, it is a set damage that is dependant on level. When a monk is X level, it deals Y damage, not as if it were Z sizes larger.

The Exchange

Suthainn wrote:
I understand the point, and it's well made, but *where* in the Pathfinder rules does it suggest that this is the correct interpretation

Sometimes a spade is a spade. The FCT feat reads like it's intended to allow for one (specific) natural attack to be used just like a monk's unarmed strike. As others have pointed out, you can't take it multiple times, this seems to be it's offset (meaning just one and only one other ability can be used). --The two feat prerequisite seems to be a fair and substantial enough "cost" for this allowance.

The errata (and subsequent FAQ) appears to confirm that, allowing a lizard-folk monk to bite someone in a flurry, allowing for a poison attack to be made. The majority of FAQ clarifications seem to speak as to the intent of an ability they are clarifying.

I agree with you though, in that I have found no official ruling. That's what I was hoping to get from this post. Either someone who could link where it was officially answered, or an official answering. Perhaps if enough people FAQ request this thread, we could.

Pathfinder Core Rulebook wrote:
A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown above on Table 3–10.

The table 3-10 shows damage dice on it (D6, D8 etc...). The ability description says a monk "deals more damage" and how else would you, other than to (change, add to, replace, improve, etc...) augment the normal damage of an unarmed strike?

The Exchange

Has anyone else seen a ruling that I may have missed?

Sczarni

Feral Combat Training does not increase the base damage of your natural attacks - it doesn't say that it does such a thing and it doesn't imply it.

What it does it lets you use your NA as part of a FoB's... If you happen to have a Style Feat, like Dragon Style or Dragon Ferocity you can apply the effects of those feats to your NA.

If you want to increase the base damage die of your NA, there is a feat or that. It's called Improved Natural Attack (or Weapon, can't recall which word they use).

If you want to claim that FCT allows you to do damage with your NA as if you were a Monk of 'X' level, you need to find the official ruling that supports that. Not the other way around.

The Exchange

Krodjin wrote:
Feral Combat Training does not increase the base damage of your natural attacks - it doesn't say that it does such a thing and it doesn't imply it.

Thank you for your opinion. I encourage you to review this thread, specifically the parts where it clearly points out that it does, as well as the parts where others agree.

Feats and abilities that augment Unarmed Strike also apply to the Natural Attack specified. Monk levels augment a monks unarmed strike, and thereby are applied to the Natural Attack.

Weapon Finesse doesn't list out every single weapon it applies to, it says a general "light weapon"s, and specific other weapons. In the special, it lists natural weapons are considered light. When you review light weapon, there's simple, martial, exotic, alternate resource weapons. The list of weapons this applies to is not possible to list in the feat, just like the augments that augment unarmed strike, there are too many. It includes all - not needing to list each one individually.

.

I think for arguments sake, lets agree that there are two points of view here. Neither is wrong, just opposite sides of a coin. Which opinion do the Pathfinder creators have? I am asking if anyone else has read a post, that might contains an official response, please link it. If not, please click FAQ, and we can request them to let us know.

Sczarni

Can you quote the part that says it increases the base damage dice?

The Exchange

Krodjin wrote:
Can you quote the part that says it increases the base damage dice?

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.

---
Can you quote the part that says Weapon Finesse applies to a Shang Gou?

Shang Gou is a light weapon, and therefore is covered by the Weapon Finesse feat, even though it does not explicitly say so.

Monk levels augment an unarmed strike, and therefore are covered by Feral Combat Training feat, even though it does not explicitly say so.

---
The bolded part calls attention to effects that augment an unarmed strike. According to you, the feat only applies to other feats. So then why mention it twice? It specifically is referring to something other than just feats.

What do you feel are augments? (when you reply, can you quote the part that says that's an augment)


Setting the damage of the weapon isn't augmenting "unarmed strikes" it is saying it deals this amount of damage. The fluff description saying unarmed strikes deal more than the normal isn't stating that mechanically the ability is augmenting it.

Sczarni

Skylancer4 wrote:
Setting the damage of the weapon isn't augmenting "unarmed strikes" it is saying it deals this amount of damage. The fluff description saying unarmed strikes deal more than the normal isn't stating that mechanically the ability is augmenting it.

agreed. It's a class ability, that's all.

If they really intended the monks base UAS Dmg to apply to your NA they would have said so in the part of the feat description called "Special", the same place they mentioned it works with FoB's.

Of course you're free to play it as you wish, but I doubt it will fly at a PFS table.

The Exchange

Skylancer, and Kroddjin.

Organized debate also follows a system. When a person raises a point, and you don't address that point, you in essence agree with it.

Restating what you've previously stated without additional insight does not make what you've said a second time more potent. It's clear that you do not agree with the discussion I've presented. If there's any confusion, I understand your point of view. I accept that it's different, could you please accept that I disagree with you?

If you would allow me to give an example, this would be a rebuttal that would bring additional information to the table. I do accept that you disagree so I am not attempting to push this. Read at your option.

Spoiler:

From a mechanics standpoint, there are two effects that the monk class feature augments unarmed strike with, and a bonus feat.
Monk Unarmed Strike wrote:

Unarmed Strike: At 1st level, a monk gains Improved Unarmed Strike as a bonus feat. A monk's attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full. There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed. A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.

Usually a monk's unarmed strikes deal lethal damage, but he can choose to deal nonlethal damage instead with no penalty on his attack roll. He has the same choice to deal lethal or nonlethal damage while grappling.

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 also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown above on Table: Monk. The unarmed damage values listed on Table: Monk is for Medium monks. A Small monk deals less damage than the amount given there with his unarmed attacks, while a Large monk deals more damage; see Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage on the table given below.

Unarmed Attack wrote:

Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

Attacks of Opportunity: Attacking unarmed provokes an attack of opportunity from the character you attack, provided she is armed. The attack of opportunity comes before your attack. An unarmed attack does not provoke attacks of opportunity from other foes, nor does it provoke an attack of opportunity from an unarmed foe.

An unarmed character can't take attacks of opportunity (but see “Armed” Unarmed Attacks, below).

“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).

Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity).

Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of bludgeoning damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character's unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of bludgeoning damage, while a Large character's unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).

Dealing Lethal Damage: You can specify that your unarmed strike will deal lethal damage before you make your attack roll, but you take a –4 penalty on your attack roll. If you have the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, you can deal lethal damage with an unarmed strike without taking a penalty on the attack roll.

Improved Unarmed Strike Feat wrote:

Improved Unarmed Strike (Combat)

You are skilled at fighting while unarmed.

Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed—you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when you attack foes while unarmed. Your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your choice.

Normal: Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack.

Bonus Feat - Improved Unarmed Strike (this is reiterated in much of the flavor text)

Add weapon category - Manufactured Weapon.
Increase the damage.

Damage is usually increased by a +1, +2, etc... this is a different, but not unique way to raise damage (See Braid of a Hundred Masters - Note: spoilers if you look it up). It shares much in common with increasing the size of a weapon. (e.g. a static +2 size category, increasing by one every X levels)

Monk's Robe wrote:
This simple brown robe, when worn, confers great ability in unarmed combat. If the wearer has levels in monk, her AC and unarmed damage is treated as a monk of five levels higher. If donned by a character with the Stunning Fist feat, the robe lets her make one additional stunning attack per day. If the character is not a monk, she gains the AC and unarmed damage of a 5th-level monk (although she does not add her Wisdom bonus to her AC). This AC bonus functions just like the monk's AC bonus.

It's augment that can be granted with an item. (as well as others)


OK then since nothing less than a FAQ will answer this question for you I again state that most GM's in PFS are going to go for a more conservative interpretation of the rules this being such a grey area.

PS
I don't think this needs a FAQ because the intent is in the rules, but a LOT of people thought the same when I brought up a similar issue about using fighter levels to retrain monk bonus feats and I got a FAQ so more power to you.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

One thing to note, while you'd be gaining more damage in this instance, a precedent for Feral Combat Training applying a monk's damage to the selected natural attack could also result in the damage being lowered.

As a kind of weird corner case example, a Martial Artist / Barbarian who took Fiend Totem, Lesser and Feral Combat Training would actually have his Gore damage lowered from a d8 to a d6. In that instance, Monk Unarmed Strike is expressly not an augment per the above dictionary definition.

I'm inclined to side with the portion of this argument that believes that Monk Unarmed Strike damage is not actually an augment, but rather just a base change in nature that does not interact with FCT.

Dark Archive

Ssalarn wrote:


As a kind of weird corner case example, a Martial Artist / Barbarian who took Fiend Totem, Lesser and Feral Combat Training would actually have his Gore damage lowered from a d8 to a d6. In that instance, Monk Unarmed Strike is expressly not an augment per the above dictionary definition.

I don't *think* that would be the case due to the language used in the FCT description where it says "...you can apply...". This seems to me to be pretty clearly offering you a choice as they don't say 'you must apply' or a flat 'you apply'.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Suthainn wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:


As a kind of weird corner case example, a Martial Artist / Barbarian who took Fiend Totem, Lesser and Feral Combat Training would actually have his Gore damage lowered from a d8 to a d6. In that instance, Monk Unarmed Strike is expressly not an augment per the above dictionary definition.
I don't *think* that would be the case due to the language used in the FCT description where it says "...you can apply...". This seems to me to be pretty clearly offering you a choice as they don't say 'you must apply' or a flat 'you apply'.

You "can" apply it, but if you "did" apply it, it would lower the damage, no? This would mean it's not strictly an augment as it doesn't, by default, increase damage, but rather sets it to a certain amount based on character size and level.

I know this is a little out there, but let's say I had a race whose racial ability was like "Fists of Iron: The Golemites have unnaturally hard and rough-edged skin, causing their unarmed strikes to deal 1d8 damage instead of 1d3". The Monk class sets the damage to set amounts based on monk size and level, so it would actually lower the damage.
So the ability, while typically acting as an augment for most creatures, is not actually an augment because it just switches out normal values for set level based values instead of actually increasing the base value by a forrmulaic amount (like if it were to say "at the listed levels the monk increases his unarmed strike die as though he had gone up one size category").

The Exchange

Ssalarn wrote:

I know this is a little out there, but let's say I had a race whose racial ability was like "Fists of Iron: The Golemites have unnaturally hard and rough-edged skin, causing their unarmed strikes to deal 1d8 damage instead of 1d3". The Monk class sets the damage to set amounts based on monk size and level, so it would actually lower the damage.

So the ability, while typically acting as an augment for most creatures, is not actually an augment because it just switches out normal values for set level based values instead of actually increasing the base value by a forrmulaic amount (like if it were to say "at the listed levels the monk increases his unarmed strike die as though he had gone up one size category").

Great point!

Going with your example, if such a race was out there, I would expect that it would follow something similar to how other "extra" races are presented, such as the goblin or the tiefling.

There would be some flavor text talking about the abilities of the Golemites, and then there would be a racial traits section.

Golemites Racial Traits wrote:

+2 Strength, –2 Dexterity: Golemites are are strong, but not that quick in body.

Golemite: Golemites are humanoids with the golemite subtype.

Medium: Golemites are Medium creatures and receive no bonuses or penalties due to their size.

Normal Speed: Golemites have a base speed of 30 feet.

Fist of Iron: Golemites are treated as having an unarmed strike of three size categories larger than normal.

When you take monk, your D3 would become augmented to a D6 (D3->D4->D6), then the Golemite racial would turn your unarmed into 2D6 (D6->D8->D10->2D6).

Without levels of monk, your D3 would become the D8 (D3->D4->D6->D8) as you describe.

From what I have seen, when a new source book introduces a new ability, it seems to come with a "backwards compatibility" of sorts. When the core classes were written, there was not knowledge of rise of the golemites. As such, the books previous to their up-rise, would not contain special wording, feat nuances, or other such appreciation for the golemites. This isn't to say that they cannot be played in society. It just means that there needs to be some errata (FAQ), or otherwise clarifying possible conflicts with previously written abilities.

I feel that's why flurry of blows is specifically called out in the special section of FTC. Other effects that augment don't need to be specifically called out anymore than a light weapon needs to have an errata created for it when it comes out. (like the Shang Gou)

Paizo Employee Design Manager

I think that that's largely just (educated) assumption though. There isn't anything that actualy says the monk's damage is increased by x steps, only a chart that says "At this level, a monk's UAS damage is this amount". It's more of a set and lock.

That being said, I do think that the idea was to progress the monk's UAS damage based on a natural and predictive progression following the same basic progression as size based increases, but that isn't actually spelled out or indicated (except by indirect implication) anywhere, meaning that without clarification either translation is equally valid and leaving a good bit of room for GM interpretation.

There isn't anything that actually says "the monk's unarmed strike is increased by 2 steps at first level"; instead it just states "monk's deal damage based on their level following the above chart".

So is it an actual progressive ability granting effective "size" increases (in which case it would be an augment and would work with FTC as described), or is it a static ability that basically says "when A equals X, B equals Y" (in which case it isn't truly an augment and doesn't interact with FCT)?

The Exchange

Ssalarn wrote:

There isn't anything that actually says "the monk's unarmed strike is increased by 2 steps at first level"; instead it just states "monk's deal damage based on their level following the above chart".

So is it an actual progressive ability granting effective "size" increases (in which case it would be an augment), or is it a static ability that basically says "when a equals x, b equals y" (in which case it isn't truly an augment and doesn't interact with FCT).

Another good point. I agree with you in that it doesn't say that it's a static +2 size category bonus.

Look at the unarmed damage chart, the weapon size chart, and the monk damage chart.

Spoiler:

Small Medium Large (Unarmed)
1d2 1d3 1d4

Tiny Medium Large (Weapon size)
— 1d2 1d3
1 1d3 1d4
1d2 1d4 1d6
1d3 1d6 1d8
1d4 1d8 2d6
1d6 1d10 2d8
1d8 1d12 3d6
1d4 2d4 2d6
1d8 2d6 3d6
1d10 2d8 3d8
2d6 2d10 4d8

Level Small Medium Large (Monk)
1st 1d4 1d6 1d8
2nd 1d4 1d6 1d8
3rd 1d4 1d6 1d8
4th 1d6 1d8 2d6
5th 1d6 1d8 2d6
6th 1d6 1d8 2d6
7th 1d6 1d8 2d6
8th 1d8 1d10 2d8
9th 1d8 1d10 2d8
10th 1d8 1d10 2d8
11th 1d8 1d10 2d8
12th 1d10 2d6 3d6
13th 1d10 2d6 3d6
14th 1d10 2d6 3d6
15th 1d10 2d6 3d6
16th 2d6 2d8 3d8
17th 2d6 2d8 3d8
18th 2d6 2d8 3d8
19th 2d6 2d8 3d8
20th 2d6 2d10 4d8


While it doesn't say that it is a +2 weapon size augment, when you look at the charts, that's exactly how it translates.

It's easier to say D6/D8/D(whatever) on a chart displaying monk levels, than it is to say:

Unarmed Strike wrote:
A monks unarmed attacks should be treated as a regular unarmed attack of two size categories larger than appropriate for the creatures size. This bonus increases by one size category every 4 levels beyond 3rd level.

That's quite a mouthful!

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Dash Lestowe wrote:

***While it doesn't say that it is a +2 weapon size augment, when you look at the charts, that's exactly how it translates.

***

I agree that it follows that progression (more or less), but the areas they've left un-elaborated upon are basically the areas that are going to cause a difference of opinion here.

Something that gives a progression that behaves like a set of size increases under its default assumptions is not necessarily the same as actual size increases. And if you assume that they are actually size increases, you create other issues. Since a Monk's Unarmed Strike ability is giving size increases in your interpretation, how does that work with abilities that increase size, like Enlarge Person, which specifically doesn't work with other size-increasing abilities but which has been assumed to work for monks pretty much without question up to this point.


Also, there is a discrepancy - according to the size increase chart, it would never have been a d10, 2d8, or 2d10... instead it would have gone from d8 to 2d6, from 2d6 to 3d6, and then there is no further example...

To clarify; the monk UAS is: d6>d8>d10>2d6>2d8>2d10 whereas the weapon size increase would instead be d6>d8>2d6>3d6>?d?>?d?


Dash Lestowe wrote:

Skylancer, and Kroddjin.

Organized debate also follows a system. When a person raises a point, and you don't address that point, you in essence agree with it.

Restating what you've previously stated without additional insight does not make what you've said a second time more potent. It's clear that you do not agree with the discussion I've presented. If there's any confusion, I understand your point of view. I accept that it's different, could you please accept that I disagree with you?

If you would allow me to give an example, this would be a rebuttal that would bring additional information to the table. I do accept that you disagree so I am not attempting to push this. Read at your option.
** spoiler omitted **

...

Restating the point reinforces it versus an argument that has nothing but circumstantial points. It is the difference between saying this is what it says, and this is what it could say. No where in the Unarmed Strike ability does it state the mechanics are "US deals damage as if you were a size larger, at the next level range it deals damage as if two sizes larger, etc." An augment adds something to the base ability, the monk US ability sets the 'base ability' at something. Small but important difference.

RAW has a great deal of rulings that go to great pains differentiating and limiting monk abilities and interaction with natural attacks. The FAQ example explains how FCT works (essentially the natural attack is a "monk weapon" if you read it) and not once in any discussion to date has a Paizo employee or FAQ mentioned damage alteration. This is one of those "it doesn't say I can't do it so it is possible" discussions when every other rule points or implies the opposite.

Grand Lodge

Skylancer4 wrote:
This is one of those "it doesn't say I can't do it so it is possible" discussions when every other rule points or implies the opposite.

I hardly think this is one of those discussions. Nobody's claiming anything along the lines of the "it doesn't say I can't fly by waving my arms therefore I can" claims typical of those discussions. The matter at hand is a rules question: Does the increased base damage of unarmed strikes from the monk class feature count as an augmentation that satisfies the language of the feral combat training feat?

Kobold tail attachments are an example of the word "augment" being applied to an increase in base damage.

From the PRD:

Kobold Tail Attachments wrote:
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.
Tail Terror wrote:

Tail Terror (Combat)

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.

The table of tail attachments lists several varieties. Some of these varieties change the base damage of the kobold's tail slap. A kobold with the Tail Terror feat does 1d4 base damage with his tail slap. If he were to equip a Pounder, Razored, or Spiked Tail Attachment, the base damage of his tail slap would increase to 1d6.

Thus, we have official language describing the base damage of a natural attack increasing by using a higher die as an augment. Based on this precedent, I believe that Feral Combat Training does apply the die base damage increase of a monk's unarmed strike feature to the selected natural weapon attack. At a PFS table I would allow the feat to work that way, unless contradicted by a FAQ.

The Exchange

karossii wrote:

Also, there is a discrepancy - according to the size increase chart, it would never have been a d10, 2d8, or 2d10... instead it would have gone from d8 to 2d6, from 2d6 to 3d6, and then there is no further example...

To clarify; the monk UAS is: d6>d8>d10>2d6>2d8>2d10 whereas the weapon size increase would instead be d6>d8>2d6>3d6>?d?>?d?

You are absolutely correct, I did overlook that, my apologies. The small and large progressions advance as a +2 size, however.

I even looked up all the damage charts for sizing, weapons, even old 3.5 rules and can't see why they choose that particular progression. I will concede that as a whole, a monk unarmed strike is not just a static +2 size category increase augment. (but I still believe it still is a unarmed strike augment)

Red Ramage wrote:
Thus, we have official language describing the base damage of a natural attack increasing by using a higher die as an augment. Based on this precedent, I believe that Feral Combat Training does apply the die base damage increase of a monk's unarmed strike feature to the selected natural weapon attack. At a PFS table I would allow the feat to work that way, unless contradicted by a FAQ.

Nice find!

When I was speaking to the Golemite example, that is the way I believed they would introduce new races. Thanks for confirming that!

Skylancer, thank you for your input.

The Exchange

In this thread, it shows that the question was answered in the FAQ, but I don't see any mention of it. Do they remove answers after a while?


Dash Lestowe wrote:

In this thread, it shows that the question was answered in the FAQ, but I don't see any mention of it. Do they remove answers after a while?

It wasn't removed, the same FAQ since being put out. The answered in FAQ is probably referring to the fact that the selected natural attack is used as a monk weapon. A monk weapons damage isn't altered by a monks unarmed strike class ability, it uses its own statistics but it *can* be used in place of unarmed strikes in some cases.

The Exchange

Skylancer4 wrote:
It wasn't removed, the same FAQ since being put out. The answered in FAQ is probably referring to the fact that the selected natural attack is used as a monk weapon. A monk weapons damage isn't altered by a monks unarmed strike class ability, it uses its own statistics but it *can* be used in place of unarmed strikes in some cases.

Thanks for the quick response Sky.

If it wasn't removed, could you help me find where in the FAQ the brawler archtype for a fighter is mentioned with regards to the Feral Combat Training feat? I must have overlooked it.

Also, could you also help me understand how that thread had anything to do with monks unarmed strike class ability? The way I read it, the original poster was trying to make a fighter, and gave no impression of taking levels of monk.

I found the thread while doing research to see what augments that Paizo has allowed with the feat. Agreeing to disagree with your opinion about monks IUAS, I'd still like to know what you feel an augment is. (not in semantics, or word-play; actual in-game augments)

The Exchange

Did some looking, and here are a list of things that I believe apply to natural attacks (Only because of Feral Combat Training)

Items:
Armor Property - Brawling
Wonderous Item - Sash of Flowing Water
Ring - Ring of Strength Sapping
Gloves - Perilous Gloves
There are also a few items that give you a natural attack.

Feats:
Improved Unarmed Strike Feats (All of them)

Class abilities:
Barbarian - Brawler -- This is very similar to the Monk's augment
Fighter - Weapon Mastery
Monk - Unarmed Strike

Cleric Domain:
Decay/Plant (Wooden Fist)
Metal

Spells:
Weapon of Awe
Blood Crow Strike
Geniekind
Iron Body
Ki Arrow
Strangling Hair
Ice Body
Stone Fist
Animal Aspect
Elemental Touch
Fiery Body

The Exchange Owner - D20 Hobbies

Dash Lestowe wrote:

1) claw attacks now also has this ability.

2) A pair of claw attacks that do D6dmg + D4 bleed.
And a single unarmed strike, that does a D6dmg + D4 bleed.

1) FCT will allow Bleed on the Claws. If you hit with all, you roll 3 d4's and take the highest.

2) Monk Unarmed Strike is a class feature and I wouldn't allow FCT to alter the damage dice on Natural Weapons.

If you sit down to PFS with me, I'd rule this way and believe I'm following RAW (primarily because RAW doesn't directly address this question and this line of logic doesn't seem to be in line with what RAW does address.)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

As a PFS GM I wouldn't allow it either.

If the monk unarmed strike ability said increase the damage of your unarmed strike by X every 4 levels, it would have applied. Instead it simply lists the damage at respective levels. In other words your claws do X damage your Unarmed does X damage. If you have a feat/trait/ability that "augments" unarmed strike it applies. The extra damage is not an augment but a listed base damage of that ability.

The Exchange

Thanks for both of your comments.

It seems that everyone here agrees that the feats work and the +abilities to UAS.

The OP (question one) by consensus appears to be a solid yes. Belier's Bite, Brawling property, and other such effects do apply to the Natural Attacks selected.

As for question two, we are split about the semantics of what augment means. Augment by definition is to make greater, or to add to.

Taenia wrote:
If the monk unarmed strike ability said increase the damage of your unarmed strike by X every 4 levels, it would have applied. Instead it simply lists the damage at respective levels. In other words your claws do X damage your Unarmed does X damage. If you have a feat/trait/ability that "augments" unarmed strike it applies. The extra damage is not an augment but a listed base damage of that ability.

Is it accurate to summarize that this is the basis for these who feel that monk levels do not augment UAS?

For closure sake, would anyone disagree that we've heard both sides on this?

_____________________

TLDR for a paizo staffer:

Changing a D3 to a D6 is making the damage greater, but is it an augment --and thereby part of the feat?

Those who feel an upgraded die is an augment (by definition) feel it should apply.
Those who feel that changing a die is not an augment (instead a base change) feel it should not.

Either opinion you may have, I encourage you to FAQ request this.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

It really does come down to whether it is setting the damage to a specific amount, or if is supposed to be granting an increase based upon some kind of scale. Since it doesn't follow a set size progression, how would you even know how to progress it?

If my natural attack is 2d6, and my unarmed strike is 1d8, should my natural attack be progressed the same number of steps it took my unarmed strike to use 1d8? Or is my unarmed strike "set" at 1d8, so that applying my monk unarmed strike ability to a natural attack would actually lower the damage? That's basically the real question. If it has the potential to lower the damage, it's not an augment and doesn't apply at all.

Grand Lodge

Ssalarn wrote:
It really does come down to whether it is setting the damage to a specific amount, or if is supposed to be granting an increase based upon some kind of scale.

I don't think that makes one bit of difference. The RAW language is "effects that augment an unarmed strike". There is no mention whatsoever of scaling vs specific amount augmentation.

Ssalarn wrote:
Or is my unarmed strike "set" at 1d8, so that applying my monk unarmed strike ability to a natural attack would actually lower the damage?

Earlier in this thread, it was pointed out that the RAW language was "you MAY apply", meaning that not everything that effects unarmed strikes HAS to be applied to the natural attack. It's a bit of an odd corner case, especially for PCs, but yes, a monster with an impressive natural attack would forgo the damage dice adjustment until it was favorable - but would legally be able to downgrade the damage dice if it wanted.

Ssalarn wrote:
That's basically the real question. If it has the potential to lower the damage, it's not an augment and doesn't apply at all.

I have searched for a RAW definition of the word "augment" and found no official RAW definition. Earlier in the thread I posted a case where increasing the damage dice of a natural attack (by equipping a kobold tail attachment) was described in RAW text as an augment.

I think we can all agree that adding static damage to an unarmed strike(for example, the Quain Martial Artist trait) would count as an augmentation. How then, could you claim that adding variable damage is not an augmentation? If turning a damage range of 1-4 into a damage range of 2-5 is an augmentation, then surely turning that 1-4 damage range into 1-6 is as well. Again, we have established that there is RAW describing turning a 1d4 kobold tail slap into a 1d6 tail slap as an augmentation (for citation, see my previous post). How then can you claim that turning a 1d4 unarmed strike into a 1d6 unarmed strike is not an augmentation?

I must emphasize that your argument must cite RAW to counter my argument that RAW supports my interpretation of the Feral Combat Training feat. Arguments such as

Taenia wrote:
If the monk unarmed strike ability said increase the damage of your unarmed strike by X every 4 levels, it would have applied. Instead it simply lists the damage at respective levels. In other words your claws do X damage your Unarmed does X damage. If you have a feat/trait/ability that "augments" unarmed strike it applies. The extra damage is not an augment but a listed base damage of that ability.

do not stand up to RAW scrutiny. Feral Combat training, by RAW, does not exclude class abilities or specify the metric by which augmentations must be measured or granted. By RAW, any effect that augments an unarmed strike CAN be legally applied to the selected natural weapon. Unless you can find RAW - or a FAQ - that defines "augment" in such a way as to exclude an increase in base damage die, you are obligated to allow my interpretation of FCT at your PFS table or be in violation of PFS rules.


@red: i think you will quickly run out of places to play if you show up with that attitude.
I dont know if you are rigth but. If you come to have fun, and not practise your skills in holding your breath til you get it your way, then stay away from builds that need a contested RAW to shine.

Grand Lodge

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. For what it's worth, if I sat at a table with a GM who flat out told me no, I'd downgrade my damage (1d6 to 1d4 is 1 pt of damage on average), play the scenario, and have a chat with the GM afterwards. Nobody's time or fun is at stake here on the forums.

1 to 50 of 173 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Advice: Feral Combat Training All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.