|
| 35 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Answered in the FAQ. 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Prerequisite: 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.
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.
"Effect" and "Augment" are not defined terms in the rules, so I am reading those words with their common english meaning.
Effect: change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.
"the lethal effects of hard drugs"
Augment: make (something) greater by adding to it; increase.
"he augmented his summer income by painting houses"
The question at hand: Is the increased damage of a Monk's unarmed strike an "effect that augments an unarmed strike"?
My answer: yes. Increasing the damage done with an unarmed strike is clearly augmenting the attack by the dictionary definition. The increased damage is a change to the base damage caused by being a monk, and is an effect.
Using this reading, a Tengu monk with the claws alternate class feature and Feral Combat Training would do his monk unarmed damage with his claw attacks (Ie 1d6 at levels 1-3).
This is for PFS and the naysayers have requested an official response. If the topic interests you, please hit the FAQ button.
|
FAQ'd, but I'm pretty sure that the unarmed strike class feature doesn't count as a feat.
Prerequisite: 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.
So, I don't think it will work.
Design Manager
|
FAQ'd, but I'm pretty sure that the unarmed strike class feature doesn't count as a feat.So, I don't think it will work.Prerequisite: 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.
FCT isn't just feats though. It says "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". So it should be feats with IUS as a prereq, and effects that augment an unarmed strike, which could be spells, equipment abilities, class features, etc.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
It is my view that Monk unarmed strike doesn't augment natural 1d3 unarmed strike but rather replaces it.
As such it isn't applied to Natural Weapons. If it were applied, there is no language to express how it is to be applied. There would need to be language to tell you how to apply it or it can't uniformly be applied. Additionally, the existing FAQ would have covered this point while on the subject of this feat.
Well, that is the question isn't it.
If the class feature to increase unarmed strike damage is an effect, then it should also increase natural weapon damage.
If it is not an effect, then it doesn't.
Effect is not a defined term, but I would personally interpret it widely. Class features, feats, and spells are all effects that affect a change.
DOT
I would suggest adding in your point by point post that covers the various objections to the OP if you're able, as that will give a good breakdown of the reason you're looking for the FAQ.
|
|
I don't think this works. The monks unarmed strike damage isn't augmented its assigned a value based on level. If the monks used any words that said the unarmed strike damage increases with level then it might apply instead it says "A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would."
The value is assigned not an increase or an augment
I do not think the monk feature is enhancing your unarmed attack, it is just giving you one that is better than the norm. Much like a bastard sword is better than a long sword, but the bastard sword isn't an augmented long sword, it is a different weapon.
Of course, my alchemist grappler with FCT and monsterous form extracts would love it to be otherwise.
I don't think this works. The monks unarmed strike damage isn't augmented its assigned a value based on level. If the monks used any words that said the unarmed strike damage increases with level then it might apply instead it says "A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would."
The value is assigned not an increase or an augment
An Augmentation does not have to be an enhancment to be an Augmentation it just has to be a change.
|
|
FCT isn't just feats though. It says "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". So it should be feats with IUS as a prereq, and effects that augment an unarmed strike, which could be spells, equipment abilities, class features, etc.
Oh, sorry, I was misreading that. I guess it would seem like it might. Still gray area.
This idea that monk doesn't "augment/increase/enhance" unarmed strikes sounds strange to me.
A normal person can make unarmed strikes.
A normal person with IUS can make unarmed strikes, but better.
A monk can make unarmed strikes even better than that.
A monk's attacks are still called unarmed strike, same as a normal person's.
So you feel that monk "replaces" unarmed strike with.......unarmed strike? How does that make sense.
The word augment just means "makes better." All unarmed strikes have an assigned value. Monk assigns a higher value to the same ability (unarmed strikes) that everyone has, therefore it has augmented it.
Thats like saying you have worked a job for a year and get a raise. But the raise isn't an augmentation to your pay, it is a replacement for your pay or it is an higher assigned value than the pay you used to receive. It ignores what "augment" means as a word.
This idea that monk doesn't "augment/increase/enhance" unarmed strikes sounds strange to me.
A normal person can make unarmed strikes.
A normal person with IUS can make unarmed strikes, but better.
A monk can make unarmed strikes even better than that.
A monk's attacks are still called unarmed strike, same as a normal person's.So you feel that monk "replaces" unarmed strike with.......unarmed strike? How does that make sense.
The word augment just means "makes better." All unarmed strikes have an assigned value. Monk assigns a higher value to the same ability (unarmed strikes) that everyone has, therefore it has augmented it.Thats like saying you have worked a job for a year and get a raise. But the raise isn't an augmentation to your pay, it is a replacement for your pay or it is an higher assigned value than the pay you used to receive. It ignores what "augment" means as a word.
Have to agree with that point. By the simplest definition (Which I like to assume is the correct one for rules arguments) the monk augments unarmed strike damage.
As a rule, I tend to dislike any argument that hinges too much on really fine semantics like saying increased damage doesn't technically augment unarmed strike or that effects that improve unarmed strike don't include class features. Admittedly, that's partially a product of my own preference for keeping the rules as simple and straightforward as possible.
That's a good preference to have.
Another point to consider: If the monk's increased unarmed strike damage doesn't augment an unarmed strike, then what does? Are there any examples in the game of an effect that augments an unarmed strike?
Good question: of the top of my head i think greater magic weapon and possibly the sensais indsigthfull strike proberly more i will look in the books when i get home.
Edit: sorry i Spell bad.|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Good question: of the top of my head i think greater magic weapon and possibly the sensais indsigthfull strike proberly more i will look in the books when i get home.
Edit: sorry i Spell bad.
the Sensei's Insightfull Strike is a class feature - if you allow that then you have to allow the monk damage.
As for Magic Weapon, by RAW it's a "spell". FCT doesn't say "spells that augment", it says "effects that augment". I happen to agree that Magic Weapon works in this case - but I'm going to hold you to the same standard of proof to which you're holding me.
Good question: of the top of my head i think greater magic weapon and possibly the sensais indsigthfull strike proberly more i will look in the books when i get home.
Edit: sorry i Spell bad.the Sensei's Insightfull Strike is a class feature - if you allow that then you have to allow the monk damage.
As for Magic Weapon, by RAW it's a "spell". FCT doesn't say "spells that augment", it says "effects that augment". I happen to agree that Magic Weapon works in this case - but I'm going to hold you to the same standard of proof to which you're holding me.
I just answred( however you spell that) in the other thread.
I cant belive i ditent see this one coming, good one.If my GM Said that Magic weapon or indsigthfull strike is no good with FCT i think i would lave or play along depending on other factors. And most likely i would be overlydsfly careful with that GM in the future.
As an side i am not Holding you to Andy standard. I think you have presentens your arguments very nicely and professionally. In the other thread i was mainly suggesting that no argument no matter how good you or me(in this case mostly you since we dissagree) think it is only will solve a situation if the other part is convinced.
But i FAQed the thing mostly to get the notion, that you need to scale the natural attack based on the base damage of it in the same Way that the unarmed attack is increased by level, out of the way( and i realize that was never your position)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cross-posted from other thread.
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.
I don't follow your reasoning. Monks have a class feature that increases a pre-existing ability (unarmed strikes do more damage). In what way did I imply BAB was an effect?
BAB is not a class feature. Don't believe me? It isn't listed under any class's "Class Feature" section.
BAB is the base mechanic. Effects can affect it, but it is not an effect itself.
Unarmed strike is the base mechanic for the feat, monk affects it.
|
|
I am not actually trying to convince anyone that BAB is, or is not, a class feature.
I am noting that the way the Monk's unarmed strike damage is being argued as an effect, and an effect that "augments" an unarmed strike, is comparable in it's logic, or rather the logic being used here, as trying convince one that BAB is an effect.
I don't see that the logic is the same at all. The definition of attacks includes BAB, so it isn't an effect that affects attacks, it is a base component of what an attack is.
This is not true of monk unarmed strike.
An analogy is a illustrative presentation where the logic in each situation must be the same. The logic in these two situations isn't the same so it is a failed analogy.
I would say yes... augment an unarmed strike language is pretty clear.
And under the monk unarmed strike feature it says that a monks unarmed strike "deals more damage .. than a normal person would"
So overall I think you should be able to use the full description of unarmed strike feature to effect natural weapons. This would mean that magic weapon would also work... since a monk can treat their strikes as manufactured weapons.
I am not sure, however, that I wouldn't overide the monks unarmes strike feature if that monk were to wildshape or gain a wholly different form via a polymorph effect if that is where you were going. I would say that this feature would be tied to the monks base form (as would any feature from the monk that refers directly to the body like purity of body... diamond body etc.)
Fluff has never dictated actual game mechanics. Often times the fluff is at odds with the mechanics too.
Fluff has never dictated actual game mechanics. Often times the fluff is at odds with the mechanics too.
Agreed... but since augment is not an actual game term, as far as I am aware, this is grounds for trying to decipher the RAI. In which cases, the fluff text can be very helpful.
Note that when I spoke about polymorphing (which states RAW that a gm should determine what things are necessarily attributed to a characters base form) I was using fluff to adjudicate. Diamond body implies strict long term physical and spiritual training of the characters actual body.... this is not RAW but these are the rules as I interpret them.
|
|
Blackbloodtroll, your analogy is highly suspect. Nobody has an ability called "attacks" that is "augmented" by a BAB progression. An attack is a standard action, not a class feature. Literally every single class has a BAB progression and can make attacks. Every single class can also make an unarmed strike - yet, only the monk has a class ability called unarmed strike. Mosey on over to the PRD and check it out - it's chock full of special qualities (dare I say effects?) that the monk, and only the monk gets. While you're there, notice that BAB is not listed under the heading "class abilities", while "unarmed strike" is. Base Attack Bonus is listed under the "common terms" section of the Getting Started chapter, which notes that BAB is something "that each creature has". Clearly, BAB is explicitly not a class feature, while the monk's unarmed strike explicitly is.
Also, I sure hope BAB effects one's unarmed strikes, otherwise I've been playing this game in an illegal way for quite awhile!
|
|
Blackbloodtroll, your analogy is highly suspect. Nobody has an ability called "attacks" that is "augmented" by a BAB progression. An attack is a standard action, not a class feature. Literally every single class has a BAB progression and can make attacks. Every single class can also make an unarmed strike - yet, only the monk has a class ability called unarmed strike. Mosey on over to the PRD and check it out - it's chock full of special qualities (dare I say effects?) that the monk, and only the monk gets.
Also, I sure hope BAB effects one's unarmed strikes, otherwise I've been playing this game in an illegal way for quite awhile!
You missed the point too.
The analogy is faulty.
That's the point.
|
|
Well, BAB does apply to unarmed strikes. In a hypothetical rules set where attacks from manufactured weapons added the BAB to the attack roll but attacks with natural weapons did not, I would argue that feral combat training would count BAB as an effect that augments an unarmed strike.
In the real rules, that's not an issue.
Well, BAB does apply to unarmed strikes. In a hypothetical rules set where attacks from manufactured weapons added the BAB to the attack roll but attacks with natural weapons did not, I would argue that feral combat training would count BAB as an effect that augments an unarmed strike.
In the real rules, that's not an issue.
No it doesn't, it applies to the metagame mechanic we use to determine if the IUS/natural attack hits. It "augments" the attack roll if you are going to explain it in such terms, which would be incorrect to state. That it adds to the die roll doesn't mean it is an "effect", it just means the mechanics work in such a way that a total modifier is the sum of several parts.
What is the consequence of ruling that FCT allows your innate claws to benefit from IUS damage bumps from Monk levels ? Flurry/attack with IUS and then make secondary attacks with claws/bite (if FCT selected twice?) ?
Your regular humanoid will always have the extra natural attacks at -5 and 0.5 STR mod. SO even if the damage dice goes up, it's still small dmg bump. Am i missing something ?
Taking exotic races with claws and tail/bite/wing buffet could allow multiattack feat. But then it's rather feat intensive to actually get a couple more natural attacks at -2, still 0.5 str to dmg.
I know you want RAW ruling for PFS-style carte-blanche permission. But in the end the dev that will answer your FAQ will look at the big picture to allow it or not, since RAW seems muddy. THEN they will clear up the mud in the rules to allow or deny it, with the consequences in mind.
|
Design Manager
|
You can't make natural attacks in addition to a flurry. FCT allows you to make an attack with the selected unarmed strike in place of one of your flurry attacks. So instead of making 4 unarmed strikes, you could make 4 Bites at the standard Flurry bonuses. The question is, how much damage are you entitled to do with those Bites?
I won't press the matter, much, as i don't want to derail the thread.
You say you can't flurry and take natural attack because flurry is its own full round action?
As far as making regular attacks with IUS (base attack bonus, not bonified flurry), you can combine with natural attacks just fine?
Finally, if FCT allows Monks to use a bite/claw (with improved damage) for flurry of blows, what are the consequences ?
- flurry imposes 1 for 2 PA trade off, and 1x STR mod to dmg, right? So no shenanigans involving bites at 1.5 STR mod, or 1 for 3 PA, or whatnot, all this while flurry-ing.
- Improved dmg. Not much over pure IUS ?
- Apply feats that usually only boost bites/claws such as bleed ? Are there really broken combos ?
This has been a question for a while for me too. I have never tried it TBH, but it is definitely grounds for a FAQ. Since augment is a ridiculous word that means nothing according to RAW.
If you DO get the unarmed strike feature from the Monk, then this could be pretty great as a build.
Take a Druid-8/Monk-4
Take feral combat training, shaping focus, and monastic legacy while wearing a Monk's Robe.
Then shift into a Huge Earth Elemental.
Effective monk level = 13 so unarmed damage is 2d6...changes to 3d6 for large, then 4d6 for huge.
And instead of having only 2 slams, you can flurry for 3.
The base slam damage for an earth elem is 2d8, so you are going from (2-16) to (4-24), an effective average damage increase of +5 per attack, so that option is pretty weak
Flip that around to Saurian Shaman Druid-4/Monk-8
Same Feats minus monastic legacy (not worth it)
Effective monk level = 13
Effective druid level = 6 (10 for dinosaurs)
Then shift into an Allosaurus
it would have 1 bite, 2 claws, and 2 rake attacks all at 4d6 damage
and this is with pounce. Put on some Rhino Hide armor and you are dealing 6d6 per attack... put on a belt of thunderous charging and you are dealing 8d6 damage per attack, with 5 attacks on the charge. RAWR!
Pretty great.
You could also do this with, say, a giant octopus and the Sky Swim spell.
Then you would have 8 tentacle attacks and a bite
with an effective monk level of 13 that is 3d6 damage per attack
strong jaw for 6d6
This also would let you use the Brawling magic armor quality for the extra +2 to hit and damage, and with Dragon Ferocity you could get 1.5 Strength on every hit.
This is all a bit off-book though IMO, since Feral Combat Training says "one of YOUR natural weapons"
Maybe it could work if you had claws naturally and then shaped into a giant cat that also had claws... but otherwise it would be a tough sell.
|
|
Then shift into an Allosaurus
it would have 1 bite, 2 claws, and 2 rake attacks all at 4d6 damage
and this is with pounce. Put on some Rhino Hide armor and you are dealing 6d6 per attack... put on a belt of thunderous charging and you are dealing 8d6 damage per attack, with 5 attacks on the charge.
Keep in mind that Feral Combat Training only works for one selected natural attack, and there's no wordage that says "this feat can be selected several times each time applies to a different natural attack.", giving the impression, that the feat can only be taken once.
The above example of stacking buffs on a monk is no different than current stacking issues that a monk would have. FCT only allows you to use one natural attack like a monk would use it's unarmed strike.
|
|
No it doesn't, it applies to the metagame mechanic we use to determine if the IUS/natural attack hits. It "augments" the attack roll if you are going to explain it in such terms, which would be incorrect to state. That it adds to the die roll doesn't mean it is an "effect", it just means the mechanics work in such a way that a total modifier is the sum of several parts.Well, BAB does apply to unarmed strikes. In a hypothetical rules set where attacks from manufactured weapons added the BAB to the attack roll but attacks with natural weapons did not, I would argue that feral combat training would count BAB as an effect that augments an unarmed strike.
In the real rules, that's not an issue.
You are correct, which is why I'm unsure of the value of BBT's point.
The above example of stacking buffs on a monk is no different than current stacking issues that a monk would have. FCT only allows you to use one natural attack like a monk would use it's unarmed strike.
Agreed on that point. A pure monk who's been bumped up to huge size and has strong jaw on him is going to be putting out pretty scary damage numbers even without feral combat training.
It also occurs to me that letting a druid/monk apply his unarmed damage to a natural weapon he uses during a flurry doesn't really change the damage equation compared to just using unarmed strikes. Admittedly you can take Improved Natural Attack to increase your damage, but that's a two-feat investment, and I never liked the ruling that INA can't be taken on unarmed strikes anyway.