I disagree with Archaeik on this.
Yes FCT does say effects that augment unarmed strikes work with natural attacks but the specific enchant states it does NOT work on natural attacks.
Specific rules trump general rules always so in this case I'm pretty sure brawling doesn't work with these.
Depends on which rule is "more specific". One could argue that while the Brawling Armor entry is a specific rule, the Feral Combat Training feat is more specific (so to speak), so it has priority.
It's actually a fair question. I honestly don't know at this point if there's an easy answer. I'd err on allowing them to work together.
|
Hmmm, tricky. I think I agree with fretgod99 and Archaeik on this; to me it's quite clear that the limitation on natural weapons is meant to prevent just about any character/monster using natural weapons in combat from gaining that bonus. However, you'll gain the benefit if you're willing to spend a feat.
Look at it like this.
The armor isn't applying the bonus to your natural attacks, as the armor states that it won't. Instead, the armor is applying the effect to your unarmed strikes. Only then is your feat applying the effect affecting your unarmed strikes to your natural attacks.
I also think it should work.
To me (and this is just my reading of it) you have the normal situation being that unarmed strikes specify that anything that enhances natural or manufactured weapons can apply to unarmed strikes.
Then brawling armor specifies that it is intended to work on unarmed strikes, but not natural weapons.
Then FCT specifies that a boost to unarmed strikes also affect natural weapons.
So the brawling armor is affecting your unarmed strikes, then FCT passes the effect to your natural attacks.
Brawling armor is the more general statement because it applies in more situations. Anyone, even someone with natural weapons, can make unarmed strikes.
FCT is the more specific rule since it requires you to have natural weapons and take the feat.
|
|
Look at it like this.
The armor isn't applying the bonus to your natural attacks, as the armor states that it won't. Instead, the armor is applying the effect to your unarmed strikes. Only then is your feat applying the effect affecting your unarmed strikes to your natural attacks.
That would require ignoring the base rule that effects and conditions are applied in the most restrictive order. Under those rules you'd apply the armor power to the natural attacks first (and it fails) then you'd apply the feat effect afterwards. You'd get all the other benefits of the feat but not the armor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That would require ignoring the base rule that effects and conditions are applied in the most restrictive order.
Care to quote that rule?
There is no such rule, at least not for the general case. There is an erratum for determining the effective level of a spell for a purpose not specifically addressed (such as whether a pearl of power can recall a metamagicked spell). There is no corresponding meta-rule for all things.
The text for armor of brawling is clearly intended to head off players that want to use its enhancements on their natural weapons in the general case--and you know there would have been threads and threads about it if that text wasn't present. Feral Combat Training, however, allows the unarmed strike augmentation to apply to natural weapons, so it works just fine. That is the "specific trumps general" being looked for, as the brawling text is simply a restatement of the general rule, not a specific, forward-looking override.
In my opinion, since there are more items in Pathfinder than feats, the feat is the general and the armor is the specific. Therefore I would say that this does not work, since the specific wording of the armor trumps the general wording of the feat.
Additionally, I would rule it this way, since the Brawling Armor came out more recently and could have been given an exception for Feral Combat Training, but was given no such exception. (Granted, it's possible that it didn't come up, or that it came up, but the person who created the item was in favor of ruling it the way others here are interpreting it, and therefore thoughts such verbiage was unnecessary. Or such a line was added and then removed during editing to save space, ect. Admittedly, this point is a weaker one than my first.)
|
I think that RAW says yes. Now, RAI seems to be no, as the armor isn't supposed to apply to unarmed strikes. I think that you are burning 2 feats into using natural attacks, that you may have to burn feats into getting (such as razortusk or the ranger's aspect of the beast), it should apply that +2 to attack and damage (which isn't all that much anyway).
The Dev team has said many times that information in a book usually only assumes Core content. The armor enchantment couldn't mention a feat that doesn't exist in the same book or Core book. The fact it isn't addressed specifically isn't really an argument for or against it.
I don't understand your "more items means item is more specific" idea.
|
|
I think you should look at this FAQ.
Yeah but that faq has nothing to do with this question. one feat says one thing and the item in question specifically denies it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you should look at this FAQ.Yeah but that faq has nothing to do with this question. one feat says one thing and the item in question specifically denies it.
Yes it does.
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.
The FAQ solidifies what happens when you have an effect that augment an unarmed strike, which Brawling Armor is.
|
|
I think you should look at this FAQ.Yeah but that faq has nothing to do with this question. one feat says one thing and the item in question specifically denies it.Yes it does.
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.The FAQ solidifies what happens when you have an effect that augment an unarmed strike, which Brawling Armor is.
Yes, but it never says it stops being a natural attack at the same time. For spells and effects it's treated as an unarmed strike AND as a natural attack. Since brawling doesn't work on natural attacks it still doesn't work.
Is it a big deal? Not really, it's just a +2 hit/damage/grapple and I wouldn't mind if it did. BUT as written I"m still feeling it goes against the RAW and RAI of this enchant.
|
|
Put me down for it works.
Armor prevents you from using natural attacks, it just buffs UAS. FCT makes one natural weapon allow effects that add everything that enhances an UAS. I think when the two rules collide the item is less specific because it is applying to a more general group "natural attacks" while FCT is focusing on a specific set of benefits.
|
|
I think you should look at this FAQ.Yeah but that faq has nothing to do with this question. one feat says one thing and the item in question specifically denies it.Yes it does.
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.The FAQ solidifies what happens when you have an effect that augment an unarmed strike, which Brawling Armor is.Yes, but it never says it stops being a natural attack at the same time. For spells and effects it's treated as an unarmed strike AND as a natural attack. Since brawling doesn't work on natural attacks it still doesn't work.
Is it a big deal? Not really, it's just a +2 hit/damage/grapple and I wouldn't mind if it did. BUT as written I"m still feeling it goes against the RAW and RAI of this enchant.
Your argument of "specific>general", supports it, as much as you use it against it.
Normally, Brawling does not effect natural weapons, but the specific wording of Feral Combat Training creates an exception.
I almost always go for the most restrictive interpretation of things, and I see the Feral Combat Training and Brawling armor as two opposite with no clear indication of which should take precedent so I say no, it doens't work to keep in line with the more restricted interpretation.
|
|
I don't think the write up for Brawling could anymore clearly state that it does not work.
Indeed. It clearly does not work, normally.
Feral Combat Training creates an exception.
Just as Dragon Style clearly does not work, normally, on a natural attack, and then Feral Combat Training creates an exception.
I agree that it should work.
The armor states that the ability does not apply to natural attacks, but the feat states that the one chosen natural attack does receive benefits that apply to unarmed strikes.
Yes, but it never says it stops being a natural attack at the same time. For spells and effects it's treated as an unarmed strike AND as a natural attack.
Actually, I read it differently. It doesn't say that the attack counts as both a natural attack AND an unarmed strike. It says that one specific natural attack can ALSO benefit from effects normally available only to unarmed strikes.