monkeying around with a monk + natural attacks...


Advice


Okay, so before I ask a few questions, the base situation... A multiclass monk (monk 4/alchemist 6) character with a single (primary) natural attack, feral combat training, a monk's robe, monastic legacy, and other possibly relevant feats and items to be detailed below.

a) effective strength score for the natural attack is 18/+4 - as his only natural attack, this allows him to add 1.5x (6) to damage, yes?
b) feral combat training applies all things which affect unarmed strike to the natural attack; does this include the line "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."?
c) His overall effective monk level for unarmed strike damage is 12 (4 + (6/2) + 5) - a base of 2d6; if he is enlarged, this increases to 3d6, yes?
d) What if he takes Improved Natural Attack - also 3d6, but then enlarged, it becomes 4d6?
e) Can lead blades add to that mix, bumping it to 6d6?
f) What about an AoMF with the Impact enhancement? Would this work with lead blades, or only instead of it? If it does stack, that is 8d6, yes?
g) Is there any reasonable way (assuming most of the above is reasonable) to add yet more to this damage?
h) How would magic weapon / magic fang interplay with all of the above?

Now, a second scenario. The DM indicated he didn't want to deal with frustrations of how enlarge and improved natural attack might stack, combined with other similar damage improvements as listed above. He stated that tentatively, INA will instead of treating attack as one size larger, improve the monk's IUS damage one step - so from 2d6 to 2d8... how would that interplay with all of the above mentioned elements (enlarge, lead blades, impact)? Assuming most 'size increases' instead increase the damage one step; what happens after 2d10? 2d6 -> 2d8 -> 2d10 -> ??? -> ??? ... would the missing blanks be 4d8 and 6d8?

Adding in bracers of armor, with a brawling enhancement, gives a +2 to attack and damage. AoMF will give another flat bonus to damage (just assuming enhancement bonus, no impact or other enhancements for now) - do these stack?

What other ways, including some slight cheese but nothing which totally twists the rules out of place and no 3PP, can I pile on damage to my natural attack?


a) This only applies to damage, not to-hit.

b) No:

Quote:

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.

You can treat your bite as if it was a monk weapon with flurry of blows (note that this means that you only get Str bonus x 1.0 to damage as with flurry), and you can apply feat effects that improve unarmed strike to the bite (for example, you could use it to counter with Snake Fang which can normally only be done with unarmed strike).

c) Yes, for unarmed strike. His bite damage is unaffected by monk level, as monk unarmed strike damage is not a feat improvement.

d) Enlarging improves both bite and unarmed strike damage, Improved Natural Attack only improves bite damage.

e) Lead Blades can apply to monk unarmed strike, because it can be treated as a manufactured weapon.

f) I'm not sure on this one, but your math so far is looking uncertain to me.

g) Static damage bonuses are always preferable.

h) Magic weapon/fang can make your unarmed strike OR bite better, or both at +1. Assuming you have no other enhancement, they will not stack with an AoMF.

Scarab Sages

It depends on your interpretation of the line "as well as effects that augment an unarmed strike." Monk unarmed damage is a class feature that is an effect that augments unarmed strike.

I think it's a stretch, but by strict RAW, Feral Combat Training could change a natural attack's damage to your unarmed damage.


As to b) it states (as you quoted), "as well as effects that augment an unarmed strike" - thus, as an unarmed strike can be augmented by any effect which affects manufactured as well as natural weapons, I would see that any of those augmentations carry over, yes? Of course, I am not certain of this, but a simple 'no' isn't anywhere near good enough a response. Explain why not.

as to c) you seem to have missed the (not so) recent FAQ entry explicitly declaring that monk unarmed damage is applied to natural attacks with Feral Combat Training...?

on f) I am using the figures provided in a few places, including the feat entry for Improved Natural Attack (2d6 > 3d6 > 4d6 > 6d6 > 8d6)

Overall, I do appreciate your reply, but it seems you're not as familiar with how this works as you think you are...


karossii wrote:
As to b) it states (as you quoted), "as well as effects that augment an unarmed strike" - thus, as an unarmed strike can be augmented by any effect which affects manufactured as well as natural weapons, I would see that any of those augmentations carry over, yes? Of course, I am not certain of this, but a simple 'no' isn't anywhere near good enough a response. Explain why not.

]

The monks unarmed strike's ability to be treated as both manufactured and natural weapon is not an augmentation. However, given the FAQ below you may well be correct insofar as your bite becomes your unarmed strike in every sense.

karossii wrote:
as to c) you seem to have missed the (not so) recent FAQ entry explicitly declaring that monk unarmed damage is applied to natural attacks with Feral Combat Training...?

You are absolutely right, I stand corrected. You replace the bite damage with the unarmed strike damage.

karossii wrote:
on f) I am using the figures provided in a few places, including the feat entry for Improved Natural Attack (2d6 > 3d6 > 4d6 > 6d6 > 8d6)

The reason your math looks uncertain is that Improved Natural Attack specifically does NOT work on unarmed strike. Now it can apply to your bite, but that would apply to the base bite damage, not to the bite damage as given by the FAQ via unarmed strike because that's when your bite is your unarmed strike - which is specifically prohibited from INA.

In other words, your bite can be a natural attack, or an unarmed strike, but it's never "both at once." If it's an unarmed strike, unarmed strike damage applies, but Improved Natural Attack does not apply because it cannot be applied to unarmed strike. If it's a natural attack, Improved Natural Attack does apply, but then it's not an unarmed strike.

Or to put this another way:
Your natural attack does 1d8 Damage, or with Improved Natural Attack it does 2d6 damage.
Your unarmed strike does 2d6 damage, but Improved Natural Attack does not apply to the unarmed strike, so with Feral Combat Training you can substitute the 2d6 damage from unarmed strike for your bite attack damage, whatever it is, but INA does not then get to be applied on top because it's no longer purely a natural attack, it's now an unarmed strike.

karossii wrote:
Overall, I do appreciate your reply, but it seems you're not as familiar with how this works as you think you are...

I was unfamiliar with the FAQ ruling is all. The rest is solid. Improved Natural Attack does not apply to unarmed strike in any form is still how it works to the best of my knowledge.


Dabbler wrote:
The monks unarmed strike's ability to be treated as both manufactured and natural weapon is not an augmentation. However, given the FAQ below you may well be correct insofar as your bite becomes your unarmed strike in every sense.

How is a benefit that would not normally apply (being able to be treated as both manufactured and natural) noan augmentation? Augment does not strictly mean numerical increases - it also inculdes other benefits.

Quote:

The reason your math looks uncertain is that Improved Natural Attack specifically does NOT work on unarmed strike. Now it can apply to your bite, but that would apply to the base bite damage, not to the bite damage as given by the FAQ via unarmed strike because that's when your bite is your unarmed strike - which is specifically prohibited from INA.

In other words, your bite can be a natural attack, or an unarmed strike, but it's never "both at once." If it's an unarmed strike, unarmed strike damage applies, but Improved Natural Attack does not apply because it cannot be applied to unarmed strike. If it's a natural attack, Improved Natural Attack does apply, but then it's not an unarmed strike.

Or to put this another way:
Your natural attack does 1d8 Damage, or with Improved Natural Attack it does 2d6 damage.
Your unarmed strike does 2d6 damage, but Improved Natural Attack does not apply to the unarmed strike, so with Feral Combat Training you can substitute the 2d6 damage from unarmed strike for your bite attack damage, whatever it is, but INA does not then get to be applied on top because it's no longer purely a natural attack, it's now an unarmed strike.

Except it doesn't stop being a natural attack. Feral Combat Training says your natural attack gains the benefit of feats that require IUS, and is augmented by anything that augments an unarmed strike. It doesn't say it stops being augmented by effects that affect your natural attack. So improved natural attack should also apply, unless it were an overlapping benefit; i.e. magic fang/magic weapon/AoMF type stacking.

So a natural attack does 1d4, 1d6, whatever. The base does not matter. It is augmented to a base of 2d6 via FCT and monk levels. It is further augmented by INA to 3d6.


The problem is that Improved Natural Attack reads: Choose one of the creatures natural attack forms (not an unarmed strike).

As such, INA will not work with any unarmed strike (even if said unarmed strike was initially just a plain old natural attack -- like the monk's bite).

Put another way, you can improve a natural attack with either INA or Feral Combat Training, but not both. While these "bonuses" are not named per se, it would be like trying to add Enhancement bonuses from two different sources. They do not stack.


Okay, you made the same mistake Dabbler did. The natural attack DOES NOT BECOME an unarmed strike.

It is a Natural Attack, that is AUGMENTED by any feats or effects which affect an unarmed strike.

It is still a natural attack, just one with some extra benefits.

Nothing in the text in ANY WAY indicates a loss of any benefits a natural attack would normally gain.


karossii wrote:

Okay, you made the same mistake Dabbler did. The natural attack DOES NOT BECOME and unarmed strike.

It is a natural attack, that is AUGMENTED by ant feats or effects which affect an unarmed strike.

It is still a natural attack, just one with some extra benefits.

But you are missing that the feat has no effect on unarmed strike damage. So sure, you can HAVE Improved Natural Attack on your bite - absolutely nothing stopping you, you meet all the pre-requisites. That will increase your bite damage from 1d6 to 1d8, or 1d8 to 2d6, whatever.

But the FAQ says:

Quote:

Feral Combat Training and Unarmed Strike Damage: Does this allow me to use my monk unarmed damage with the selected natural attack?

Yes. The feat says you can apply "effects that augment an unarmed strike," and the monk's increased unarmed damage counts as such.

Emphasis mine on "allow me to use my monk unarmed damage" there. You are using the monk unarmed strike damage INSTEAD of the natural attack's damage, which makes sense. However the unarmed strike is not improving the bite by X many steps, it's used INSTEAD of the bite damage whatever the bite damage is, and that's the important point. INA only applies to the bite damage, not to unarmed strike damage, and you have replaced the first with the second. As INA has no effect on unarmed strike, you only do the base unarmed strike damage.

Sorry, but you cannot have your cake and eat it in this instance. INA can enhance your bite, sure, but as you are replacing your bite damage with unarmed strike damage, it makes no difference because INA cannot improve unarmed strike.

Shadow Lodge

I kind of see where karossii is coming from, because you are still using the bite attack and still get the normal 1.5STR AFAIK with it being a primar natural attack (unless you flurry) so I could see FCT setting the bite's base damage size to the unarmed and then enlarging, but regardless, it doesn't stack with lead blades anyway. Think Dabbler may have it right on this also, but not sure.


I suppose it is arguable either way, as is often the case with rules, so I would if your GM is accepting of it, then go for it. To an extent, its not even overly abusive for the monk when you consider the feat investment required to pull it off and the fact that monks tend to be a bit feat starved anyway.

That being said though, I certainly wouldn't feel as though my GM would absolutely agree that INA and FCT can both be used to both cause the stacking.

Scarab Sages

It becomes overpowering when you have a monk/cave druid who is wild shaped into a crystal ooze. But that is a corner case.


Dabbler wrote:

But you are missing that the feat has no effect on unarmed strike damage. So sure, you can HAVE Improved Natural Attack on your bite - absolutely nothing stopping you, you meet all the pre-requisites. That will increase your bite damage from 1d6 to 1d8, or 1d8 to 2d6, whatever.

But the FAQ says:

Quote:

Feral Combat Training and Unarmed Strike Damage: Does this allow me to use my monk unarmed damage with the selected natural attack?

Yes. The feat says you can apply "effects that augment an unarmed strike," and the monk's increased unarmed damage counts as such.

Emphasis mine on "allow me to use my monk unarmed damage" there. You are using the monk unarmed strike damage INSTEAD of the natural attack's damage, which makes sense. However the unarmed strike is not improving the bite by X many steps, it's used INSTEAD of the bite damage whatever the bite damage is, and that's the important point. INA only applies to the bite damage, not to unarmed strike damage, and you have replaced the first with the second. As INA has no effect on unarmed strike, you only do the base unarmed strike damage.

Except for two problems. A) You cut your emphasis off one word early, and then changed the wording. The FAQ does not, I repeat NOT, say instead. That is just Dabbler saying "instead". B) Even if your wording were correct, and it stated or implied 'instead' - it still does not say your attack is no longer a natural attack. So you could still apply any benefits applicable to a natural attack, to the FCT natural attack with unarmed strike damage.

As an example; Bite attack does 1d6. FCT + monk levels changed this to 1d8 (or 2d6 or...). INA can still apply, as it is STILL a natural attack, and increases the damage as if it were one size larger. (And this is one of the sticky points I was expecting, not your interpretation of FCT - the fact that INA treats the natural weapon as if larger, and thus may not stack with enlarge).


On a highly related note... and I could be mistaken in this as it is purely from memory at this point (will attempt to find a proof one way or the other), but I believe it has been stated that unless otherwise specified in the description of a feat or class ability, etc., that it is up to the player to determine in which order feats and abilities and such are applied to the rules they affect (and thus always assume the most beneficial to the player). Thus, as INA can be applied to the natural attack with FCT, I can choose to apply it after the monk's unarmed damage is applied.


karossii wrote:
Dabbler wrote:

But you are missing that the feat has no effect on unarmed strike damage. So sure, you can HAVE Improved Natural Attack on your bite - absolutely nothing stopping you, you meet all the pre-requisites. That will increase your bite damage from 1d6 to 1d8, or 1d8 to 2d6, whatever.

But the FAQ says:

Quote:

Feral Combat Training and Unarmed Strike Damage: Does this allow me to use my monk unarmed damage with the selected natural attack?

Yes. The feat says you can apply "effects that augment an unarmed strike," and the monk's increased unarmed damage counts as such.

Emphasis mine on "allow me to use my monk unarmed damage" there. You are using the monk unarmed strike damage INSTEAD of the natural attack's damage, which makes sense. However the unarmed strike is not improving the bite by X many steps, it's used INSTEAD of the bite damage whatever the bite damage is, and that's the important point. INA only applies to the bite damage, not to unarmed strike damage, and you have replaced the first with the second. As INA has no effect on unarmed strike, you only do the base unarmed strike damage.
Except for two problems. A) You cut your emphasis off one word early, and then changed the wording. The FAQ does not, I repeat NOT, say instead. That is just Dabbler saying "instead".

Clarifying, yes. If not, by how much does the use of unarmed strike augment the natural attack by? How many steps? Bearing in mind as well that augmentations of a like type do not necessarily stack?

The example given by you REPLACES the bite attack with the unarmed strike, so that's what I've gone with.

karossii wrote:
B) Even if your wording were correct, and it stated or implied 'instead'

But it's what you used in your example above, so it certainly seems to be your understanding of it. You have REPLACED the bite damage with the unarmed strike damage, I've followed your lead.

karossii wrote:
it still does not say your attack is no longer a natural attack. So you could still apply any benefits applicable to a natural attack, to the FCT natural attack with unarmed strike damage.

Indeed not, but you are now using the bite as an unarmed strike, inflicting unarmed strike damage, and unarmed strike damage is NOT enhanced by Improved Natural Attack...

karossii wrote:
As an example; Bite attack does 1d6. FCT + monk levels changed this to 1d8 (or 2d6 or...). INA can still apply, as it is STILL a natural attack, and increases the damage as if it were one size larger. (And this is one of the sticky points I was expecting, not your interpretation of FCT - the fact that INA treats the natural weapon as if larger, and thus may not stack with enlarge).

So, if you start with 1d6, apply INA and you get 1d8. Then you apply FCT and the bite is now an unarmed strike with damage of 2d6. Sounds simple to me. You can't use INA to improve the 2d6, though, because INA does not improve unarmed strike damage.

You are already in effect getting a two-size increase in damage from one feat, getting a third from a feat not designed to stack with the first is just not going to happen in many games at all. By all means talk to your DM, show him the thread, it's his decision, but I wouldn't allow it myself.


Dabbler wrote:
Indeed not, but you are now using the bite as an unarmed strike, inflicting unarmed strike damage, and unarmed strike damage is NOT enhanced by Improved Natural Attack...

Oh, I am most certainly NOT using the natural attack AS an unarmed strike. I am augmenting the natural attack with the damage of an unarmed strike. I am still using a natural attack. Nothing says this augmentation cannot be further improved upon.

Quote:
So, if you start with 1d6, apply INA and you get 1d8. Then you apply FCT and the bite is now an unarmed strike with damage of 2d6. Sounds simple to me. You can't use INA to improve the 2d6, though, because INA does not improve unarmed strike damage.

Right, INA does not improve an unarmed strike. But it can improve a natural attack. And, as stated above, I am fairly certain the player (or the DM, for NPCs) selects the order in which feats/effects are applied unless specified otherwise. As both effects can be applied to this attack, and they are not the same effect, it is up to the player to choose in which order it happens.


karossii wrote:
On a highly related note... and I could be mistaken in this as it is purely from memory at this point (will attempt to find a proof one way or the other), but I believe it has been stated that unless otherwise specified in the description of a feat or class ability, etc., that it is up to the player to determine in which order feats and abilities and such are applied to the rules they affect (and thus always assume the most beneficial to the player). Thus, as INA can be applied to the natural attack with FCT, I can choose to apply it after the monk's unarmed damage is applied.

This still misses the point. The issue is that the GM is the final arbiter of the rules. If the GM says, "Sorry dude, they don't stack." it doesn't matter what order you apply them. In fact, you could even point to a published pathfinder source that explicitly says they do stack (which, btw, you have not yet -- the wording seems at best vague imho), and the GM can STILL say they do not stack. In other words, the GM gets the final say on all rules. Dabbler and I are saying that it is our belief, based on what we've seen, that they do not stack.

That being said, it is of course up to the GM. The GM may agree with you, he or she may not. Its certainly worth a shot.

I would also note that in addition to the example Imbicatus cites it can also get out of hand when things like Enlarge Person and the PrC Brother of the Seal. That PrC treats you as one size category larger.

Also, FWIW, I think, and again I too could be wrong, the quoted section above is referring to when you have multiple effects being applied "at the same time". Frex: Your PC has fast healing in place but also an ongoing poison damage. Both take effect at the start of your turn (I believe) but the rules do not explicitly dictate which occurs first. As such, the PC can decide. In some cases it makes sense to apply the poison first (like when you are already at full health) in others, it might make sense to apply the fast healing first (like if you are hovering around 0hp or even negatives).


Gargs454 wrote:

This still misses the point. The issue is that the GM is the final arbiter of the rules. If the GM says, "Sorry dude, they don't stack." it doesn't matter what order you apply them. In fact, you could even point to a published pathfinder source that explicitly says they do stack (which, btw, you have not yet -- the wording seems at best vague imho), and the GM can STILL say they do not stack. In other words, the GM gets the final say on all rules. Dabbler and I are saying that it is our belief, based on what we've seen, that they do not stack.

That being said, it is of course up to the GM. The GM may agree with you, he or she may not. Its certainly worth a shot.

Absolutely. DM has the final say. Never intendeded to contraindicate this, if I somehow gave that impression. But outside of the DM's judgement, there can be discussion to determine how things should work, and how they actually work. That is what I was looking for here.

Quote:

I would also note that in addition to the example Imbicatus cites it can also get out of hand when things like Enlarge Person and the PrC (Brother of the Sacred Fist I think its called). That PrC treats you as one size category larger.

Also, FWIW, I think, and again I too could be wrong, the quoted section above is referring to when you have multiple effects being applied "at the same time". Frex: Your PC has fast healing in place but also an ongoing poison damage. Both take effect at the start of your turn (I believe) but the rules do not explicitly dictate which occurs first. As such, the PC can decide. In some cases it makes sense to apply the poison first (like when you are already at full health) in others, it might...

That may be what I was remembering. I am still searching for a more definitive source to support or dispute that.


karossii wrote:
Dabbler wrote:
Indeed not, but you are now using the bite as an unarmed strike, inflicting unarmed strike damage, and unarmed strike damage is NOT enhanced by Improved Natural Attack...
Oh, I am most certainly NOT using the natural attack AS an unarmed strike. I am augmenting the natural attack with the damage of an unarmed strike. I am still using a natural attack. Nothing says this augmentation cannot be further improved upon.

Yes, actually it does: it says that unarmed strike cannot be augmented by Improved Natural Attack.

Also, you are not doing your unarmed strike damage of 2d6 PLUS your bite damage, are you? It's all in the question: "Does this allow me to use my monk unarmed damage with the selected natural attack?" The natural attack does not use it's own damage, it uses unarmed strike damage. Unarmed strike damage is not effected by Improved Natural Attack.

karossii wrote:
Quote:
So, if you start with 1d6, apply INA and you get 1d8. Then you apply FCT and the bite is now an unarmed strike with damage of 2d6. Sounds simple to me. You can't use INA to improve the 2d6, though, because INA does not improve unarmed strike damage.
Right, INA does not improve an unarmed strike. But it can improve a natural attack. And, as stated above, I am fairly certain the player (or the DM, for NPCs) selects the order in which feats/effects are applied unless specified otherwise. As both effects can be applied to this attack, and they are not the same effect, it is up to the player to choose in which order it happens.

No, it doesn't matter how you apply it in what order. FCT allows you to use unarmed strike damage rather than bite damage, and unarmed strike damage is not effected by INA. INA only effects bite damage.

Edit: I know I sound like I'm being deliberately obstructive, but it pays to have someone play devil's advocate sometimes - and I genuinely think this is how the ruling was intended to function.


Dabbler wrote:

Yes, actually it does: it says that unarmed strike cannot be augmented by Improved Natural Attack.

Also, you are not doing your unarmed strike damage of 2d6 PLUS your bite damage, are you? It's all in the question: "Does this allow me to use my monk unarmed damage with the selected natural attack?" The natural attack does not use it's own damage, it uses unarmed strike damage. Unarmed strike damage is not effected by Improved Natural Attack.

My natural attack does not become an unarmed strike. It gains a benefit of the unarmed strike damage. It is still a natural attack. (It can still benefit from anything that applies to a natural attack, as well as anything that benefits an unarmed strike. You keep taking this fallacious (if understandable) position. But you are wrong. Point out to me any text which states otherwise - until you do, I will not believe it.

Quote:

No, it doesn't matter how you apply it in what order. FCT allows you to use unarmed strike damage rather than bite damage, and unarmed strike damage is not effected by INA. INA only effects bite damage.

Edit: I know I sound like I'm being deliberately obstructive, but it pays to have someone play devil's advocate sometimes - and I genuinely think this is how the ruling was intended to function.

I do not mind someone playing devil's advocate. I am not offended by you and feel no animosity towards you. I just believe you are wrong, and have seen nothing other than your opinion/interpretation to support your argument. It does not anywhere state you cannot apply benefits of natural attacks to a natural attack. In fact, that would make many monsters and characters unplayable if it were the case. You are not changing natural attack to an unarmed strike. You are making an exception to the rules, in which anything that can benefit an unarmed strike, ALSO benefits a specific natural attack.

That is exactly what the feat says it does. The feat DOES NOT state you can apply any feats or effects that augment an unarmed strike instead of feats or effects that augment a natural attack.


karossii wrote:
Dabbler wrote:

Yes, actually it does: it says that unarmed strike cannot be augmented by Improved Natural Attack.

Also, you are not doing your unarmed strike damage of 2d6 PLUS your bite damage, are you? It's all in the question: "Does this allow me to use my monk unarmed damage with the selected natural attack?" The natural attack does not use it's own damage, it uses unarmed strike damage. Unarmed strike damage is not effected by Improved Natural Attack.

My natural attack does not become an unarmed strike. It gains a benefit of the unarmed strike damage.

Distinction without difference, unarmed strike damage is not affected by Improved Natural Attack.

karossii wrote:
It is still a natural attack.

Indeed, but it is a natural attack of 1d6 damage.

karossii wrote:
(It can still benefit from anything that applies to a natural attack, as well as anything that benefits an unarmed strike.

Unarmed strike can be treated as a natural attack...but gains no benefit from INA, as you well know. When you substitute your bite damage for unarmed strike damage, you're entering unarmed strike territory.

karossii wrote:
You keep taking this fallacious (if understandable) position. But you are wrong. Point out to me any text which states otherwise - until you do, I will not believe it.

"Does this allow me to use my monk unarmed damage with the selected natural attack? Yes."

This is it right here. You are using unarmed strike damage with the natural attack. You are not "augmenting" the natural attack, because the base damage from the natural attack is not used in any way shape of form - be it 1d2 or 8d6, it matters not - the unarmed strike damage is, and this is not affected by Improved Natural Attack.

However, if you want the official opinion lets formulate a question and hit FAQ:

Does the Improved Natural Attack feat increase the effective damage of a natural attack if it's damage has also been increased to the unarmed strike damage by Feral Combat Training - i.e. do they stack, or does the unarmed strike damage behave as normal when this feat is applied?


6 people marked this as FAQ candidate.

I would make it slightly less specific; as other similar effects exist.

If a character with a Natural Attack, Monk Levels (or effective monk levels) and the Feral Combat Training Feat has an effect which improves the damage of a natural attack (such as the Improved Natural Attack feat, the Strong Jaw spell, etc.), does this further augment/benefit the damage of the monk's Unarmed Strike damage with the natural attack? Or, do these effects only affect the base natural attack damage, which is then used instead of, or fully replaced by, the monk unarmed strike damage dice?
e.g.; A character with a bite attack that has a base damage die of 1d6, and who has an effective monk level of 8 (1d10 damage), and who has both the feral combat training and improved natural attack feats. Would his bite attack deal a flat 1d10 (from monk levels), or 2d8 (monk levels + INA)?

Sound good? Should we start a new thread, or just FAQ this post?


FAQ'd


As point to support my position (until an FAQ might come down, why not continue the discussion?)...

If a character or creature is Large, and has a natural attack of any base damage size, and then acquires Feral Combat Training and monk levels - would you argue against it using the Large sized monk unarmed damage? (I would hope not!) Thus, a level 8 monk would deal, not 1d10 but 2d8.

Improved natural attack specifically states that the natural attack is treated as if it were a size category larger. Thus, when choosing the monk's unarmed damage dice, you should look at the large-sized damage (as the natural attack is, effectively, large).


Support your position? It has nothing to do with your position.

INA Specifically has no effect on the nonk's unarmed strike damage. Being larger specifically does.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dabbler wrote:

Support your position? It has nothing to do with your position.

INA Specifically has no effect on the nonk's unarmed strike damage. Being larger specifically does.

You claim, still without any support of your claims, INA has no effect.

Here is how I see it working.

>basic monk with natural attack; unarmed strike =/= natural attack.
1. INA specifically has no effect on unarmed strike damage.
2. unarmed strike damage has no effect on natural attack

> basic monk with natural attack and FCT; specified natural attack (per FCT) gains all benefits of a natural attack (nothing removes these), AS WELL AS all benefits of unarmed strike.
1. INA has no effect on unarmed strike damage. It does, however, have an effect on the natural attack. The natural attack is specifically treated as one size larger (assume medium becomes large).
2. Natural attack is treated as large (per INA). This is not lost. It is not applying to the "unarmed strike damage", it is modifying the natural attack.
3. FCT applies (large) unarmed strike damage to a (large) natural attack.

Now, using that breakdown, explain to me how/where/why, in your opinion, INA stops applying to the natural attack. INA treats the natural attack as one size category larger. Nothing that I can find stops that from happening.

[EDIT]Another attempt to simplify the explanation for you...

We have two weapons, weapon "a" and weapon "b" both available as medium or large.

we have two feats.
One allows a medium weapon "a" to be treated as a large weapon "a"
One allows weapon "a" to gain any benefit that weapon "b" can gain.

we have one benefit which only applies to weapon "b" - it works equally well if weapon "b" is medium or large.

So we take weapon "a", give it both feats. It is now treated as a large weapon "a", and can receive any benefits of weapon "b".

Why would you think it has to get the benefit of a medium weapon "b", when it is treated as large, and the benefit applies to a medium or a large weapon "b"?


Thank you gentlemen! This is the first rules description and discussion that I have read in months where the question was discussed rationally and without name calling. Thank you!

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / monkeying around with a monk + natural attacks... All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.