Improved Natural Attack and Feral Combat Training

[Scott Wilhelm]

Covert Operator wrote:

Valdimarian wrote:

The important thing this boils down to is order of operations:

1) Feral Combat Training 'modifies' (replaces) the Natural Weapon [Claw, Bite, Wing, etc.] damage (thus it is now a Natural Weapon with base damage the same as your Unarmed Strike damage) THEN apply Improved Natural Weapon, increasing the damage by one step.

2) Improved Natural Weapon boosts the Natural Weapon damage, THEN Feral Combat Training kicks in to modify the damage.

Nice summary, but I would add:

3) Improved Natural Weapon boosts natural weapon damage by nature of counting as one size larger, then Monk Unarmed Strike kicks in, increasing damage to the amount shown for large monks on Table: Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage.

For your other question, the Bashing/Shield Spikes + Brawler's Close Weapon Mastery would have the same answer as whatever answer we eventually reach on the INA + FCT discussion.
This answer really boils down to: ask your DM because there will never be a unanimous agreement on these messageboards.

I am uncomfortable endorsing this summary, but you have given me some homework to do. It does just so happen that successfully disputing this point would have no bearing on the character build I was proposing (a real PFS build), and outside PFS, it will be my DM, and none of you who will judge.

[Valdimarian]

Covert Operator wrote:

Valdimarian wrote:

The important thing this boils down to is order of operations:

1) Feral Combat Training 'modifies' (replaces) the Natural Weapon [Claw, Bite, Wing, etc.] damage (thus it is now a Natural Weapon with base damage the same as your Unarmed Strike damage) THEN apply Improved Natural Weapon, increasing the damage by one step.

2) Improved Natural Weapon boosts the Natural Weapon damage, THEN Feral Combat Training kicks in to modify the damage.

Nice summary, but I would add:

3) Improved Natural Weapon boosts natural weapon damage by nature of counting as one size larger, then Monk Unarmed Strike kicks in, increasing damage to the amount shown for large monks on Table: Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage.

For your other question, the Bashing/Shield Spikes + Brawler's Close Weapon Mastery would have the same answer as whatever answer we eventually reach on the INA + FCT discussion.
This answer really boils down to: ask your DM because there will never be a unanimous agreement on these messageboards.

Good point on 3, which raises the question: "Does Improved Natural Attack stack with Enlarge Person or Lead Blades?" (which can be applied to a Catfolk with Claw Blades)

As to the other question I did ask my GM, he shot it down. Most of my research on the question said that there was a 3.5 FAQ post that was never was never approved or denied for conversion to Pathfinder and James Jacobs is the only Pathfinder resource that's said anything on the topic.

[Kchaka]

In the old 3.5 FAQ it specifically says the spiked shield stacks with bashing, to a total of a damage as if 3 sizes larger. I think it was designed this way so people who wanted to fight with shield bashes would be able to deal the same damage as others with regulars weapons. An Impact longsword will deal the same damage as a Bashing Spiked Heavy Shield, both one-handed weapons. Shield Spikes and Impact special property should not stack, along with lead blades and Improved Natural Attack, since all these give "+1 size bonus to damage". The Bashig special property is the exception, a way of turning shields into effective weapons.

[fretgod99]

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Fretgod99 wrote:

Right. I saw your post. Your conclusion is incorrect. There's no rules contradiction there. INA still raises the natural attack damage. It's just that FCT raises it more. They are overlapping benefits, per our reading, not stacking ones. This is not a rules contradiction.

I am mystified by your response. By what logic and evidence could you possibly reach this conclusion?

I stated it above. Frankly, I'm baffled how you think "Enlarge increases size category and applies to natural weapons" means "INA stacks with Monk US damage". Whether you're ultimately correct that these things stack as opposed to overlap, there is no connection between thise two things.

There is no rules contradiction by saying that the effects overlap, rather than stack. That is the point. I'm not sure how this is so mystifying to you. You can disagree (and obviously you do). But how you conclude there's a contradiction is beyond me.

[Covert Operator]

I'm not saying that INA and MUS stack, I'm saying that your natural attack dealing damage as a large weapon (INA) means that it still deals damage as a large weapon whether or not MUS damage is applied

You people can't get your head around the fact that when you look at the feat alone, it is a boost to your damage dice, but when you look at it in reaction with other feats, it is specifically what it states: "dealing damage as if one size larger"

fretgod99, I feel like you're not really reading my reasons before disagreeing with them.

As for the question of stacking INA + Lead Blades + Strong Jaw + Impact + etc:
Enlarge Person applies first and stacks with all others, because it is actually increasing your size. There is an ongoing debate about whether the others stack.
Lead Blades + Impact are FAQ'd to not stack, in a way that is not prohibitive to the others (they are similar effects in that Impact has Lead Blades as a prerequisite, so they are really the same ability).
Some say that effects that deal damage as if X sizes larger than their actual size overlap because their actual size remains the same.
Others say that these effects refer to the other effects' increased damage.
Example: Strong Jaw + Amulet of Impact fists
Camp1 would say Strong Jaw makes it two sizes larger than Medium, and Impact makes it one size larger than medium, so they overlap. It ends up as Huge
Camp2 would say Strong Jaw makes it two sizes larger than Medium for damage (to Huge), then Impact makes it one size larger than Huge because both effects apply to damage, and its "actual size" is changed by Strong Jaw, but only for the purposes of damage. It ends up as Gargantuan.
Of course, this argument applies to Bashing + Shield Spikes as well as to natural attacks.

[fretgod99]

INA says the weapon deals damage as if one size larger. Larger than what? The natural weapon. FCT lets you substitute (or increase) the natural weapon damage up to the higher Monk's US damage. If you then increase the natural weapon by one step to make it larger, you are necessarily stacking the two feats.

So how do they stack? Does INA let you treat you natural weapon as if it were one step larger after being augmented or do you get to treat your damage for that natural weapon as if you were a Monk of one size larger? To what does the size increase apply? And in either event, you are stacking the effects.

[Covert Operator]

Enlarge person makes your weapon larger than medium, which includes for the purposes of damage.
INA + Strong Jaw + Impact + etc. all make your weapon count as larger than medium for the purposes of damage.
Being a larger than medium race makes your weapon larger than medium, which includes for the purposes of damage.

Here's my logic process:
1) You are applying INA to your natural weapon. Your natural weapon now counts as large for the purposes of damage.
2) You are using FCT to apply the effect of MUS to your natural weapon.
2.5) MUS states that a large monk deals more damage than a medium monk.
Is monk unarmed strike a damage effect? obviously,yes
3) You deal damage as a large monk

I will repeat myself: INA isn't just a boost to damage, it's a boost to effective size. Big difference in this case.

[Avoron]

It is just a boost to damage. It boosts nothing about the "effective" size of the weapon.

"The damage for this natural attack increases by one step on the following list, as if the creature's size had increased by one category."

The "as if the creature's size has increased by one category" is merely a description of the manner in which the damage increases by one step.

Note that it does not say, "Your natural weapon counts as if it were one size larger for determining the damage it deals." Rather, the damage increases by one step, and that one step increase functions like the increase from increasing a size category.

But regardless of that detail, it doesn't function with Feral Combat Training. Here, I'll explain:

Earlier, someone said:
"1) Feral Combat Training 'modifies' (replaces) the Natural Weapon [Claw, Bite, Wing, etc.] damage (thus it is now a Natural Weapon with base damage the same as your Unarmed Strike damage) THEN apply Improved Natural Weapon, increasing the damage by one step."

This is not quite accurate, order of operations aside. Feral Combat Training does not allow you to change the number of your natural attack damage. Rather, it specifically says that you deal your unarmed strike damage with your natural attack. This damage is instead of the damage you would otherwise deal.

Improved Natural Attack does not allow you to increase your unarmed strike damage. It increases the damage for your natural attack.

And in terms of order of operations, you choose whether to deal your unarmed strike damage or your normal natural weapon damage when you make an attack. You don't actually change your natural weapon damage.

So the tengu monk in my first post here still has a claw damage of 1d3, 1d4 with Improved Natural Attack. And they have an unarmed damage of 1d8, which is unaffected by Improved Natural Attack.

With Feral Combat Training, they just get a choice of which number to use. The numbers don't change.

[fretgod99]

Covert Operator wrote:

Enlarge person makes your weapon larger than medium, which includes for the purposes of damage.

INA + Strong Jaw + Impact + etc. all make your weapon count as larger than medium for the purposes of damage.
Being a larger than medium race makes your weapon larger than medium, which includes for the purposes of damage.

Here's my logic process:
1) You are applying INA to your natural weapon. Your natural weapon now counts as large for the purposes of damage.
2) You are using FCT to apply the effect of MUS to your natural weapon.
2.5) MUS states that a large monk deals more damage than a medium monk.
Is monk unarmed strike a damage effect? obviously,yes
3) You deal damage as a large monk

I will repeat myself: INA isn't just a boost to damage, it's a boost to effective size. Big difference in this case.

If you're dealing the damage of a large monk, you are necessarily using INA to augment the damage of your unarmed strikes. This is specifically prohibited by the language of INA.

At best, you can try to argue that INA allows you to bump up the normal Monk's US damage to the next step on the natural attack scale. I flatly disagree with it because I do not believe the two abilities stack. But at least you could make that argument.

Your position, however, violates the expressed restriction on INA, that it cannot be used to increase US damage. If you're dealing the damage of a Monk one size larger than you because of the increase granted by INA, you are necessarily applying INA to a calculation of US damage.

[Michael Sayre]

James Risner wrote:

Spaarky wrote:

If you are attacking with a Natural Attack (Claws) feral combat training allows you to use the damage from your IUS in place of the normal natural attack. This means you are not making an unarmed strike, you are making a natural attack.

I kinda hate nettling rules hair splitting like this.

No, you can't take advantage of Improved Natural Attack Bite when replacing your INA improved Bite with Unarmed Strike damage dice.

Pick one:
Unarmed Strike damage dice
INA Bite damage dice

This was the original intent of the FAQ that allowed the combo in the first place, for what that's worth.

[Covert Operator]

I like that we've simplified the argument down a bunch so that we agree on most things but disagree about one thing: grammar

Bolded is the part of the sentence we disagree on:
"The damage for this natural attack increases by one step on the following list, as if the creature's size had increased by one category."
I think that this means that your damage increases as if you had gotten bigger, but you aren't actually getting bigger, which is why they used "as if"
You think that this means the damage increases, and the mechanism for increasing is the same as how size increases damage.

Avoron wrote:

This is not quite accurate, order of operations aside. Feral Combat Training does not allow you to change the number of your natural attack damage. Rather, it specifically says that you deal your unarmed strike damage with your natural attack. This damage is instead of the damage you would otherwise deal.

It doesn't specifically say that anywhere that I can see! Where have you seen this?

Feral Combat Training wrote:

While using the selected natural weapon, you can apply the effects of ... effects that augment an unarmed strike.

Read FCT again. You're not applying Monk Unarmed Strike Damage to your natural attacks to somehow make them into unarmed strikes, you're applying the effects of it to your natural attack. The effect of MUS on a large monk is more damage that the effect of MUS on a medium monk.

Your natural attack deals damage as if large
You count as large for the purposes of your natural attack damage.
Your MUS class feature's effects are applied to your natural attack.
Note that for a normal monk, this is your unarmed strike damage, but for you this is an effect on your natural attack damage granted by Monk Unarmed Strike, which is "an effect that augments unarmed strikes" as per Feral Combat Training.
This effect makes your natural attack deal damage as a large monk

[Avoron]

"Rather, it specifically says that you deal your unarmed strike damage with your natural attack."

Sorry, I misspoke, the feat doesn't say that, the FAQ does.

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

So you aren't changing the number of your claw damage, you're using your monk unarmed damage instead. And since your unarmed damage is unaffected by Improved Natural Attack, that has no effect on the unarmed damage that you deal.

Whatever your natural weapon damage is doesn't matter, because you're using your unarmed damage instead, as the feat explains.

[James Risner]

Ssalarn wrote:

James Risner wrote:

Pick one:

Unarmed Strike damage dice
INA Bite damage dice

This was the original intent of the FAQ that allowed the combo in the first place, for what that's worth.

I'm unsure if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing.

[graystone]

Well I see that there is nothing for me to add. I still can't see how monk unarmed damage isn't a replacement (changing the damage to a static number on the chart no matter what the natural weapon does) or how altering the natural weapons base damage (which is what INA does) somehow retroactively alters unarmed damage even when other differing natural weapon damage do nothing to alter it. *shrug* I guess I'll check in later.

EDIT: Just out of curiosity, how do those that think INA works on unarmed damage think about this: Ki Arrow and differing arrow sizes. Does a large arrow deal more damage than a tiny one? I ask because this seems to be the same situation that we're talking about. Or if you had a gravity bow type affect on the arrow? To me, the size of the arrow doesn't alter the damage you can do with your unarmed damage.

EDIT2: Chengar Qordath, just to be clear I personally don't think it'd be a big balance issue with INA working with FCT. My comments are based on #1 how I think it reads (RAW) and #2 how I think the DEV's want it to work (RAI). Remember that these are the people that thought that two weapon fighting with a two handed weapon and armor spikes was SO powerful that they needed to invent new "unwritten rules" to make it not work. I doubt they'd allow INA to work even if the RAW allowed it (which I don't think it does).

[Covert Operator]

Again, we disagree on grammar. I think that when they refer to "monk unarmed damage" they mean the damage paragraph (and tables) in the Unarmed Strike class feature of the monk.
This FAQ, to me, says "yes, you can apply the effects of the monk's Unarmed Strike class feature to your selected natural attack.

Really, the fact that we interpret the english they used differently is the only problem now, and that's not something we can resolve.

[Covert Operator]

My last post was at avoron
I agree that if you increase your natural attack damage, then apply the Unarmed Strike class feature, they won't stack.

My argument is that your natural weapons deal damage as one size larger, then you "apply the effects of" Unarmed Strike, not that you apply Unarmed Strike directly to it.
The effects of Unarmed Strike on a large monk is more damage than the effect of unarmed strike on a medium monk.

[graystone]

Covert Operator wrote:

Again, we disagree on grammar. I think that when they refer to "monk unarmed damage" they mean the damage paragraph (and tables) in the Unarmed Strike class feature of the monk.

This FAQ, to me, says "yes, you can apply the effects of the monk's Unarmed Strike class feature to your selected natural attack.

Really, the fact that we interpret the english they used differently is the only problem now, and that's not something we can resolve.

This isn't about grammar. You DO use the monk table. You don't use the Unarmed Strike class feature as a whole because it deals with more that just damage and the feat allows you to use "monk unarmed damage". For instance, you can't attack with your bite using your "with fist, elbows, knees, and feet" like you can with the feature.

Covert Operator wrote:

My last post was at avoron

I agree that if you increase your natural attack damage, then apply the Unarmed Strike class feature, they won't stack.

My argument is that your natural weapons deal damage as one size larger, then you "apply the effects of" Unarmed Strike, not that you apply Unarmed Strike directly to it.
The effects of Unarmed Strike on a large monk is more damage than the effect of unarmed strike on a medium monk.

The thing is that changing the size of your weapon doesn't change the size of your monk. Doing exactly what you say, your natural weapons deal damage as one size larger, then you "apply the effects of" Unarmed Strike ends up the same as if you hadn't upgraded your natural attack.

For example lets to the exact thing with normal weapons. lets say you can use your unarmed damage with a weapon you take weapon focus in.
Now use it with a small dagger, a medium dagger, a large dagger. When your unarmed damage is 1d8, what's the highest damage you can deal with those various weapons? 1d8 because the size of the weapons didn't alter the charts.

The issue therefor isn't grammar, but using a weapon's size to alter the size of unarmed attacks which based on your character size. You're mixing up sizes. A medium sized monk with a 'large' sized bite is STILL medium sized monk. They just have the option of using large bite damage or medium monk damage.

[James Risner]

Covert Operator wrote:

Really, the fact that we interpret the english they used differently is the only problem now, and that's not something we can resolve.

That is the issue on 90 % of rules disagreements. Nearly every one of them comes down to the interpretation of the RAW.

[graystone]

James Risner wrote:

Covert Operator wrote:

Really, the fact that we interpret the english they used differently is the only problem now, and that's not something we can resolve.

That is the issue on 90 % of rules disagreements. Nearly every one of them comes down to the interpretation of the RAW.

LOL That's true. All too often, the language is loose enough to allow multiple interpretations. This time though, it's less grammar and more order of operation. Though I guess it could be looked at as an issue with size and how/where it applies. It's like level, trait and other terms that are overused in the game.

[Scott Wilhelm]

fretgod99 wrote:

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Fretgod99 wrote:

Right. I saw your post. Your conclusion is incorrect. There's no rules contradiction there. INA still raises the natural attack damage. It's just that FCT raises it more. They are overlapping benefits, per our reading, not stacking ones. This is not a rules contradiction.

I am mystified by your response. By what logic and evidence could you possibly reach this conclusion?

I stated it above. Frankly, I'm baffled how you think "Enlarge increases size category and applies to natural weapons" means "INA stacks with Monk US damage". Whether you're ultimately correct that these things stack as opposed to overlap, there is no connection between thise two things.

There is no rules contradiction by saying that the effects overlap, rather than stack. That is the point. I'm not sure how this is so mystifying to you. You can disagree (and obviously you do). But how you conclude there's a contradiction is beyond me.

I'll try to explain it to you again.

fretgod99 wrote:

[Improved Natural Attack] says the weapon deals damage as if one size larger.

Okay, so lets say a level 5 monk with FCT Claws DOES grow 1 size larger, for example, via an Enlarge Person Spell. What is his claw damage now?

Well, that's what the Claw Damage would be if that monk took INA instead benefitting from an Enlarge Person Spell.

That's what INA say it does.

[Scott Wilhelm]

fretgod99 wrote:

If you're dealing the damage of a large monk, you are necessarily using INA to augment the damage of your unarmed strikes. This is specifically prohibited by the language of INA.

You are not using INA to augment the damage of your unarmed strikes. You are using it to augment the damage of your natural attack. Feral Combat Training does not transform a Claw Attack into an Unarmed Strike.

Monk Training lets you replace the 1d3 regular unarmed strike damage with a higher damage earned through Monk training, and Feral Combat Training lets your selected natural attack so benefit as well. The US remains an US; the NA remains a NA.

[Avoron]

A level 5 tengu monk with FCT and under Enlarge Person has a claw damage of 1d4.
A level 5 tengu monk with FCT and Improved Natural Attack has a claw damage of 1d4.

A level 5 tengu monk with FCT and under Enlarge Person has unarmed strike damage of 2d6.
A level 5 tengu monk with FCT and Improved Natural Attack has unarmed strike damage of 1d8.

All of the above is RAW.

Note that these numbers are the same with and without Feral Combat Training, because Feral Combat Training does not mean you cease to have a normal claw damage, it just allows you to decide, for a certain attack, to use your unarmed damage with your natural attack. This damage in instead of the damage you would otherwise deal.

So a level 5 tengu monk with Feral Combat Training and Improved Natural Attack has a claw damage of 1d4 and unarmed strike damage of 1d8. They also have a special ability, Feral Combat Training, that allows them to use their unarmed damage with their natural attack. This special ability doesn't give them new values for their natural attack damage or their unarmed strike damage.

And as for your second post:

Normal tengu monk:
make unarmed strike=deal unarmed strike damage
or
make claw attack=deal claw damage

Tengu monk with Feral Combat Training:
make unarmed strike=deal unarmed strike damage
or
make claw attack=deal claw damage
or
make claw attack=deal unarmed strike damage

Your claw is still your claw, and your unarmed strike is still your unarmed strike. But you can choose to deal your unarmed damage with your claw, in which case it doesn't matter what your claw damage was before.

[Covert Operator]

I still think that it is referring to the class feature, even if it's just referring to one paragraph of that class feature.

INA:
"deals damage as if its size had increased one step"
This equates to:
"counts as if its size had increased by one step for the purpose of dealing damage"

Unarmed Strike:
"A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown above on Table: Monk."
I still don't see how you're getting a replacement from this sentence. Warpriest specifically has language saying its a replacement, but monk doesn't.

The real thing we disagree on is whether you're applying monk unarmed damage on Table: Monk or the unarmed damage described in the last paragraph of Unarmed Strike.
Since your unarmed damage is just a table without last paragraph, your interpretation has no foundation for working. It's just a table. It doesn't have any descriptive text behind it if you don't read the paragraph that refers to it.

Your saying that not being a large monk means INA doesn't work with MUS is ridiculous. Is MUS a purpose of damage? Of course it is. They used "large monk" instead of "large unarmed strike" because you can't have a large unarmed strike without being large yourself.

Recall: The effects of MUS are what you're applying, not directly applying the class feature. The effects of this class feature on a large monk are the higher damage table. The natural attack deals damage as if one size larger. It counts as large.

[Avoron]

First of all, a minor correction:
INA does not make your natural attack deal damage as if one size larger. The damage of the natural attack increases as if its size had increased.
Once you increase the damage, that's just the damage of the natural attack. It's "effective size" doesn't actually change.

About your second to last paragraph:
Exactly. Your unarmed damage is dependent upon the effective size of your unarmed strike so even if INA increased the effective size of your natural weapon, it wouldn't effect your unarmed damage.

About the application of monk unarmed damage:
Monk's have a higher unarmed damage than usual.
FCT, as the FAQ says, lets you use your unarmed damage with your natural weapons.
Your natural weapon damage is not increased by FCT.
You can just deal your unarmed damage with your natural attack.

[Michael Sayre]

James Risner wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

James Risner wrote:

Pick one:

Unarmed Strike damage dice
INA Bite damage dice

This was the original intent of the FAQ that allowed the combo in the first place, for what that's worth.

I'm unsure if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing.

Agreeing :)

The FAQ was supposed to allow you to use your Monk UAS damage in place of your NA damage; so INA would not further increase your boosted damage. It'd be one or the other; either monk UAS or your bite modified by INA.

[graystone]

Covert Operator wrote:

I still think that it is referring to the class feature, even if it's just referring to one paragraph of that class feature.

INA:
"deals damage as if its size had increased one step"
This equates to:
"counts as if its size had increased by one step for the purpose of dealing damage"

Let me ask this then. Does taking INA(bite) up your size for your claws? Your tail attack? Your gore? Because that's what you seem to be applying. That an increase in one weapon equates to an increase in another weapon.

Does a size large bite alter your unarmed damage with a kick? If not, why would it then alter your unarmed damage even if you used your bite? YOU aren't large, the bite is.

Again, it's like saying a large weapon should do more damage than a medium one when using a warpriests sacred weapon 'because it's size is bigger'. ALL the 'size' means for natural weapons is the for the base damage. It in no way alters the size of the user and that's what unarmed damage comes from.

Note, to back up what I'm saying, look at the monk and unarmed damage charts. Note the damage charts for differing sizes. That are for small monk and large monk and NOT for small/large unarmed attacks. So, monk unarmed damage is based on the size of the monk and NOT his weapon. As to "They used "large monk" instead of "large unarmed strike" because you can't have a large unarmed strike without being large yourself." that is untrue. A monk that has Stonefist Gloves on them has large sized unarmed attacks without an actual size change.

"While a creature wears stonefist gloves, his unarmed strike damage is treated as if he were one size category larger, and bypasses hardness of 8 or lower."

[fretgod99]

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

fretgod99 wrote:

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Fretgod99 wrote:

Right. I saw your post. Your conclusion is incorrect. There's no rules contradiction there. INA still raises the natural attack damage. It's just that FCT raises it more. They are overlapping benefits, per our reading, not stacking ones. This is not a rules contradiction.

I am mystified by your response. By what logic and evidence could you possibly reach this conclusion?

I stated it above. Frankly, I'm baffled how you think "Enlarge increases size category and applies to natural weapons" means "INA stacks with Monk US damage". Whether you're ultimately correct that these things stack as opposed to overlap, there is no connection between thise two things.

There is no rules contradiction by saying that the effects overlap, rather than stack. That is the point. I'm not sure how this is so mystifying to you. You can disagree (and obviously you do). But how you conclude there's a contradiction is beyond me.

I'll try to explain it to you again.

fretgod99 wrote:

[Improved Natural Attack] says the weapon deals damage as if one size larger.

Okay, so lets say a level 5 monk with FCT Claws DOES grow 1 size larger, for example, via an Enlarge Person Spell. What is his claw damage now?

Well, that's what the Claw Damage would be if that monk took INA instead benefitting from an Enlarge Person Spell.

That's what INA say it does.

None of that is in question. So I'm not sure where you're going with this.

[fretgod99]

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

fretgod99 wrote:

If you're dealing the damage of a large monk, you are necessarily using INA to augment the damage of your unarmed strikes. This is specifically prohibited by the language of INA.

You are not using INA to augment the damage of your unarmed strikes. You are using it to augment the damage of your natural attack. Feral Combat Training does not transform a Claw Attack into an Unarmed Strike.

Monk Training lets you replace the 1d3 regular unarmed strike damage with a higher damage earned through Monk training, and Feral Combat Training lets your selected natural attack so benefit as well. The US remains an US; the NA remains a NA.

Right, but if you stack the two, you're using INA to deal the UAS damage of a Mink one size larger than you. That's the issue. That you using a natural attack to do it doesn't change that you are using the damage value of the UAS.

[Bandw2]

I feel like i could clarify this a bit for people.

FCT says you can apply effects that augment an unarmed strike.

so in this case

Quote:

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 Table: Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage.

becomes effectively this...

Quote:

A monk also deals more damage with his X-SPECIFIED-NATURAL-ATTACK than a normal person would, as shown above on Table: Monk. The X-SPECIFIED-NATURAL-ATTACK 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 Table: Small or Large Monk Unarmed Damage.

since, monks can change their damage dice through various means, i see nothing stopping it other than possibly the RAI of the FAQ for INA on monk damage, and as always i feel RAI is more important than RAW. so, i would say no.

[graystone]

Bandw2: What you missed in your 'effectively' quote is that FCT only makes unarmed effects an option because the FAQ reads you "can apply "effects that augment an unarmed strike," and the monk's increased unarmed damage counts as such." As such, it's not an automatic change like that 2nd quote would indicate. Your natural weapon, unlike your base unarmed attack, isn't always smaller than your monks damage so that quote would force you to take the chart even if it was smaller.

At the time of your attack, you have the option of your total modified natural weapon damage or your total unarmed damage. That's why I think it's no, as it's not making your natural weapon actually increase in damage but only offers the ability to replace it's damage with your unarmed damage.

[Avoron]

In addition, the FAQ specifically says that you still use your unarmed damage with your natural attack.

So it would be more like this:
"A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown above on Table: Monk."
"A monk with Feral Combat Training can use this unarmed damage with their natural weapons."

Both their natural weapon damage and their unarmed damage are unchanged by Feral Combat Training.

[Covert Operator]

Ssalarn wrote:

James Risner wrote:

Ssalarn wrote:

James Risner wrote:

Pick one:

Unarmed Strike damage dice
INA Bite damage dice

This was the original intent of the FAQ that allowed the combo in the first place, for what that's worth.

I'm unsure if you are agreeing with me or disagreeing.

Agreeing :)

The FAQ was supposed to allow you to use your Monk UAS damage in place of your NA damage; so INA would not further increase your boosted damage. It'd be one or the other; either monk UAS or your bite modified by INA.

Just clarifying: are you saying the other side of the argument has interpreted the FAQ correctly, that it refers to "unarmed damage" in the monk table?

[Covert Operator]

graystone wrote:

A monk that has Stonefist Gloves on them has large sized unarmed attacks without an actual size change.

"While a creature wears stonefist gloves, his unarmed strike damage is treated as if he were one size category larger, and bypasses hardness of 8 or lower."

Are you saying that Stonefist Gloves don't work the way they obviously are supposed to? That in fact, they don't work at all because the monk is still medium, even though he has an effect that makes his unarmed strikes deal damage as if one size larger.

That is nearly the exact same language that INA uses, so why wouldn't it?

The only reason I didn't post what bandw2 posted was because I thought that was completely obvious. Again, I've said that I interpreted the FAQ differently than you

Avoron wrote:

First of all, a minor correction:

INA does not make your natural attack deal damage as if one size larger. The damage of the natural attack increases as if its size had increased.
Once you increase the damage, that's just the damage of the natural attack. It's "effective size" doesn't actually change.

I read that sentence as the way I posted it. Your reading is altogether too strict. Here's why:

You're applying the "effects" of MUS to your natural attack. see Bandw2's post

[Covert Operator]

graystone wrote:

Bandw2: What you missed in your 'effectively' quote is that FCT only makes unarmed effects an option because the FAQ reads you "can apply "effects that augment an unarmed strike," and the monk's increased unarmed damage counts as such." As such, it's not an automatic change like that 2nd quote would indicate. Your natural weapon, unlike your base unarmed attack, isn't always smaller than your monks damage so that quote would force you to take the chart even if it was smaller.

At the time of your attack, you have the option of your total modified natural weapon damage or your total unarmed damage. That's why I think it's no, as it's not making your natural weapon actually increase in damage but only offers the ability to replace it's damage with your unarmed damage.

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

The last paragraph of MUS is "the monk's increased unarmed damage" IMO. Tell me directly if you disagree with that.
The effects of MUS on unarmed strike is what Bandw2 quoted.
Apply that effect to the selected natural attack. I agree with Bandw2, and your argument against it makes no sense.

Can someone link this FAQ that you and I mentioned, because I don't know where to look for it.

[Covert Operator]

Avoron, you've said that a lot of things "specifically say something"
Often, they never do.

[Jodokai]

I'm not going to get into the English or the wording, but to me, Feral Combat Training reads that you can use the damage from your Natural Attack or you can use the monk's unarmed damage. You get choose one or the other, it does not combine the two.

Improved natural attack, improves the damage from your natural attack, not your monk's unarmed damage (since is specifically says it doesn't in the feat). So if your natural attack was 1d4, if you take Improved natural attack, it becomes 1d6 which has no effect on the damage from the monk unarmed class ability. Things that only affect natural attacks, like Improved natural attack, do just that effect natural attacks. Effects that affect both, Enlarge Person, Strong Jaw, will increase both.

If you really want to have your mind blown, try to figure out which size damage increase chart you should be using for each attack.

[Chengar Qordath]

So here's a side-question that might clarify things: if a monk is using Feral Combat Training, does he gain the benefit of the Weapon Focus and Specialization feats when they're applied to his natural attacks? Or would he not be able to use them since he's applying his unarmed strike damage? Or for that matter, any other feat that specifically applies to natural attacks.

[Avoron]

Yeah, the would. Just because they can count as unarmed strikes for certain benefits doesn't mean they stop counting as a claw (or whatever they are) in any way.

[graystone]

Covert Operator wrote:

Are you saying that Stonefist Gloves don't work the way they obviously are supposed to? That in fact, they don't work at all because the monk is still medium, even though he has an effect that makes his unarmed strikes deal damage as if one size larger.

That is nearly the exact same language that INA uses, so why wouldn't it?

You have two completely different weapons. A natural weapon and an unarmed strike.

With the gloves, the monk deals 1 size higher damage with unarmed.
With natural weapons with INA, the monk deals 1 higher with the natural weapon.
Normally, neither 'size' increase effects your characters size or your other weapons.

Now if you add FCT, the ONLY thing that changes is you have the option of using natural weapon total OR your unarmed damage total. Both of those totals are already figured out. Both are +1 size. However in an or situation, you don't somehow come out with +2 size.

There is 1 key thing that you're missing and why you asked the question. The unarmed chart IS based on weapon size (of the unarmed strike). However, when used in FCT it isn't. This is proved by the fact that different natural weapon damages have NO affect on the unarmed damage. For instance a d3 tengu claw (small sized claw on a medium creature) and a d4 tiefling claw (medium claw on a medium creature) deal the exact same d6 from the monk chart. If it worked based on the natural weapon size, the monk 1 tengu would deal a d4 unarmed with claws. Is this how you think it should work? Or does both having the same unarmed damage at 1st make sense?

See PRD table: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/additionalMonsters/universalMonsterRules .html#natural-attacks-by-size

Covert Operator wrote:

Can someone link this FAQ that you and I mentioned, because I don't know where to look for it.

Look to your left. Click FAQ, Ultimate combat, look under feats, feral combat training.

Chengar Qordath wrote:

So here's a side-question that might clarify things: if a monk is using Feral Combat Training, does he gain the benefit of the Weapon Focus and Specialization feats when they're applied to his natural attacks? Or would he not be able to use them since he's applying his unarmed strike damage? Or for that matter, any other feat that specifically applies to natural attacks.

Weapon Focus = You gain a +1 bonus on all attack rolls you make using the selected weapon.

Weapon Specialization = You gain a +2 bonus on all damage rolls you make using the selected weapon.

So for FCT + unarmed damage + those feat for natural weapon. You are using the natural weapon for the attack, so weapon focus activates. You are also using the weapon while making a damage roll (it never states it has to be the weapon's own damage you are rolling) so it activates.

Now replace unarmed strikes in those feats and neither activates normally. You aren't striking with an unarmed strike or using the 'weapon'. However, FCT allows you to "While using the selected natural weapon, you can apply the effects of feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite" so they activate. This is a one way street however and FCT doesn't allow feats that effect the natural attack to work on unarmed strikes.

Weapon focus/Specialization(natural weapon) does nothing for unarmed strikes and INA doesn't boost it's damage as "The damage for this natural attack increases by one step" and you aren't rolling damage for the natural attack. You're rolling unarmed strike damage for the attack.

[Chess Pwn]

I have a question, what happens if I have weapon focus and specialization for unarmed strikes and claws and have FCT and attack with my claw? Do both apply getting me +2/+4?

[fretgod99]

Chess Pwn wrote:

I have a question, what happens if I have weapon focus and specialization for unarmed strikes and claws and have FCT and attack with my claw? Do both apply getting me +2/+4?

No. For one, even it was supposed to work this way, they'd overlap and not stack.

More importantly, the first benefit that can be applied via FCT is applying the benefit of feats with a prereq of IUS (that obviously doesn't apply here). The second benefit is effects that augment unarmed strikes. "Effects" here is likely limited in the same capacity that "effects" is in the Monk's US entry - it's referring to spells and other types of effects (including the increase US damage of a Monk) that ordinarily couldn't be applied to that type of weapon (here a natural weapon).

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.

In 3.5, the entry had an explicit reference to spells like Magic Fang, etc. The Open Game content removed a bunch of explicit examples like this from entries (it's why the PF Barbarian entry on Rage doesn't explicitly mention Wands as something one can't utilize while raging). PF copied the OGC pursuant to the OGL and we have an entry sans explicit examples of what they were referring to when they mentioned "effects".

I doubt the intent was for any feat you took which benefits your US to therefore also benefit your Natural Weapon. My assumption is that the feat benefit extension is limited to those with IUS as a prereq, otherwise, why wouldn't they just say "You can apply the effect of feats that benefit your unarmed strikes"? To me, it reads that the effects they reference in the second part are divorced from the context of feats. Are there any feats with IUS as a prerequisite that wouldn't qualify as an effect that augments your US (that would need to be applied to your natural weapon)? If not, the first part of FCT is entirely superfluous if the second part covers every feat that benefits US. But I could be wrong.

[graystone]

Chess Pwn wrote:

I have a question, what happens if I have weapon focus and specialization for unarmed strikes and claws and have FCT and attack with my claw? Do both apply getting me +2/+4?

IMO this runs afoul of the "Bonuses without a type always stack, unless they are from the same source." rule. In addition, you run into the feats rules which say the same thing.

Weapon Focus: "Its effects do not stack"
Weapon Specialization: "Its effects do not stack"

[Covert Operator]

Avoron, we disagree in a lot of grammar issues.

My argument is that the effects of MUS are applied to the natural attack.

graystone, your argument against the this is that the FAQ makes a specific exception to the norm.

Am I correct in thinking this?

[Scott Wilhelm]

Avoron wrote:

A level 5 tengu monk with FCT and under Enlarge Person has a claw damage of 1d4.

A level 5 tengu monk with FCT and Improved Natural Attack has a claw damage of 1d4.

A level 5 tengu monk with FCT and under Enlarge Person has unarmed strike damage of 2d6.
A level 5 tengu monk with FCT and Improved Natural Attack has unarmed strike damage of 1d8.

All of the above is RAW.

You have yet to show that there is a difference between using the Monk Ability to increase the Unarmed Strike Damage and using the Monk ability to increase the Claw Damage via FCT. If the Monk ability to use their martial arts training to do more damage with Natural Attacks via FCT is some kind of transferred-masking damage that won't stack with other effects that improved natural attacks, it would only be because the effect itself does that to the unarmed strike, too. Remember that Feral Combat Training does not change the nature of any of those abilities, only lets them work on your natural attacks,too.

To paraphrase,

A level 5 tengu monk with FCT and under Enlarge Person has a claw damage of 1d4.
A level 5 tengu monk with FCT and Improved Natural Attack has a claw damage of 1d4.

A level 5 tengu monk with FCT and under Enlarge Person has unarmed strike damage of 1d4.
A level 5 tengu monk with FCT and Improved Natural Attack has unarmed strike damage of 1d3.

All of the above is just as RAW.

It doesn't really work that way because there is more RAW, as Covert Operator pointed out.

Monk Unarmed Strike wrote:

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

If monk "more damage" training is, as has been asserted, some sort of masking effect that covers the base damage of the attack form rather than truly replacing it so that other effects like INA only improve upon the, then the reason why Enlarge Person stacks with MUSD of 1d8 to raise it to 2d6 is because of this section of the rules, that this is also an effect that augments an unarmed strike.

In any event, the fact that large size, size increasing effects, and as-if-you-were-one-size-bigger effects stack with the MUSD is part of the "effect that augments an unarmed strike" and as such may be applied via Feral Combat Training.

[Avoron]

The monk ability means that monks have different unarmed damage, nothing else.
The FAQ does not say that your natural weapon damage is increased in the same way your monk unarmed damage was, to give you a new value for your natural weapon damage.
Rather, it specifically (yes, specifically) says that you can use your unarmed damage with your natural weapon.

That means that you do not change your natural weapon damage with Feral Combat Training. You simply deal your unarmed damage with your natural weapon instead.

[graystone]

Covert Operator wrote:

graystone, your argument against the this is that the FAQ makes a specific exception to the norm.

Am I correct in thinking this?

It's clear that the unarmed damage you deal isn't based on the claw damage you could deal unlike with a monk.

Tengu monk 1, bite 1d3, unarmed damage 1d6
Catfolk monk 1, claw 1d4, unarmed damage 1d6
Tiefling monk 1, bite 1d6, unarmed damage 1d6
Wyvaran monk 1, slapping tail 1d8, unarmed damage 1d6

Now add FCT. Does the natural weapon damage somehow change your unarmed damage? nope!. It's not an increase. In fact, for the Wyvaran, it's dropping the number. Alter/adding to the natural attack side has NO effect on the other unarmed side (INA).

Tengu monk 1, bite 1d4, unarmed damage 1d6
Catfolk monk 1, claw 1d6, unarmed damage 1d6
Tiefling monk 1, bite 1d8, unarmed damage 1d6
Wyvaran monk 1, slapping tail 1d10, unarmed damage 1d6

Now, look at unarmed strike damage base vs unarmed strike damage monk.

Tengu monk 1, base 1d3, monk 1d6
Catfolk monk 1, base 1d3, monk 1d6
Tiefling monk 1, base 1d3, monk 1d6
Wyvaran monk 1, base 1d3, monk 1d6

Each is a 2 size increase of the damage (and +1 size after that). There is the difference. for an actual unarmed strike, it's a set increase. For FCT, it's a replacement with a set dice.

Having a small/large monk alters the base size (both monk AND the unarmed strike.
Small monk base 1d2, monk 1d4
Large monk base 1d4, monk 1d8

[Bandw2]

graystone wrote:

Bandw2: What you missed in your 'effectively' quote is that FCT only makes unarmed effects an option because the FAQ reads you "can apply "effects that augment an unarmed strike," and the monk's increased unarmed damage counts as such." As such, it's not an automatic change like that 2nd quote would indicate. Your natural weapon, unlike your base unarmed attack, isn't always smaller than your monks damage so that quote would force you to take the chart even if it was smaller.

At the time of your attack, you have the option of your total modified natural weapon damage or your total unarmed damage. That's why I think it's no, as it's not making your natural weapon actually increase in damage but only offers the ability to replace it's damage with your unarmed damage.

if you choose to apply the effect then the effect applies exactly in the same way it augments a normal unarmed strike, that is all i was suggesting. and since they had to FAQ INA, that is applies to normal natural attack just like an unarmed strike with monk levels and INA would have raised the damage dice.

but I believe the RAI is that it should not in fact stack.

[James Risner]

Covert Operator wrote:

My argument is that the effects of MUS are applied to the natural attack.

graystone, your argument against the this is that the FAQ makes a specific exception to the norm.

The language isn't clear enough that most people would agree with your RAW interpretation Covert. So at the end of the day, you must accept table variance. If you show up at a table I'm running, I'll be using the "use unarmed strike damage dice with natural weapon" interpretation and I'll be very confident and happy it is RAW just as you believe you are also using RAW.

[graystone]

Bandw2 wrote:

if you choose to apply the effect then the effect applies exactly in the same way it augments a normal unarmed strike, that is all i was suggesting.

That's in error though. The monk offers a set increase to the monks unaltered unarmed strike, starting at a 2 size increase and then 1 afterwards. When used with a natural attack + FCT you aren't doing that, but are in fact making a substitution/replacement for what's on the chart ignoring the natural weapons base damage.

[Scott Wilhelm]

Avoron wrote:

The monk ability means that monks have different unarmed damage, nothing else.

The FAQ does not say that your natural weapon damage is increased in the same way your monk unarmed damage was, to give you a new value for your natural weapon damage.

Rather, it specifically (yes, specifically) says that you can use your unarmed damage with your natural weapon.

That means that you do not change your natural weapon damage with Feral Combat Training. You simply deal your unarmed damage with your natural weapon instead.

The FAQ does not have to say that your natural weapon damage is increased in the same way that your monk unarmed damage was. Unless it says it increases it differently, then it doesn't. In Pathfinder, Feats, Classes, Abilities, etc don't do what they say don't say they do.

The benefits description of Feral Combat Training, clarified by the FAQ to include Monk Unarmed Strike Damage, only says that effects that augment an unarmed strike now augment the selected natural attack, too.

If "The monk ability means that monks have different unarmed damage, nothing else," then if that monk takes FCT, the monk ability means that monks have different damage for the selected natural attack, nothing else.

Avoron wrote:

Rather, it specifically (yes, specifically) says that you can use your unarmed damage with your natural weapon.

No it doesn't. Rather it specifically says

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

"effects that augment an unarmed strike," and the monk's increased unarmed damage counts as such.

So Monks get "increased unarmed damage." With FCT they also get "increased selected natural attack damage." That is the effect as applied.