Being relieved of the -5 penalty most certainly is an improvement.The natural weapons aren't being improved. If they are combined with manufactured weapons they are done at -5. That's just the rule. There's no effect to enhance the. Just because to us it improves the attacks doesn't mean it's an effect that can be added. Like what is being boosted? nothing as far as I can see.Natural weapons aren't being "enhanced" or "improved" by the rule that treats them as secondary when combined with manufactured weapons.But being able to treat that manufactured weapon as a natural weapon sure does improve those natural weapons. That's the effect I'm talking about.
So where's the line saying Improve Natural attacks? I see no effect to ignore that making Natural attacks with a manufactured weapons don't get a -5. And as you've said, treated as ... a manufactured weapon. So even if they do count as Natural attacks too, they are still manufactured weapons. so your other natural attacks still get a penalty.
Ah, but Monk Unarmed Strikes only count as manufactured weapons for the purposes of spells and effects that improve natural and manufactured weapons.
Scott, "A Monk Unarmed Strike counts as both a manufactured and a natural weapon" means it still counts as both for spells and effects. It doesn't say manufactured OR natural weapon. SO even if you were right that it would let natural attacks at full BAB, it's still counting as a manufactured weapon. Nothing you've pointed out so far removes that quality from the Unarmed Strike. And since it's still a manufactured the other natural attacks take the penalty.
in general, class abilities are suppose to help a character, not hurt it.
Also as we're interpreting it, it still is helping him out. He can have magic fang on his hands, he can have lockjaw and strong jaw. While still having stuff that boost manufactured.
It's not clear for you apparently, how are you getting around it still being a manufactured weapon? I've yet to see you say why you can ignore that bit. Just because it counts as a natural attack wouldn't mean it loses the manufactured part.
Ah, but Monk Unarmed Strikes only count as manufactured weapons for the purposes of spells and effects that improve natural and manufactured weapons.Scott, "A Monk Unarmed Strike counts as both a manufactured and a natural weapon" means it still counts as both for spells and effects. It doesn't say manufactured OR natural weapon. SO even if you were right that it would let natural attacks at full BAB, it's still counting as a manufactured weapon. Nothing you've pointed out so far removes that quality from the Unarmed Strike. And since it's still a manufactured the other natural attacks take the penalty.
Also as we're interpreting it, it still is helping him out. He can have magic fang on his hands, he can have lockjaw and strong jaw. While still having stuff that boost manufactured.
in general, class abilities are suppose to help a character, not hurt it.But it counts as a natural weapon for the purpose of effects that improve natural weapons. Claws and Bites are natural weapons, and forgoing the -5 penalty is an improvement.
Can you find some other rule? Because this rule is clear.
To follow up on his point: Can you find a rule that it stops counting as a manufactured weapon?
Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their available natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack’s original type.
a monk's fist is still a "manufactured weapon" since it counts as BOTH. There another part of the rules.
So the answer is no, you can't find another rule?
um.. yes,http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/universal-monster-rules #TOC-Natural-Attacks It wasn't a link. It was a url. See now it's blue meaning link :D
this is the other rule source I brought in. Sorry that you couldn't tell the difference.
Again "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." That means it's counting as BOTH for the purpose of the effect to improve that you're claiming. So it's still counting as manufactured thus still incurring the penalty.
So unless you answer the question posed of why you can ignore it being a manufactured weapon posed by me and Durngrun Stonebreaker there's nothing more to discuss. You're welcome to your opinion for your home games. But if you're going by Rules you need to view all the rules and not change it by ignoring unarmed strikes still being manufactured.
It only counts as those for the purpose of improving natural attacks. It says that.Again "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." That means it's counting as BOTH for the purpose of the effect to improve that you're claiming. So it's still counting as manufactured thus still incurring the penalty.
So unless you answer the question posed of why you can ignore it being a manufactured weapon posed by me and Durngrun Stonebreaker there's nothing more to discuss. You're welcome to your opinion for your home games. But if you're going by Rules you need to view all the rules and not change it by ignoring unarmed strikes still being manufactured.
Right and since it's both the other natural attacks don't get the -5 removed. still counts as manufactured for trying to help your other attacks.
But this is a class ability that improves claw and bite attacks.Right and since it's both the other natural attacks don't get the -5 removed. still counts as manufactured for trying to help your other attacks.It only counts as those for the purpose of improving natural attacks. It says that.Again "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." That means it's counting as BOTH for the purpose of the effect to improve that you're claiming. So it's still counting as manufactured thus still incurring the penalty.
So unless you answer the question posed of why you can ignore it being a manufactured weapon posed by me and Durngrun Stonebreaker there's nothing more to discuss. You're welcome to your opinion for your home games. But if you're going by Rules you need to view all the rules and not change it by ignoring unarmed strikes still being manufactured.
where does it say that? I see it as a class ability that improves unarmed strikes. And you're still dodging our question.
Scott, I promise you that penalty for combining natural attacks isn't an effect as meant by the Monk's Unarmed Strike special ability.
You have misunderstood what the line means.
You keep saying that because it helps improve the bite and claw that it works, but that is not what the statement means.
It means that unarmed strike only is affected firstly by the ability.
As a result, the fact that if it counted as a natural attack would improve how other natural attacks function does not mean that it works on the bite or claws because the ability doesn't affect them.
I don't know of anyway short of a developer coming in and telling you you're wrong that will convince because you have dreadfully misinterpreted the meaning of the monk's unarmed strike ability.
I'm sorry that I'm not better at explaining it, but you are absolutely wrong here.
You have no grounds or argument for you case other than that one line (which you are misinterpreting). Meanwhile, the other rules outside (and ignoring that line for the moment) say we are correct.
So, the whole thing comes down to that single line. Which the rest are interpreting one way, and you solely, are interpreting another. I don't know how to convince or explain to you what the proper meaning is because you don't seem to understand it.
The line really only means that things like Improved Natural Attack can apply to unarmed strikes, or things like Strong Jaw can apply. It basically means you can target a monk's unarmed strike as though it were a natural attack, nothing more.
Is an unarmed strike count as a natural or manufactured weapon?
No. It counts as both.
First I want to say I agree with everything Claxon said.
I see this as a class ability that lets Monks have it both ways when it comes to treating MUS as Manufactured or(this is wrong) Natural weapons, both as the beneficiary of effects, but also as the benefactor of effects.But a Monk Unarmed Strike counts as both a manufactured and a natural weapon for the purposes of effects that improve natural weapons, and that includes Bite Attacks, because Bite Attacks are natural weapons.
And I have answered the question: it counts for those effects that IMPROVE those bite and claw attacks, and that is why I assert that there should be no -5.
But it still counts as a manufactured weapon for the penalties. So just cause it's part natural attack it's still part manufactured. And comboing your claws and bite with manufactured imposes the penalty. SO sure, if it could not count as a manufactured weapon, using your interpretation, it would let it work with natural attacks without a penalty. But it's still manufactured, nothing says it stop counting as such for negative penalties.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It says that a monk unarmed strike may count as a natural weapon for the purpose of improving natural weapons.
This is absolutely, 100%, unequivocally false. And it's leading you to erroneous conclusions in numerous threads.
It does not say they are treated as natural weapons for the purpose of improving natural weapons. It says they are treated as natural weapons for the purpose of effects that themselves improve natural weapons.
There is a massive difference between the two. You don't get to use your Monk's US to make your other natural weapons better (FCT notwithstanding). You get to use things that ordinarily apply to only natural weapons and use those things to make your Monk's US better.
SCOTT unless you give evidence saying that Unarmed strikes stop counting as manufactured weapons for Natural attacks you should stop arguing. You have yet given any reason or support that it stops counting and stops giving the "penalty." The fact that it never stop being a manufactured weapon and thus never stops giving penalties clarifies your interpretation out of existence.
Scott, your last really long post comes off as you basically saying, "I'm being obstinate about this despite knowing how it's supposed to work because I want it to work the other way and because Paizo changed something about the way it was written and I don't like it."
Am I correct? Because that's what I'm getting from it.
If so, this duscussion is over as you have admitted we are correct and you're just being dilberately difficult.
CHESS PWN, the reason I think that MUS don't penalize natural weapons is that they have this class ability that lets their attacks count as both for the purposes of effects that improve natural and manufactured weapons.
YES! it does do this, except that it DOES NOT say you can IGNORE penalties, so even if you could count it to apply to other attacks, it never drops the manufactured weapon quality, and thus still applies all pros and cons of it being a manufactured weapon.
Ignoring a penalty is not an effect on natural and manufactured weapons, it simply is not something the rules allow from any as of yet quoted material.
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.
also, this part of the text does not say that a US ever loses the the cons of being normally a manufactured weapon, only that your IUS can be treated as BOTH not EITHER, a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon, for the purposes of effects that enhance or improve either... blah blah, you get the point.
Yeah. "I know how this works. I know how it is intended to work. I know precisely what everybody is thinking when they read that rule because that's how it's always worked. Regardless, I'm going to do it differently because I can totally twist the words around to imply something that everybody knows, including me, isn't how any of this is intended to work."
I'm not interested in having that discussion.
This is more of a discussion of what the definition of "effect" is when it is broken down.
Iterative attacks, natural attacks, the combination of iterative attacks and natural attacks. I feel these are all part of the framework of the game not an effect. The effect phrasing in the monk class is referring to spells and the like, not a reference to how a monks attacks interact with natural weapons. If you are going to make your iterative attacks and add your NA, your NA are now secondary and at a -5
There are still two major points you have failed to respond to. You have yet to offer any evidence that an unarmed strike stops acting like a manufactured weapon. Furthermore the ability lets you benefit from effects that benefit either, however you're not benefiting from any effect but trying to avoid an "effect."
Plus I do not believe your attitude of "I don't care about intent" is not conducive to a rules argument.
The aggressiveness with which my idea is being attacked really tells me that if any of you knew of a clarifying update to the rules we’ve been arguing over, you would have brought it out. That tells me what I need to know.
That my interpetation is PFS legal.
That it is extremely unpopular, so any PFS GM is likely to balk.
The contrary evidence is sparse and poor, so Stephen Ede and I are likely to be able to use it at any PFS table even if nobody likes it.
You will get shot down without any equivocation.
Your interpretation is not legal and there is no clarification necessary, because your interpretation isn't valid.
Also, should we get Mike Brock involved since he's planning to "cheat" in PFS? I'm willing to bet we can probably get Mike to make a clear ruling on this topic.
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
I'll just chime in with my interpretation (though I'm having trouble parsing all the long-winded posts, so it's entirely possible I am not understanding the argument.)
From what I can tell, Scott is trying to find out if he makes three iterative attacks (NOT A FLURRY, if I'm reading correctly) as a monk with Feral Combat Training (bite), can he bite three times as his iterative attacks as if they were unarmed strikes, then still make all of his normal natural attacks (bite and two claws) afterward? Then he's asking what the penalty on the additional natural attacks would be.
My assumption going in:
-His character has a BAB of +11 or higher.
My interpretation of this would be:
Yes, he can make three bites, then another bite and two claws. He's replacing his unarmed strike attacks with the bite thanks to Feral Combat Training, and then he can make natural attacks as normal. So his base attack bonuses for the attacks would be:
+11/+6/+1 with bites (as unarmed strikes)
+6 bite
+6 claw
+6 claw
Now, if I've misread things and he is trying to FLURRY and THEN use the bite and two claws, he can't do that because flurry specifically calls out that you can't combine it with natural attacks.
Edit: my rules reasoning behind my interpretation:
Feral Combat Training: What does “with” in the Special line for this feat mean for monks making a flurry of blows?
Normally a monk who has natural attacks (such as a lizardfolk monk with claw attacks) cannot use those natural attacks as part of a flurry of blows (Core Rulebook 57). Feral Combat Training allows you to use the selected natural attack as if it were a monk weapon—you can use it as one of your flurry of blows attacks, use it to deploy special attacks that require you to use a monk weapon, apply the effects of the natural weapon (such as a poisonous bite) for each flurry of blows attack, and so on.The feat does not allow you to make your normal flurry of blows attack sequence plus one or more natural attacks with the natural weapon. In other words, if you can flurry for four attacks per round, with this feat you still only make four attacks per round... but any number of those attacks may be with the selected natural weapon.
Seems to me that you can use the bite as if it were an unarmed strike, and you don't NEED to be currently flurrying for that to happen. For example, you could use your bite to deliver a Stunning Fist attack as part of your normal attack sequence.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You can't use a bit as an iterative attack. You could use FCT to deliver a Stunning Fist via a bite as you make a bite attack when you typically could (part if a Flurry, part of a mixed manufactured/natural full attack, from an all-natural attack).
RE: Your interpretation, the burden is on you to prove that it is a valid interpretation. You're proposing the change, so it is incumbent upon you to support it. You can't can't even surpass the burden of production at this point, let alone the burden of persuasion. It is not our job to comb through the rules to disprove an interpretation that even you admit was not only not intended, but was not even contemplated because it is so far removed from what was intended.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
@fretgod99: I don't think he's proposing a change... I think he's telling you his interpretation of a combination of rules that are a bit vague, and I personally agree with his interpretation. It seems the whole thread is at an impasse, and this really won't get resolved without a dev chiming in, which might never happen, unfortunately.
@fretgod99: I don't think he's proposing a change... I think he's telling you his interpretation of a combination of rules that are a bit vague, and I personally agree with his interpretation. It seems the whole thread is at an impasse, and this really won't get resolved without a dev chiming in, which might never happen, unfortunately.
Do you agree with him about the ability to substitute in bites (or whatever natural attack is chosen by FCT) or that if he uses unarmed strikes with natural attacks that because of the Monk's unarmed strike ability he takes no penalties to attack and the attacks don't count as Secondary Attacks?
I think both are wrong, but the substitution isn't such a problem. However, his insistence that their is no penalty for combining unarmed strikes and natural attacks is completely unsubstantiated.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
Ah, see I missed that second part. I totally agree that he should be able to substitute bites in for unarmed strikes during his regular full-attack action, and then still get natural attacks after that, but the natural attacks AFTER his regular full attack should all take the standard -5 penalty, because they're all secondary. Them's the rules.
The other thing I want to do is develop grappling with Greater Grapple, Expert Captor, and Potion Glutton. I have a bit of concern that you take a -4 on grapple checks if you don’t have at least 2 hands free, and I intend Dia Zerva here to use a shield. It seems to me that technically, a hand and a tentacle might not count as 2 hands, but it really seems to me that for the purposes of Grappling, 1 hand + 1 tentacle should count as at least 2 hands, more really.
you're really not going to like any of the rulings on handedness. Apparently regardless of the number of limbs, you only have 2 hands of use on a race that starts with 2 hands. AKA, if you have a hand doing something like drinking a potion, the other 2 hands either collectively count as one-hand or only one arm counts as having a hand.
other things this does is make it impossible to have a two-hander and a off-hand weapon(such as an off-hand unarmed strike) or wield three hands with the Alchemist's vestigial arm discovery.
the on topic portion of this post
so this has apparently turned into a semantics debate because people are arguing over the definitions of words. "can a whale fly?" one person says yes, because he believe flying to be motion under your own power and not touching the ground; another says no, because he thinks flying is moving through the air under your own power.
neither are wrong under their definitions but you cannot argue a subject when you believe the subject is two different things, so any continued arguing is basically entirely pointless as it's impossible to provide evidence on what a word should mean.
for any continued discussion please agree upon an in-game definition of effect, and the phrase "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.".
though I posit, that under your definition of effect and such, I should be able to make my unarmed strike a natural weapon and as a natural weapon it does not gain iterative attacks.
my Definition of an effect is a Noun, meaning it is a THING not a ACTION, and thus is additive(though the things it adds can be negative) and not subtractive without adding a verb. and "a change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause", the other cause in this case is the Monk line I quoted above, and I posit that it should be defined as, the ability to augment your unarmed strike with effects, treating it, but not making it, as a manufactured and natural weapon, that can effect either manufactured or natural weapons.
I see it in two parts.
"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."
so basically, what has to enhance or improve natural or manufactured weapons? THE SPELLS
what can be treated as either natural or manufactured? YOUR UNARMED STRIKE
I see no line that says the unarmed strike can enhance or improve other weapons.
only the spells and effects can, and under my definition of effect, the unarmed strike never says it creates an effect for being treated as a natural or manufactured weapon, and thus no change occurs.
TL;DR
"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."
=
Subject: Monk's unarmed strikes
verb: treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon
noun: spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.
@fretgod99: I don't think he's proposing a change... I think he's telling you his interpretation of a combination of rules that are a bit vague, and I personally agree with his interpretation. It seems the whole thread is at an impasse, and this really won't get resolved without a dev chiming in, which might never happen, unfortunately.
he is positing that what he says is correct, when the social norm says otherwise, he is declaring his change to the social norm more right, he bears the burden of proof.
Ah, see I missed that second part. I totally agree that he should be able to substitute bites in for unarmed strikes during his regular full-attack action, and then still get natural attacks after that, but the natural attacks AFTER his regular full attack should all take the standard -5 penalty, because they're all secondary. Them's the rules.
If that were true (I disagree), then you could not also make a bite natural attack as you have already used that "limb" to make an attack.
Ah, see I missed that second part. I totally agree that he should be able to substitute bites in for unarmed strikes during his regular full-attack action, and then still get natural attacks after that, but the natural attacks AFTER his regular full attack should all take the standard -5 penalty, because they're all secondary. Them's the rules.
I feel like mentioning, monk weapons the part you bolded, are this.