Does feral combat training allow your natural attacks to benefit from knockout artist?
(Assuming the bludgeoner feat allows non lethal natural claw attacks.)
Any input on this? Is thee a definitive list of what does and does not work with feral combat training? All I can seem to find is a load of people arguing about which monk class features are augmented... -.-
Gah... Rules relating to natural attacks are just a barrel of wasps.
So normally if you use unarmed strikes to deal non-lethal damage and sneak attack damage (specifically the creature has to be denied dex so flanking doesn't work), you gain +1 damage per sneak attack die.
With feral combat training, provided you have a natural attack that meets the other requirements, non-lethal and sneak attack from dex denial, then it should allow you to get the bonus damage.
So normally if you use unarmed strikes to deal non-lethal damage and sneak attack damage (specifically the creature has to be denied dex so flanking doesn't work), you gain +1 damage per sneak attack die.
With feral combat training, provided you have a natural attack that meets the other requirements, non-lethal and sneak attack from dex denial, then it should allow you to get the bonus damage.
On that note would you say improved unarmed strike's "Your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your choice" effect would make it so I don't need the bludgeoner feat to deal nonlethal with natural weapons?
And/or would that apply to sneak attacks with natural weapons, or would I still need the bludgeoner feat for that?
I think the problem is that without bludgeoner feat that you can't deal non-lethal damage and sneak attack.
Yes.
Knockout Artist is a feat with Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite, so you could apply the effects under:
... you can apply the effects of feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite ...
As for doing non-lethal damage with Natural Weapon Sneak Attacks, you can Sneak Attack with weapons that deal non-lethal damage fine:
With a weapon that deals nonlethal damage (like a sap, whip, or an unarmed strike), a rogue can make a sneak attack that deals nonlethal damage instead of lethal damage. She cannot use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal nonlethal damage in a sneak attack, not even with the usual –4 penalty.
Doing non-lethal damage under the Improved Unarmed Strike ability counts as "a weapon that deals non-lethal damage" under this. An unarmed strike doing non-lethal damage after taking Imp. Unarmed Strike is still a weapon doing non-lethal damage (and does not need the Bludgeoner feat), so doing the same with a natural weapon under Feral Combat Training would seem to do the same.
So really, the question is does the text of Improved Unarmed Strike feat that says unarmed strikes can be made non-lethal (at your choice) apply to the selected natural attack from Feral Combat Training.
If yes, then bludgeoner is not required.
If no, then bludgeoner is still required.
I'm not sure if it should or shouldn't apply.
The base case of Unarmed Strikes is that they deal non-lethal damage. Improved Unarmed Strike makes it so that they can deal lethal damage instead (but you can choose between them).
Personally, I would say that you need the Bludgeoner feat, but that otherwise this works.
I'm in agreement on the non-lethal issue. IUS is not a feat with IUS as a prerequisite, so Feral Combat Training would only apply if IUS belongs to the group of "effects that augment an unarmed strike." If it does count as such an effect, however, the 'augmenting' it would be doing is a) allowing you to be considered armed with an unarmed strike (you already have this with natural weaponry) and b) allowing you the option to do lethal with unarmed strikes (also something your natural attacks presumably already do). I don't think that the 'augment' would be considered letting you choose to do non-lethal or lethal as the non-lethal part is already status quo for an unarmed strike.
I see what you're saying, and I agree with most of it, with the exception of the phrasing of the way it allows you to do lethal and nonlethal. What you've said is 100% correct but i think the important part of the augmentation to the unarmed strike is the "...nonlethal damage, at your choice"
The "at your choice" section is the part that stands out to me as the most important augmentation to the default ability. Had it been left out and read "Your unarmed strikes can deal lethal damage" then it would be a different story, but it's interesting that they chose to include it.
Therefore as I understand it, by RAW I Have come to the conclusion it does enable nonlethal natural weapons when combined with feral combat and that this was probably their intent when they made IUS a req for the feat.
Ofc, bludgeoner remains a worthwhile feat for manufactured weapons and/or an alternative to feral combat training.
No problem, and yes I agree that think I rather hastily jumped to calling it RAW.
I maintain that the "choice" element should be considered a valued part of the augmentation, and equally one that would transfer, as choice enhances the viability of the unarmed strike, which is why it was included in IUS.
Nevertheless, you're absolutely correct in that unless there's an official ruling it is very much up in the air and therefore more likely to be subject to GM interpretation!
Still, worst case scenario is you need to burn another feat on bludgeoner to do something the IUS feat can do already.
Edit: I tend to be able to put up a more convincing case in person, so here's hoping I won't have to burn another feat on bludgeoner and instead take something more flavourful, either way I think we can all agree interpreting it either way wouldn't be game breaking.
I agree you have a choice, but i think the choice is between lethal and whatever you normally do with the natural attack. If that clarifies my reasoning a bit.
I think neglecting the nonlethal choice part of the IUS feat is wrong, but we shall have to agree to disagree!
That is until the wording of IUS changes to something like "Your unarmed strikes can also deal lethal damage" or we get an official ruling on the matter.
Oh! Something else that might actually convince you! I'm actually making a brawler build, and at first level they get this ability that augments unarmed strike:
" Usually, a brawler's unarmed strikes deal lethal damage, but she can choose to deal nonlethal damage instead with no penalty on her attack roll. "
Source: http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes/brawler
THAT seems to clarify it a great deal and phrases it in a way that I believe leaves very little in the way of confusion as to what is "normal" and how it is being augmented by an ability.
Thank god for more recent materials, of course the final say is still up to the GM, but that clarification seems to make it a much more solid argument, maybe paizo noticed that it was unclear after all. For the purpose of IUS I am willing to accept that theres room for interpretation, but with this it seems fairly cut and dry as this is very much an effect that augments unarmed strike to deal nonlethal without penalty.
Seems odd that the brawler ability would contain text that says "Usually, a brawler's unarmed strikes deal lethal damage" when by default I thought unarmed strikes dealt nonlethal doesn't it?
On the one hand it makes you wonder why they bothered including that when they give you IUS that let's you choose between lethal and nonlethal already.
Of course my interpretation of that is that you are indeed correct in interpreting IUS only augments to let you make lethal (in addition to the normal nonlethal) And that the brawler's class feature was probably added specifically to address the backwards compatibility with feats like feral combat training.
Well, I have thoroughly undermined my own argument but I seem to also have a new understanding of IUS and answered my question at the same time.
I tip my hat to you good sir, and concede that in light of this new evidence, you may have the right interpretation of how the improved unarmed strike feat augments unarmed strike.
No.
See here.
Hi bbt, I thought I just reached an understanding... Was I wrong?
Could be because of my device, but that link just leads to a list of all feats, can you be more specific in what you are saying when you say see here?
|
I will quote the PRD:
You are skilled at fighting while unarmed.
Benefit: You are considered to be armed even when unarmed—you do not provoke attacks of opportunity when you attack foes while unarmed. Your unarmed strikes can deal lethal or nonlethal damage, at your choice.
Normal: Without this feat, you are considered unarmed when attacking with an unarmed strike, and you can deal only nonlethal damage with such an attack.
I now think drakeroberts was right about how it interacts with feral combat training, due to the juxtaposed text in the monk/brawler unarmed strike text (being that it adds the lethal option). But with the monk/brawler class feature taken into account the reverse is also true, which suits my needs just fine either way.
I wouldn't presume to poke around what else constitutes an effect that augments from the monk/brawler classes, mainly because from vague memory I believe that's already been done in a few threads, resulting in a flood of conflicted opinions. (Such as the monk unarmed increased damage die debate, though I wouldn't mind knowing the conclusion of that.)
I now think drakeroberts was right about how it interacts with feral combat training, due to the juxtaposed text in the monk/brawler unarmed strike text (being that it adds the lethal option). But with the monk/brawler class feature taken into account the reverse is also true, which suits my needs just fine either way.
I wouldn't presume to poke around what else constitutes an effect that augments from the monk/brawler classes, mainly because from vague memory I believe that's already been done in a few threads, resulting in a flood of conflicted opinions. (Such as the monk unarmed increased damage die debate, though I wouldn't mind knowing the conclusion of that.)
Sorry to briefly resurrect the thread, found the answer to the damage die question in October errata, so just in case someone stumbles across this thread and wonders, yes damage die increases:
http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1g1#v5748eaic9rbe
So, does natural attacks do non-lethal damage,
or do you still need bludgeoning feat for that?