|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No where does it say a monk's unarmed strike counts as a primary natural attack. It's treated as a natural weapon for the purposes of effects that enhance natural weapons, but it's not a natural attack, and it doesn't follow the rules for natural attacks. It uses iterative attacks like a manufactured weapon.
It fails the rules for power attack to have a 1:3 progression because it is not a two handed weapon, it is not a one handed weapon wielded with two hands, and it is not a primary natural attack.
I agree that the monk's unarmed strikes are not natural attacks. If they were natural attacks then if you did kick/kick/claw/claw/bite, you wouldn't take the penalty on the claw claw bite because all of the attacks would be "primary" natural attacks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say the Dragon Style line gives enough benefits without the PA ratio going to +3 for each -1.
That would create a new precedent: one-handed attacks with the same benefits as two-handed attacks for a little investment almost every real unarmed melee martial could easily fulfill (and that have very nice "side" effects) And suddenly the unarmed combat style becomes the best melee style in the game.
For me, Ascaphalus has shown why that was not intended by the designers.
So, to make sure we get this straight: Monk and Brawler Unarmed Strikes function as manufactured or natural weapons, whichever is the worse for feats and abilities? That is.... super dumb. There was a reason why WOTC eventually agreed that it was OK to allow you to enchant the Monk's Unarmed Strikes with magical weapon abilities.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Nocte: the reason I think it probably won't be/remain allowed is that it makes Dragon Ferocity a must-have feat for monks, and that's basically the reason INA wasn't allowed to work with monk unarmed strikes.
And still power attack exists.
I'd say the Dragon Style line gives enough benefits without the PA ratio going to +3 for each -1.
That would create a new precedent: one-handed attacks with the same benefits as two-handed attacks for a little investment almost every real unarmed melee martial could easily fulfill (and that have very nice "side" effects) And suddenly the unarmed combat style becomes the best melee style in the game.
For me, Ascaphalus has shown why that was not intended by the designers.
How does it make unarmed combat the best in the game, exactly?
It, at best, puts it on par with a 2H weapon, for the investment of 2 (or 3, for non-Monks) extra Feats. It doesn't benefit from Furious Focus, so the one hit that's slightly more powerful has a higher chance of missing than with a 2H weapon.
2H weapons, being weapons, can get enhancement bonuses earlier and better.
2H weapon users will have a higher AC (they can use an Amulet of Natural Armor).
Where exactly is the "best melee style"? In that little bit of extra damage on the first hit?
|
Natural Attacks are either primary or secondary: secondary attacks suffer a -5 to-hit modifier and a .5 STR bonus modifier. The monks unarmed strike is not a secondary attack.
3) "a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls" - Nope.People are claiming that "being treated as a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve natural weapons" is the same thing as being a primary natural weapon, but that isn't true. It treated as a natural weapon without any indication as it being primary or secondary, to be precise it isn't neither primary or secondary as it get iterative attack, something that a neither a primary or secondary natural weapon get.
So the "primary natural weapon" check is failed.
So they don't get iterative attacks for an high BAB, right? After all they are a primary natural attack, and natural attack don't get iterative attacks.
Or they are natural attack when it suit you and and they aren't when it work better for you?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They are treated as a natural attack for effects that ENHANCE natural attacks, not ones that detract from them.
It's the same principle as hitting a Monk with an ability that takes away Natural Attacks (For example, Polymorph spells). They don't lose their unarmed strike.
Likewise, this works for the fact that they also count as manufactured weapons. I'm certain nobody questions the fact that Magic Weapon works, but Shatter and Peacebond would not.
Power Attack modifies the attack, not the weapon. It makes the attack more damaging, not the weapon. The weapon is no different when power attacking or not power attacking. The weapon is not heavier, or sharper. You are merely attacking with more power.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
if unarmed strieks are primary natural attacks, then all the natural attacks you use with it, stay as primary and don't take the hit to to-hit(on, and strength mod damage bonus). :/
anyway, my thinking on it, since i am a programmer.
Weapons{}
Manufactured{} inherits Weapons
Natural{} inherits Weapons
Light, One-handed, TwoHanded all inherit manufactured
Primary and secondary inherit Natural
monk unarmed strikes are their own thing that inherit Light and Natural.
they aren't primary, they're effectively natural but do not count as a primary or secondary, and are simply their own kind of natural weapon.
I don't think the increased power attack ratio in conjunction with feral combat training makes this combination a "must have" for all monks. You still need two feats (weapon focus and feral combat training) for each set of natural weapons you want to benefit from the style. Plus, you need to acquire those natural weapons in the first place. At mid to high levels, I'd expect a PC to have a greater number of unarmed strikes in a full-attack than natural attacks, so I'd say the boost to power helps mitigate that difference. I do think it's strong, but I think it's an overestimation to say it will eclipse all other monk builds.
feral combat training doesn't say you can take it twice, btw.
Also, i agree the intent is for power attack to effect natural weapons when you have only one natural attack, thus it gains 1-1/2 and counts. Pretty sure the intent is for this to not work(in that there is no clear intent they wanted this new option to come about), and I always suggest RAI is more important than RAW. RAW only really matters in computer games, in PnP games RAI usually makes the game much more what the designers want it to be.
|
|
Again I still don't understand how they can't be a natural attack since it is part of the body. That says they act as manufactured and natural, so why do people just assume they are mainly manufactured that act as natural? They are clearly not manufactured as your hands don't come from ore or wood. Makes more sense to me to say they are natural that act as manufactured? And what is the problem with this at all since it lets their attacks be comparable to weapon attacks?
I'm siding with Rynjin on these. PA and dragon ferocity should work.
Edit for looking up more info: Yes it absolutely works. The monk unarmed strike says it is treated as manufactured and natural for any spells or effects that enhance either. Dragon Ferocity is an effect that enhances natural attacks. What is the argument here? If you go RAW, it absolutely works by the wording of both. If you want to go RAI, it absolutely works because how is that clump of meat and bone growing out of the end of your wrist not natural?
Dragon ferocity work, it is Power attack conditions to get the +3 that aren't satisfied.
except dragon ferocity, make you do 1-1/2 at all your unarmed attacks, and 2 at the first attack. the faq says you can treat it as if you're using twice your strength mod for the attack and 1-1/2 for all others. this is why this all has come about.
please read the faq and see that they will be changing the wording of the feats to support this.
oh, and they're mainly manufactured because the game says they aren't natural, it's really that simply. they behave mechanically entirely like manufactured, with the ability to be enhanced like a natural weapon.
It is what people are discussing. But it doesn't work because MIUS aren't natural attacks. If they were natural attacks then there would be no penalty with combining them with other natural attacks. If you try and get them to count for power attack, what would be the difference with having it count as NA to negate penalty to other natural attacks?
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.
Power attack neither enhances or improves the monks improved unarmed strike. It has absolutely ZERO effect on improved unarmed strike.
Everything else is irrelevant to the OPs question. Power Attack with IUS is -1/+2.
(Edited to remove an error.)
There seems to be some misunderstanding here.
Nobody is claiming a Monk's IUS is actually a Natural Attack. Saying "yeah well if they were they wouldn't be able to make iteratives so..." is entirely missing the point.
But they are TREATED AS Natural Attacks for effects. Feats are effects.
Power Attack affects your damage bonus from strength.
No. No it doesn't.
There seems to be some misunderstanding here.
Nobody is claiming a Monk's IUS is actually a Natural Attack. Saying "yeah well if they were they wouldn't be able to make iteratives so..." is entirely missing the point.
But they are TREATED AS Natural Attacks for effects. Feats are effects.
No. No it doesn't.
Power Attack affects your damage bonus from strength.
quite right - edited. and I'll try again:
Power Attack is affected by the nature of the weapon. Cause and effect are going the wrong way (for want of a better phrase)
|
|
There seems to be some misunderstanding here.
Nobody is claiming a Monk's IUS is actually a Natural Attack. Saying "yeah well if they were they wouldn't be able to make iteratives so..." is entirely missing the point.
But they are TREATED AS Natural Attacks for effects. Feats are effects.
No. No it doesn't.
Power Attack affects your damage bonus from strength.
First, feats aren't effect. The effect of a feat can be an effect, but the feat is a feat. full stop.
Second, power attack require a primary natural attack, something that a unarmed attack isn't. You can try to sidestep that limit or to browbeat people into forgetting that, but it is a very real difference.
It isn't a primary attack, so it don't satisfy the requirement for the +3 with power attack.
First, feats aren't effect. The effect of a feat can be an effect, but the feat is a feat. full stop.
Incorrect. It's the same reason a Half-Orc can take Human only Feats. A Feat is an effect (based on race, in this case).
Second, power attack require a primary natural attack, something that a unarmed attack isn't. You can try to sidestep that limit or to browbeat people into forgetting that, but it is a very real difference.
It isn't a primary attack, so it don't satisfy the requirement for the +3 with power attack.
Then what is it? If it doesn't count as a primary attack, it must count as a secondary attack. Which is clearly untrue. So it's a primary attack.
All natural attacks fall into one of two categories. If it's treated as a natural attack it has to fall into one of those.
|
|
You are tackling a primary/secondary label that isn't there for unarmed attacks.
It has been show to you several times, if they were primary or secondary attacks they wouldn't be eligible for iterative attacks and they would not make other natural attacks secondary.
And no, until the monk ability say that it is treated as a primary natural attack it isn't treated a a primary natural attack.
That doesn't "show" me anything except people misunderstanding the difference between "treated as" and "is".
They are also treated as manufactured weapons, but it doesn't mean they ARE. If they were, they'd be directly enhanceable by magic. I could have +1 Flaming fists if I chose.
This is true in the same way that "if they're treated as primary attacks then they can't get iteratives". Which isn't true at all.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Monk unarmed strikes are treated as natural attacks SOLELY for the purposes of spells and effects that upgrade natural attacks. Full stop. The only time primary/secondary comes into play is if you are making an attack with a natural weapon, which an improved unarmed strike is not.
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon, but it isn't primary or secondary.
Monk unarmed strikes are treated as natural attacks SOLELY for the purposes of spells and effects that upgrade natural attacks. Full stop. The only time primary/secondary comes into play is if you are making an attack with a natural weapon, which an improved unarmed strike is not.
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as a natural weapon, but it isn't primary or secondary.
Assuming you had a spell that effected primary natural weapons only, would it work on unarmed attacks?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Assuming you had a spell that effected primary natural weapons only, would it work on unarmed attacks?No, because it isn't a primary natural weapon. Likewise, if there was a spell that only affected secondary natural weapons, it wouldn't work either.
Okie dokie then. I can see both sides of this and don't have strong enough feelings on either side to debate about it. Just more fall-out from the dual source ability FAQ...
That doesn't "show" me anything except people misunderstanding the difference between "treated as" and "is".
They are also treated as manufactured weapons, but it doesn't mean they ARE. If they were, they'd be directly enhanceable by magic. I could have +1 Flaming fists if I chose.
This is true in the same way that "if they're treated as primary attacks then they can't get iteratives". Which isn't true at all.
it isn't primary, because as has been stated, those rules only come into effect when determining the to-hit/str mod with actual natural attacks.
if it isn't "is" a natural attack, then it has no reason to ever be "treated as" a primary or secondary weapon.
another issue, if MIUS counted as a full on natural weapon for any effect that could enhance it, wouldn't it gain 1-1/2 strength because it is your only natural weapon?
all it allows it to do, is behave as a receptor for something needing a natural attack to effect, nothing more, it doesn't behave like you HAVE a natural weapon, which is what power attack wants.
power attack doesn't effect natural weapons in the same way they aren't effected by BAB/Str mod, which is a character stat, not a weapon stat, power attacks damage bonus is the same way, just as elemental assault is a character's damage, and not actually tied to the weapon. think of it as adding the damage on after the roll hits, separately(like your strength bonus), there is nothing to suggest it alters your weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thing is, in the game, I feel power attack isn't effecting the weapon. The weapon doesn't do more damage, power attack does damage. The damage from the feat is varied depending on what the weapon is, but it's not modifying the natural attack.
Also since they are not actually natural attacks, they don't fall under primary or secondary, since they aren't natural attacks. So if something says, this effects natural attacks, then it works on the MIUS, if it says, the weapon must be a primary natural attack, then the MIUS doesn't meet this as it isn't a natural attack.
|
|
These attacks fall into one of two categories, primary and secondary attacks. Primary attacks are made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and add the creature’s full Strength bonus on damage rolls. Secondary attacks are made using the creature’s base attack bonus –5 and add only 1/2 the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls.I would propose that the brawler (and the monk) just broadly speaks about how this is a natural attack. Natural attacks are either primary or secondary (no other possibility is given!). Speaking mathematically: The set called "Natural Attack" consists solely of the subsets "Primary" and "Secondary", every member of the set has to be a member of the subset. Not only is no other subset defined, but it is stated that no other subset exists ("these attacks fall into one of two categories").
Before discussing further, how do you think about that?
I think that your assertion is wrong.
There is a category called natural attacks, that define a kind of "weapon". When those "weapons" are used you check if they are primary or secondary attacks, as different factors can change that.If someone work "as a natural attack for purpose X" it don't work "as a primary " or "as a secondary natural attack", it simply fall in the category "natural attack".
Prehensile Hair (Su): .... Her hair has reach 10 feet, and she can use it as a secondary natural attack that deals 1d3 points of damage (1d2 for a Small witch).
Notice the difference with the monk ability: here it explicitly call the ability to use the hairs as a secondary natural attack.
|
|
Ok, I just read a little more.
I'm not sure I can discuss this any more. In the "Power Attack" entry and in the "Monks Unarmed Strike" entry everybody speaks about "natural weapons" or "primary natural weapons". Thing is, natural weapons are not defined. As we are talking about RAW, this is a little confusing. Is it really OK to intermingle "attack" and "weapon"?
And if not, how would a "primary natural weapon" be defined?
I'm not sure anymore... And I'm starting to think that this is true GM country.
What are "natural weapons" is partially defined in the CRB but mostly in the Bestiary.
And the simple fact that the CRB and the Bestiary were written at the same time while developing Pathfinder from 3.x D&D has generated some rule problem that still persist.
Natural Attacks
Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks). If you possess only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage rolls made with that attack.
Some natural attacks are denoted as secondary natural attacks, such as tails and wings. Attacks with secondary natural attacks are made using your base attack bonus minus 5. These attacks deal an amount of damage depending on their type, but you only add half your Strength modifier on damage rolls.
There is zero mention of the term 'primary natural attack'. None. Unless one assumes that the default state of a natural attack is 'primary' unless specifically noted as secondary, or assumes that any natural attack that has 1.5xstrength is primary by definition, or assumes at least something when it comes to what makes a primary natural attack, then there is no point in having a Power Attack clause regarding primary natural attacks because they don't exist.
Combine this with the Bestiary - "Default full BAB? Check. Default 1xstrength? Check." - and overall it's pretty tough to avoid the implication that if an unarmed strike - or any other weapon not denoted secondary - was a natural attack, then it would be a primary natural attack. Whether that is enough for Power Attack is a different matter, but it's the most logical conclusion regarding the whole 'primary' rules fiasco.
MIUS counts as a natural WEAPON for effects. Power Attack enhances ATTACKS.
Monks usually don't have primary or secondary attacks.
MIUS counts as a natural WEAPON for effects. Power Attack enhances ATTACKS.
Monks usually don't have primary or secondary attacks.
I think the word you wanted to caps there by MIUS was effects; as for Power Attack, it adds to damage rolls from melee weapon attacks. If one assumes that a MIUS is a primary natural weapon for 'effects', then does a feat that grants an improved bonus to primary natural weapon damage rolls 'enhance or improve' that weapon? There isn't really any easy answer to any of this, since it's bogged down in multiple interpretations of language and unclear rules.
|
|
I think the word you wanted to caps there by MIUS was effects; as for Power Attack, it adds to damage rolls from melee weapon attacks. If one assumes that a MIUS is a primary natural weapon for 'effects', then does a feat that grants an improved bonus to primary natural weapon damage rolls 'enhance or improve' that weapon? There isn't really any easy answer to any of this, since it's bogged down in multiple interpretations of language and unclear rules.MIUS counts as a natural WEAPON for effects. Power Attack enhances ATTACKS.
Monks usually don't have primary or secondary attacks.
No, Turgan made the correct distinction. There is a difference between weapon type and attack type. The monk is making iterative attacks, not natural attacks.
I'm leaning towards no on this. It gives your fist damage on the same formula as a two handed weapon but it isn't a two handed weapon.