Dragon Ferocity and Power Attack after the new FAQ


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 198 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

4 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Morning,

I just read the FAQ. And to me it seems that with the new wording for Dragon Ferocity the attack-to-damage ratio from Power Attack changes to the progression for twohanded weapons. Am I right?


For people who need the info to make sense of OPs post.

The new and important wording for Dragon Ferocity wrote:
While using Dragon Style, increase your Strength bonus on unarmed strike damage rolls by an additional one-half your Strength bonus, to a total of twice your Strength bonus on the first attack and 1-1/2 your Strength bonus on the other attacks
Power attack with the important bits bolded wrote:


You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon.

It seems that yes, Dragon Ferocity as worded gives you +3 damage per -1 attack on a Power Attack.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I think that this is probably an unintended consequence of recent FAQ. Not that I'm in any hurry to change it. It's nice to see monks get nice things. Though, after Pummeling Strike/Charge I'm not sure monks really need anything more.


Well if you're playing PFS then pummeling charge has been banned. So having nice things and being able to use them aren't always the same thing.


An unarmed strike is not a primary natural weapon. Modifying the damage doesn't automatically alter the way it interacts with Power Attack.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, actually, it might be a natural weapon.

Straight from the PRD:

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.

It may qualify. I'm not sure though, gonna be a lot of table variance on this one.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Pretty sure an unarmed strike is not considered a "primary natural weapon" for that purpose.


But wasn't it ruled that the first hit from dragon style would have gotten the -1/+3 from power attack?


Chess Pwn wrote:
Well if you're playing PFS then pummeling charge has been banned. So having nice things and being able to use them aren't always the same thing.

Wait really? why?


i cannot seem to find this faq can someone link it?


Nocte ex Mortis wrote:

Well, actually, it might be a natural weapon.

Straight from the PRD:

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.

It may qualify. I'm not sure though, gonna be a lot of table variance on this one.

That's a good point. To counter I will observe at this point that Power Attack neither enhances or improves the weapon, so I would suggest that it doesn't count as a natural weapon for this purpose.

:)


JurgenV wrote:

i cannot seem to find this faq can someone link it?

this one

Silver Crusade

JurgenV wrote:

i cannot seem to find this faq can someone link it?

here

Ninja'd!


dragonhunterq wrote:
Nocte ex Mortis wrote:

Well, actually, it might be a natural weapon.

Straight from the PRD:

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.

It may qualify. I'm not sure though, gonna be a lot of table variance on this one.

That's a good point. To counter I will observe at this point that Power Attack neither enhances or improves the weapon, so I would suggest that it doesn't count as a natural weapon for this purpose.

:)

From the Feral Combat FAQ:

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

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

SO increased damage dice is an effect that augments unarmed strike. I can't see why increased damage bonus wouldn't also be one.


Very nice! It may be an unintended side consequence but my brawler will be very, very happy.
And yeah, since I already use Dragon Style with Power Attack, Dragon Ferocity should work too. Now I only have to gather enough XP to take Stunning Fist... :)


graystone wrote:
dragonhunterq wrote:
Nocte ex Mortis wrote:

Well, actually, it might be a natural weapon.

Straight from the PRD:

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.

It may qualify. I'm not sure though, gonna be a lot of table variance on this one.

That's a good point. To counter I will observe at this point that Power Attack neither enhances or improves the weapon, so I would suggest that it doesn't count as a natural weapon for this purpose.

:)

From the Feral Combat FAQ:

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

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

SO increased damage dice is an effect that augments unarmed strike. I can't see why increased damage bonus wouldn't also be one.

Power Attack augments the attack, not the weapon.


Precisely, which is why it has different rules depending on the kind of weapon you're wielding.

Wait

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Rynjin wrote:

Precisely, which is why it has different rules depending on the kind of weapon you're wielding.

Wait

Also, depending on your version "wielding".

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
PRD wrote:


You can choose to take a –1 penalty on all melee attack rolls and combat maneuver checks to gain a +2 bonus on all melee damage rolls. This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls. This bonus to damage is halved (–50%) if you are making an attack with an off-hand weapon or secondary natural weapon.
PRD wrote:


Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
PRD wrote:
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.

What are Power attack requirements to apply the +3?

1) "a two-handed weapon" - Nope
2) "a one handed weapon using two hands" - Npoe
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.

Grand Lodge

While I agree that it doesn't work on unarmed strikes, I'm less certain about someone using an actual primary natural weapon, via Feral Combat Training.


Except it is a primary natural weapon. The way they're defined:

"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."

Monk Unarmed Strikes fall into the former designation. The alternative would be for them to be treated as Secondary.

Further:

"If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type."

I see no way you can claim it doesn't work.


PRD, Equipment: Unarmed Strike wrote:
Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Combat).

So by default, they're not natural weapons. You can't add an unarmed strike to a natural attack sequence as if it were a bite or claw, for instance. You essentially "wield" an unarmed strike as a manufactured weapon. You never have the option of attacking with it as a primary or secondary natural weapon.

PRD, Monk: Unarmed Strike wrote:
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.

Your unarmed strikes qualify as a natural weapon for certain effects, but you never gain the ability to treat your unarmed strike as a primary natural weapon.

With Feral Combat Training though, I can't see any reason this shouldn't work. Though there is the odd exception that power attack doesn't account for primary natural attacks that add more than 1.5xSTR mod to damage (as the first attack would while using Dragon Ferocity).


Except that's oxymoronic. All natural weapons are either primary or secondary. A natural weapon that is neither is not a natural weapon.


Rynjin wrote:
Except that's oxymoronic. All natural weapons are either primary or secondary. A natural weapon that is neither is not a natural weapon.

It's just clarifying that an unarmed strike is NOT a natural weapon at all. It can be treated as a natural weapon for some purposes, but at the end of the day it is absolutely not a natural weapon.


dragonhunterq wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Except that's oxymoronic. All natural weapons are either primary or secondary. A natural weapon that is neither is not a natural weapon.
It's just clarifying that an unarmed strike is NOT a natural weapon at all. It can be treated as a natural weapon for some purposes, but at the end of the day it is absolutely not a natural weapon.

If it's treated as a natural weapon for X purpose, it is a natural wepaon for X purpose. If it is a natural weapon for X purpose, it is either a primary or secondary natural weapon for X purpose.

That's like saying Slashing Grace doesn't allow a slashing weapon to be treated as a piercing weapon for class features that rely on it, because it's "absolutely not a piercing weapon".


It should not work. Suddenly you do even more damage than a THF with Power Attack. Does not make sense to me.


Turgan wrote:
It should not work.

Your opinion is noted.

Turgan wrote:

Suddenly you do even more damage than a THF with Power Attack. Does not make sense to me.

Except for the part where you don't do that thing you just said, you are correct.


Why, they both get the same str bonus and the same Power Attack ratio - the dragon ferocity user just get' something on top for his first attack.


Turgan wrote:
Why, they both get the same str bonus and the same Power Attack ratio - the dragon ferocity user just get' something on top for his first attack.

Which is a function of an entirely different thing. They do not do more damage than a 2HF with Power Attack. They do more damage (slightly, on one hit) with Power Attack and TWO OTHER FEATS.

What doesn't make sense about that, pray tell?


Quote:
Quote:
Why, they both get the same str bonus and the same Power Attack ratio - the dragon ferocity user just get' something on top for his first attack.

Which is a function of an entirely different thing. They do not do more damage than a 2HF with Power Attack. They do more damage (slightly, on one hit) with Power Attack and TWO OTHER FEATS.

What doesn't make sense about that, pray tell?

For anyone other than monks: Three Feats. You still need Stunning Fist. And Wisdom 13. For (in my case) a brawler thats not something to laugh at.

@Turgan
In our special case, you have spellcasting. I do not. ;)


Also wanna point out that Brawlers and Monks also have no class features providing a bonus on attack rolls. While they will be throwing out a LOT of hits they will be hitting with comparatively fewer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Turgan wrote:

Does not make sense to me.

FAQs often result in stuff that doesn't make sense.

Scarab Sages

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Diego Rossi wrote:


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.

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.


Gingerbreadman wrote:
Turgan wrote:

Does not make sense to me.

FAQs often result in stuff that doesn't make sense.

In some cases, yes.

In this case it merely restores the ability to how if functioned before the FAQ that broke it.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The point is that the monk's attacks that deal +1-1/2 str to damage should count as primary natural attacks because they clearly are NOT secondary. At least something good out of the whole collateral.
And if some think that makes no sense...face it. Others think the whole stacking FAQ makes no sense and we have to face it, too.


Rynjin wrote:
Gingerbreadman wrote:
Turgan wrote:

Does not make sense to me.

FAQs often result in stuff that doesn't make sense.

In some cases, yes.

In this case it merely restores the ability to how if functioned before the FAQ that broke it.

You know, I had completely forgot about that. I forgot that before the FAQ about Dragon Style/Ferocity that people assumed that Power Attack gave 3:1 when used it conjunction with it then.

I'm betting we will probably see further FAQ about how these interact before this dust storm settles out completely. But who knows, maybe monks will get lucky.

Sczarni

It's really nice to see Monks get a little more attention. It does however stink that Pummeling Charge was banned from PFS shortly after ACG was released... /sigh.

Ugh. With all these FAQs now, it's time to read through every FAQ to catch up... I wish there was a way to Subscribe so I can get FAQ updates through Email or something.

Sczarni

Jeremias wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
Why, they both get the same str bonus and the same Power Attack ratio - the dragon ferocity user just get' something on top for his first attack.

Which is a function of an entirely different thing. They do not do more damage than a 2HF with Power Attack. They do more damage (slightly, on one hit) with Power Attack and TWO OTHER FEATS.

What doesn't make sense about that, pray tell?

For anyone other than monks: Three Feats. You still need Stunning Fist. And Wisdom 13. For (in my case) a brawler thats not something to laugh at.

@Turgan
In our special case, you have spellcasting. I do not. ;)

Actually,

Any smart player would simply take 1 level in Master of Many Styles and could potentially get two really great Styles for FREE without meeting the Prerequisites. So, actually, it is something to laugh at. MoMS is the most dipped class purely for the fantastic Styles.

Not to mention, you get a +2/+2/+2 for saves, though you do lose out on 1 BAB. You also get to Fuse two styles, and you get Stunning Fist for free.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Kazumetsa: you can subscribe to the PDT account's RSS feed. Or Mark's RSS.

@Discussion: it's probably true that Monks' unarmed attacks are primary (b/c not secondary). But what PA is calling out is not, "primary", but " primary that deals 1.5x Str" distinguished from primary that deals 1x Str. Which, under natural attacks. It's working on this distinction in UMR:

Natural Attacks wrote:
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 [...] If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature's full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls. This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one. If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type.

What PA intends is to separate out those primary attacks from others, such as the Monk's, that are primary but not that kind of primary.

Sczarni

Joe M. wrote:

@Kazumetsa: you can subscribe to the PDT account's RSS feed. Or Mark's RSS.

@Discussion: it's probably true that Monks' unarmed attacks are primary (b/c not secondary). But what PA is calling out is not, "primary", but " primary that deals 1.5x Str" distinguished from primary that deals 1x Str. Which, under natural attacks. It's working on this distinction in UMR:

Natural Attacks wrote:
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 [...] If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature's full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls. This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one. If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type.
What PA intends is to separate out those primary attacks from others, such as the Monk's, that are primary but not that kind of primary.

ERMERGERD. Thank you Joe M. You're my Hero Q_Q

Silver Crusade

Now, I expect someone to suggest a literalist-RAW response. If that's your thing, have fun with it. My main point is that the *intention* of PA isn't in doubt.

If you are attracted to such a literalist approach, though, you will have to admit that you won't get the PA boost on your first attack, since:

Quote:
... to a total of twice your Strength bonus on the first attack and 1-1/2 your Strength bonus on the other attacks ...

Since 2x != 1.5x, fails to trigger PA boost under literalist reading.

:-)


Even if you're going that pedantic (for reasons I can't fathom), it would still work on subsequent attacks.

I also don't believe the intent is in doubt. It works.

TBQH if they clarify it doesn't, I'm probably packing my bags and finding a new game. I'm tired of them actively harming the game with "totally not rules changes" like that.


Joe M. wrote:

Now, I expect someone to suggest a literalist-RAW response. If that's your thing, have fun with it. My main point is that the *intention* of PA isn't in doubt.

If you are attracted to such a literalist approach, though, you will have to admit that you won't get the PA boost on your first attack, since:

Quote:
... to a total of twice your Strength bonus on the first attack and 1-1/2 your Strength bonus on the other attacks ...

Since 2x != 1.5x, fails to trigger PA boost under literalist reading.

:-)

But 1-1/2 = 1.5x for all but the first attack.


There's also the fact that within the rules, bonuses are inclusive. I.E. having more than the base amount is the same as having the base amount (it's why someone with 6 ranks in a skill can still qualify for a PrC which requires 5 ranks).

By his "literalist" reading, only people with a Strength of exactly 13 would be able to take Power Attack.


I have to ask, how is a monk's fist not a natural attack? It's as natural as a dog's bite or a bear's claw. By rule too it looks like it does qualify as a natural attack. The first attack in a round at least would be primary and maybe any iterative could be considered secondary I guess. Saying the monk's hand/foot/elbow/forehead isn't a natural weapon does not make sense to me. A monk with power attack and the dragon ferocity seem fine to me in how they are worded. Might be unintentional but as it is, it looks like it works.

Also I should not be typing when I have been awake for more than 24 hours.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
CRB, Power Attack feat wrote:
This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls.
CRB, Equipment chapter wrote:

Strike, Unarmed:

(...)
Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Combat).

So it's established that for normal people, this isn't gonna work because it's not a natural weapon. Moving on to the monk...

CRB, Monk wrote:

Unarmed Strike:

(...)
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.

Is PA an "effect that enhances or improves (...) natural weapons"?

Gosh. I'm fairly sure that monk ability was intended to let them profit from both Magic Weapon and Magic Fang spells, and I'm not convinced that PA should apply to it as if it were a natural attack.

My first impulse was to say that if PA can count a monk's unarmed strike as a natural attack, then Improved Natural Attack should also work. So I did some digging. The first thing I found was this line in INA:

PRD, Monster feats, INA wrote:
Benefit: Choose one of the creature's natural attack forms (not an unarmed strike).

So then I did some digging to find out where that came from. I eventually found this post where James Jacobs explains how he and Jason (the actual rule guy) made the definitive ruling on INA.

My interpretation of that is: they weren't entirely certain, but thought it quite possible that you could apply natural attack feats to monk unarmed strikes. Then they errataed INA so that you couldn't apply INA to monk unarmed strikes, just to be sure.

Given the arguments given in that thread, I do expect that if it turns out that this is legal, that it'll get errataed somehow because it's undesirable to James & Jason in the same way that using INA on monk strikes was.

Silver Crusade

Typing from phone, thought my sketch would adequately communicate my point. Since it hasn't, will fill in this evening depending on how conversation progresses.

To be clear: I don't really mind if this ends up working (I don't see much harm in it). But I do think that Power Attack's intention is different.

:-)


Joe M. wrote:


To be clear: I don't really mind if this ends up working (I don't see much harm in it). But I do think that Power Attack's intention is different.

:-)

I'm not really sure that it is feasible to speculate about the intention of a feat in the CRB because the original intention could never have had in mind which books would be published later.

That said, it could be like you said, but on the other hand it is some nice things for unarmed warriors... Still feat-intensive.

And yes, now I'm thinking more and more about dipping in MoMS...

Sovereign Court

I don't mind this working, but I don't think it'll last. Then again, you could get lucky; maybe the backload of FAQ requests for actual problems will delay nerfing this away :P


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Ascalaphus wrote:
I don't mind this working, but I don't think it'll last. Then again, you could get lucky; maybe the backload of FAQ requests for actual problems will delay nerfing this away :P

Sensible FAQ requests don't get priority over nerfing stuff that's working well.

1 to 50 of 198 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Dragon Ferocity and Power Attack after the new FAQ All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.