prototype00 wrote: ...as you can effectively fight other opponents around you while grappling anyway. Is that actually true? I have to admit that despite the simplification Pathfinder brought to the grappling rules that it still remains one of the most complicated sections of the rules. I could have totally mistaken the grappling rules. How is this accomplished?
Did someone point out that you can setp away from lawful after completing the monk levels? The Monk says that if you're no longer Lawful you just cannot progress further in the class bu you mantain the features you already got.
Moreover there's a trait for Aasimars that lets you be Monk also at NN and NG
Thanks for this guide. Gave me an idea for a constrictor snake character. However, trying to build it with monk didn't really work. Tetori takes away more than it gives, since the main form already has grab and constrict. Furthermore, with only a single bite attack, I need flurry (with Feral Combat Training) for when I can't grapple for some reason.
In the end I went with barebones druid and the rest in Brawler. Brawler has no WIS synergy, but if you only go for the minimum 4 druid levels, that does not matter very much. In return, you get tons of bonus feats, which a constrictor desperately needs. And maneuver training for even more grapple. And more HP, which you need because your AC tanks. And interchangeable combat feats for when grappling is not an option. And a high BAB. And you're chaotic neutral because you love breaking rules and laughing at monks.
So, this is what I came up with:
Human, dual talent (without AC, we'll need extra CON and, while feat starved, all the nescessary feats come with skill or BAB prereqs).
15-point buy (+2 in STR, +2 CON or DEX):
STR 18 DEX 14 CON 14 INT 9 WIS 13 CHA 7
Level progression and feats:
1. Brawler 1: Improved Grapple
2. Druid 1: /
3. Druid 2: Weapon Focus (bite)
4. Druid 3: /
5. Druid 4: Shaping Focus
6. Brawler 2: Feral Combat Training (bite)
7. Brawler 3: Natural Spell (?)
8. Brawler 4: /
9. Brawler 5: Greater Grapple, Final Embrace
10. Brawler 6: /
11. Brawler 7: Rapid Grappler
12. Brawler 8: Final Embrace Horror
13. Brawler 9: Final Embrace Master
At that point, the core of the build is complete. You have level 8 wild shaping for the huge sea snake if it's nescessary, but most of the time, the Anaconda (large constrictor) will do.
Some relevant equipment:
- Belt of Physical Might (STR and CON) +4
- +1 Brawling Elven Chain. We're monks, so we can wear this. The AC won't help until we get the horrifically expensive Wild property, but the Brawling does add to unarmed (and thus bite and constrict) damage.
- +2 Ghost Touch Amulet of Mighty Fists (strangle ghosts!)
- Gauntlets of Skilled Maneuver (grapple) (MOAR GRAPPLE!).
Back-of-the-envelope calculations:
Given that we put attribute increases in strength, our strength our strength in Anaconda form is 21 + 4 (belt) + 4 (large) = 29, for a +9 modifier.
Large unarmed (and thus bite) damage is 2d8 + 13 (1.5STR) + 2 (brawling armor) + 2 (AoMF) = 2d8+17 (average 26).
constrict damage = 4d8+17 (average 35)
bite attack bonus is +12 (BAB) +9 (STR) +1 (WF) +2 (AoMF) = +24. Not exactly an auto-hit, but very good odds nonetheless (CR 13 AC = 28).
grapple CMB is +12 (BAB) +9 (STR) +2 (IG) +2 (GG) +1 (large) +4 (grab) +2 (brawler maneuver training) +2 (gauntlets) = +32. Again not an auto-success, but close (the better CMD's at this level are 36-37).
With mildly good rolls, you can have a "full attack" of bite + grab + constrict, (move) grapple + constrict, (swift) grapple + constrict, for 3*(26+35) = 183 damage. You have decent odds of pulling this off against, for example, a CR 13 adult blue dragon, which - coincidentally - has 184 HP.
You had best win initiative though, because with an AC in the low 20's and hp slightly above 100, the dragon auto-hits with all its attacks and does an average of 100 damage...
Very much a one-trick pony (almost non-existant spellcaster), but a very cool trick it is =) Don't forget you can still pick any 2 combat feats on the fly (3 at Brawler 10) for when you need to adapt. And you can still flurry anything that can't be grappled (three weaker attacks, but it's still something).
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
How often does Rake go off? If I have Greater and Rapid Grappler, can I Rake 3 times per round, assuming I started the round grappling?
Lune wrote: prototype00 wrote: ...as you can effectively fight other opponents around you while grappling anyway. Is that actually true? I have to admit that despite the simplification Pathfinder brought to the grappling rules that it still remains one of the most complicated sections of the rules. I could have totally mistaken the grappling rules. How is this accomplished? I was mostly going off this:
Quote: At 4th level, he suffers no penalties on attack rolls, can make attacks of opportunity while grappling, and retains his Dexterity bonus to AC when pinning an opponent or when grappled. Of course you're going to want rapid grapple to fully utilize this.
Good build Kastar, unfortunately I don't think that Brawlers can use their Natural Attacks with Brawler's flurry due to the wording of FCT.
prototype00
Most of the time you don't need it anyway, however the FAQ on Feral Combat Training seems to imply very strongly that the intent of Feral Combat Training is for the natural attack to function as if it were a monk weapon. Specifically:
Quote: 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 bolded part clearly states that it extends beyond simply flurry of blows. And given that the Brawler's Flurry specifically mentions it working with "weapons with the 'monk' special property", I think the RAW is fairly clear that it works.
And even if you'd (somehow) argue it doesn't, that doesn't really matter much. You're not going to play a build that starts to come "online" at around level 9 in PFS anyway, and I think most non-PFS DM's would allow you to use FCT on Brawler's Flurry regardless of the RAW legalese. It's not exactly stretching the imagination, nor is it broken.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Kastar, how are you taking Weapon Focus (Bite) at level 3? You can't Wild Shape yet, so don't have proficiency with Bite from that... You're Human, so you're not using Half-orc stuff to grab a Bite...
EDIT:
Also, I think the real argument against using Brawler's Flurry with natural weapons is:
Brawler's Flurry wrote: A brawler with natural weapons can't use such weapons as part of brawler's flurry, nor can she make natural weapon attacks in addition to her brawler's flurry attacks. Flurry of Blows has similar language, so you could argue that the FAQ still applies, but I don't think that's RAW.
ZZTRaider wrote: Kastar, how are you taking Weapon Focus (Bite) at level 3? You can't Wild Shape yet, so don't have proficiency with Bite from that... You're Human, so you're not using Half-orc stuff to grab a Bite... Even though a druid can only wild shape from level 4 onward, he gets the proficiencies at level 1. It's weird and not entirely unambiguous, this thread has more discussion on it.
However it's pretty much a non-issue. Save some gold and retrain it when leveling to five if you have to (it's an optional rule, but even PFS legal). Or get the local town cleric to cast Savage Maw on you while you level, boom, bite attack. Or burn a trait on it for Mother's Teeth if you really have to.
Since you are always proficient with your own natural attacks, the latter is entirely, unambiguously, completely RAW legal.
Quote: EDIT:
Also, I think the real argument against using Brawler's Flurry with natural weapons is:
Brawler's Flurry wrote: A brawler with natural weapons can't use such weapons as part of brawler's flurry, nor can she make natural weapon attacks in addition to her brawler's flurry attacks. Flurry of Blows has similar language, so you could argue that the FAQ still applies, but I don't think that's RAW.
...Yes, that is the exact exception that the Feral Combat Training feat creates. Unarmed Strikes aren't natural attacks, FCT changes that to make them equivalent for one specific natural attack. Flurry (both monk's and brawler's) states you can't use natural attacks. FCT changes that so you can. FCT was created before any other class had a flurry, however, so its wording speaks about a monk's flurry. Then some designers take additional pains to extensively FAQ that feat to explain that, with regards to the "Special" part of the feat, what it actually does is change the natural attack in question to count as a weapon with the "monk" property, allowing it to be used with any special attack or ability requiring such a weapon. A Brawler's Flurry specifically states it works with any weapon with the monk property.
There's really not much of a question here. I already pointed all of that out in my previous post. I'm not quite sure I understand what your counter-argument is, if any. If you ignore the part in Brawler's Flurry where it says it can be used with monk weapons, and also ignore the FAQ on FCT that says your natural attack is now a monk weapon, then no, Brawler's Flurry doesn't work with FCT. But I don't really feel that ignoring half of the relevant RAW makes for a very strong argument. (Not trying to be snarky, btw. I simply don't think you have a point.)
Treemystic wrote: This is very interesting, I have been wanting to make a grapple based character for a while but the damage has always been kind of low for me. When I created a grapple based character, inflicting lots of damage was not the goal. Tying Up my opponent was the goal. I combined Greater Grapple and Expert Captor. Expert Captor is a Class Ability granted to members of the Cavalier Order of the Penitent at Level 2. It lets you Tie Up Grappled--not Pinned!--opponents as one of your maintain-a-grapple actions, and you don't take the -10 when you do it. So when you begin your round adjacent to your opponent, you can Initiate a Grapple as a Standard Action and then Maintain a grapple as a Move Action, Tying Up your opponent in 1 round! Fishing for bonuses to your Grapple Mod yields impressive results.
When I created a high-damage build that made use of Grappling, I had the character take 2 levels in White Haired Witch, netting an additional natural attack that has Grab and Constrict. That serves as the prerequisite for the Final Embrace Feat, which lets you apply Grab and Constrict to all your Natural Attacks. With Grab via Final Embrace, you can initiate a Grapple with every one of your natural attacks, and if you are wearing Armor Spikes, you get the armor spike damage on every one of those Grapples, and even that damage is very high (1d6+St&other bonuses). The Constrict damage is the damage of your primary natural attack, which can be made to get quite high and also applies to all your natural attacks you get to Grab with.
|
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
I disagree with prototype00's guide's assessment of Improved Natural Fighting as not worthwhile. I have looked extensively in the rules, and I haven't found anything to suggest that INA doesn't stack just fine with Feral Combat Training, Wild Shape, and everything else. And if there is a problem-child Feat here--and there isn't--it is Feral Combat Training, not INA.
Mark Seifter of the design team had this to say to my question:
Quote: Hello Mark, hope you are having a good week.
A small question I wanted to ask concerning Feral Combat training, if I may?
So according to a recent faq, if you are a monk and you have feral combat training with a natural attack, you can apply your unarmed strike damage to the natural attack. I.e. if your unarmed strike damage was 1d8 and your claw damage was originally 1d4, and you had feral combat training (claw), your claw damage would become 1d8.
Now if you had Improved Natural Attack (Claw), would that 1d8 damage that the claw is now doing be adjusted to 2d6 as if you were one size larger as per the Improved Natural Attack feat description?
Thanks so much for the answer (whichever it might be).
prototype00
Quote: Since you're replacing with the unarmed damage, I would think it wouldn't help. Since I'd rather deal in more sure ways to power, rather than tricks DMs might outlaw, I elected to give it the grade I did. If it does work, great, faq it quick, please.
prototype00
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
So, this character was made before I found this guide.
He is in a gestalt game where you get two classes and by chance I chose monk and druid, not knowing the possibilities.
I've found him rather unsatisfying. And I know it's the character because the game is great.
He is monk of the four winds and Ape shaman.(again before I saw the guide)
Part of the problem is that he had a gorilla animal companion that he was overprotective of and therefore missed out on combat power with.
I recently asked the DM allowance to trade the animal companion for the strength(ferocity) domain.
His feats, bonus or otherwise, are:
Improved unarmed
Elemental fist
Scorpion style
Bleeding attack
Dodge
How do you suggest making him better? Next is level 3, so he'll be getting a feat then.
|
2 people marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
prototype00 wrote: Mark Seifter of the design team had this to say to my question:
Quote: Hello Mark, hope you are having a good week.
A small question I wanted to ask concerning Feral Combat training, if I may?
So according to a recent faq, if you are a monk and you have feral combat training with a natural attack, you can apply your unarmed strike damage to the natural attack. I.e. if your unarmed strike damage was 1d8 and your claw damage was originally 1d4, and you had feral combat training (claw), your claw damage would become 1d8.
Now if you had Improved Natural Attack (Claw), would that 1d8 damage that the claw is now doing be adjusted to 2d6 as if you were one size larger as per the Improved Natural Attack feat description?
Thanks so much for the answer (whichever it might be).
prototype00
Quote: Since you're replacing with the unarmed damage, I would think it wouldn't help. Since I'd rather deal in more sure ways to power, rather than tricks DMs might outlaw, I elected to give it the grade I did. If it does work, great, faq it quick, please.
prototype00
Was Mark Seifter making an official rules post? If he was, would you grant the citation and link to it? If he was, then you might need to rethink your whole guide. Otherwise, we can still rely on the RAW.
You quoted Mark as saying that Monk Unarmed Damage replaces the normal Natural Attack Damage if you have Feral Combat Training.
You assert that when a Druid with Feral Combat Training grows sizes bigger, the damage done grows from that replaced unarmed strike damage. That’s why you give a high recommendation to Feral Combat Training in the first place, isn’t it? That’s how your Mauler works, isn’t it?
If you are a Duid/Monk with Feral Combat Training and Monastic Legacy so that your claw damage does 1d8, and if you Wild Shape into a Megaraptor, a Large Animal with Claw attacks, then your Claw damage raises from 1d8 to 2d6. Am I mistaken? Well, Improved Natural Attack precisely says the selected natural attack increases in damage as if your size increased by one category, so according to you and Mark, Improved Natural Weapon exactly does raise your Claw damage from 1d8 to 2d6!
Look, Mark Seifter, FCT, and the FAQ regarding it say that you use your MUS damage instead of the other Natural Weapon Damage for the base damage. INA lets you inflict your Natural Weapon Damage as if you were 1 size bigger. I don’t think there is anything in the rules that says they don’t stack. There has been a lot of debate about this on the threads, I've been following it, and I have found no one to bring forth real evidence in the RAW that says they don’t stack. The rationale you are quoting Mark as using better supports the argument that they do stack than that they don’t. But if I missed the evidence, then please bring forth the evidence.
In general, there is a pattern in the rules that describes when things stack and when they don’t: similar bonuses from different sources don’t stack, and different bonuses do stack. The +1 armor bonus from silken ceremonial armor doesn’t stack with the +6 armor bonus from a mithril agile breastplate, but a +2 shield bonus from a large shield will, and so will a +1 deflection bonus from a ring of protection. With FCT and INA, one changes the base damage, and one increases the effective size category. Wildly different, those are the kinds of bonuses that usually stack.
Even if you are right that INA and FCT don’t stack, as I was saying, it is not INA that is the problem feat: it’s Feral Combat Training. Actually, extending the logic of those 2 feats not stacking, if you increase the size of the character via wildshape, your new size will also not stack with Feral Combat Training. If you took Weapon Specialization Claws, then the bonus would not stack with Feral Combat Training, either, and it is FCT and not INA that should get the Red Letters.
Even if you are right that INA is the problem child and not FCT, then you shouldn’t say definitively that they don’t stack: what you should say in your Guide is what you said here: that the question is hotly debated on the threads, and your DM might disallow it. It’s an awesome build if your DM allows it, and that might be quite a big "if."
In PFS, though, DMs must adjudicate by RAW, FAQ, and official rules posts, and I have yet to see any that contradict what I said.
Personally, I am disinclined to worry about the grumblings of net-troll-naysayers who cluck and tsk and say it can't be done without evidence. I like evidence, though. And for the record, you--who also thinks it can't be done--are for your part offering a whole guide on how it can be done even if my way of doing it won't work, and I appreciate that. You're not being a troll. If of course you really think it should be allowed, that means you are being bullied by the trolls, and that makes me mad enough to eat 5 Billygoats Gruff!
As far as I understand it, and I am in no way claiming to have all the answers here:
Fist of the Forest:
Unarmed Strike = X
Size increase bonus to unarmed strike damage = 2X
FCT means natural attack = Unarmed Strike Damage = 2X
Natural Attack = X
Unarmed Strike = Y
Improved Natural Attack = 2X
FCT = Unarmed Strike Damage = Y (and not 2Y)
Not that I agree, but I see the logic, I guess.
If you say one thing, and other forumers say another and the current rules guy in residence agrees with them, there is not really much I can say.
prototype00
Mickey Carver wrote: So, this character was made before I found this guide.
He is in a gestalt game where you get two classes and by chance I chose monk and druid, not knowing the possibilities.
I've found him rather unsatisfying. And I know it's the character because the game is great.
He is monk of the four winds and Ape shaman.(again before I saw the guide)
Part of the problem is that he had a gorilla animal companion that he was overprotective of and therefore missed out on combat power with.
I recently asked the DM allowance to trade the animal companion for the strength(ferocity) domain.
His feats, bonus or otherwise, are:
Improved unarmed
Elemental fist
Scorpion style
Bleeding attack
Dodge
How do you suggest making him better? Next is level 3, so he'll be getting a feat then.
So you chose all the worst options (or at least no good to great ones, Scorpion Style is...unfortunate... to say the least) and you want me to make the character better? I guess, follow the guide from now on? There isn't really anything more I can say to help you.
Did you have anything specific you wanted to do? You might have to make a new character to do so but I can help with that.
prototype00
Making a new character probably isn't an option.
Could you help make the best of what I've got?
Well, its Gestalt, so you're probably decent? Take Natural Spell at 5th and Planar Wildshape at 7th and hope for the best? (Start putting points in Knowledge Planes and Knowledge Nature).
prototype00
He's not too bright... -_-
2 skill points a level...
Ah, just checked, you don't really need knowlege Nature, so everything into Knowledge Planes then?
prototype00
|
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
prototype00 wrote: As far as I understand it, and I am in no way claiming to have all the answers here:
Fist of the Forest:
Unarmed Strike = X
Size increase bonus to unarmed strike damage = 2X
FCT means natural attack = Unarmed Strike Damage = 2X
Natural Attack = X
Unarmed Strike = Y
Improved Natural Attack = 2X
FCT = Unarmed Strike Damage = Y (and not 2Y)
Not that I agree, but I see the logic, I guess.
If you say one thing, and other forumers say another and the current rules guy in residence agrees with them, there is not really much I can say.
prototype00
Lots of forumers say lots of things. It is simply not the case that I stand alone in my opinion.
Furthermore, I'm not just offering a different opinion. What I have to say is backed by the rules. I'm showing what the rules say.
Mark is not the only rules guy. There are others. And was he actually making a new rule? If he wasn't, then he is just offering another opinion that is not based on the rules. Or is it? I like evidence. You can convince me with evidence.
You don't have to if you don't want to. You didn't post to advance an argument: you posted your guide for review, and I have reviewed it based on the rules. I hope that in some small way I have contributed to helping you make the best possible guide.
Hope your gm allows retraining
CW, Pathfinder Society does allow retraining, but remember gms have to go by RAW, FAQ, and Official Rules Posts. PFS characters are customers: we have rights. I vet my ideas with them as much as possible in advance, and try very hard to have all my arguments on these online forums and on my Lodge's forum. My character build that combines INA and FCT has been approved by the Venture Captain.
When it's not a PFS campaign, vetting the character in advance is normally a much smoother advance, if I'm staying with that GM, anyway. Homespinning GMs have total power over their campaigns, and that means you should have total ability to vet your build and renegotiate as need be to collaborate on a good story you write together.
I believe he was talking to me.
I don't do society play.
Too many rules.
Mickey Carver wrote: I believe he was talking to me.
I don't do society play.
Too many rules.
Ah, maybe CW was addressing you. Sorry if I was jumping down your throat too hard there, Wheezy.
I have no idea what you are talking about any way
That's okay, CWheezy, evidently, I didn't know what you were talking about, either.
The guide is a treasure trove of information. It was, for me, a bit hard to piece together into a useful build architecture. There are just so many options intermingled that it is hard to figure out what I should take at any given level.
If I may suggest, have builds separated and the recommended feats under each one in order of the levels they should be taken at.
I realize there is a panoply of viable options for the bear fisted, perhaps have another section for this with general headings for broad categories of builds with good races and archetypes briefly listed followed by feats at each level. Since each individual element will already have been discussed, you wouldn't need more than a list. Some sample builds could then be constructed quickly and easily.
In any case, I look forward to delving deeper into your guide.
Very interesting guide! A little hard to navigate, but whatever.
I did have a question about pinning knockout in your guide though - it looks like all it does is let you deal extra nonlethal damage when the whole attack is nonlethal. Nonlethal kinda stinks, especially at high levels where.everyhing is immune to it.
Anyways, great guide, eagerly awaiting the builds section!
|
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
prototype00: I agree with your interpretation of how Improved Natural Attack stacks with Unarmed Strike when you have Feral Combat Training. However, being that your entire guide seems to hinge on this it would definitely be nice to have a ruling. Well, actually, with or without your guide I think it is a basic rule that needs a ruling. Do we have a post we can FAQ on this that exists currently?
|
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
Lune wrote: prototype00: I agree with your interpretation of how Improved Natural Attack stacks with Unarmed Strike when you have Feral Combat Training. However, being that your entire guide seems to hinge on this it would definitely be nice to have a ruling. Well, actually, with or without your guide I think it is a basic rule that needs a ruling. Do we have a post we can FAQ on this that exists currently? I humbly suggest my post, post #109 on this thread. It includes a quote from designer Mark Seifter and a counter argument. And frankly, my argument is so strong (if I do say so myself), the Design Team must either accept it as correctly what the rules say, or rewrite the rules to defeat the build.
In addition, I outlined in that post other problems with Feral Combat Training if it doesn't stack with Improved Natural Attack. If they don't stack, then your Claw (or Slam, or whatever) should not increase with size if you Wildshape into a large animal: if INA doesn't do it, then actually increasing your size shouldn't do it, either. If they don't stack, you shouldn't get the +2 to your damage if you take Weapon Specialization for your Natural Attack. If you are using Magic Weapon or Magic Fang, then it shouldn't work if you cast them on your Claws. There are a whole bunch of problems that are created when the 2 feats don't stack, and we need to admonish the Design Team to be thoughtful when they make their ruling.
Well, I FAQ'd it but it would be better if there was a thread dedicated to it in the rules forum.
Maybe, but maybe it's better for the Design Team to see the debate in context of how it has emerged.
I will keep an eye out for a dedicated thread should you or somebody else start one.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Lune wrote: prototype00: I agree with your interpretation of how Improved Natural Attack stacks with Unarmed Strike when you have Feral Combat Training. However, being that your entire guide seems to hinge on this it would definitely be nice to have a ruling. Well, actually, with or without your guide I think it is a basic rule that needs a ruling. Do we have a post we can FAQ on this that exists currently? I humbly suggest my post, post #109 on this thread. It includes a quote from designer Mark Seifter and a counter argument. And frankly, my argument is so strong (if I do say so myself), the Design Team must either accept it as correctly what the rules say, or rewrite the rules to defeat the build. It unfortunately is anything but. prototype00 quite succinctly pointed out something that your argument does not take into account, being that the monks unarmed strike damage is a "set" value, not something that is added or increased from his "base" unarmed damage.
FCT lets you use anything that "augments an unarmed strike" with the natural weapon. The monk's unarmed strike damage is such an effect. And just like with your ordinary unarmed strikes, it "sets" the damage of the attack in question to the unarmed strike damage. It does not add to or increase it.
Now, say a level 8 monk with FCT(bite) wild shapes into a large creature with a 2d6 bite attack. He is now a large monk with a bite attack. Being a large monk, his unarmed strike damage is 2d8. This is more than the normal damage for his bite, so he elects to use his unarmed strike damage instead (again, not a formulaic addition or an increase).
Suppose he has a buddy cast Strong Jaw on him. The buddy casts Strong Jaw not on his bite, but on his monk unarmed strike (a valid target for the spell). His monk unarmed strike damage increases, and since he replaced the value of his bite with his monk unarmed strike damage, his bite now also does that increased damage.
If he has Improved Natural Attack (bite), his bite attack would deal 3d6 damage. While this is higher average damage than his 2d8 large monk unarmed strike, it does not increase his large unarmed strike damage to 3d8. He has INA (bite), not INA (unarmed strike) (which is not allowed by INA). He can choose his bite to deal its own damage (3d6) or have it do the unarmed strike damage of a large 8th level monk (2d8).
Where you may have a point (or where prototype00 might have missed something), is that by FCT's wording and especially the wording of the FAQ on FCT, it is clear that FCT does two things. One is that it makes the natural attack a monk weapon, allowing you to do anything with it that requires such a weapon. Two is that it allows you to "augment" the natural attack with any effect relating to IUS. Which means what you can do, by RAW, is INA(bite) up to the wazoo, and then flurry with your bite, choosing to do your bite damage, which would at that point be quite a bit higher than your monk unarmed strike damage.
tl;dr FCT a) makes your natural attack a monk weapon and b) allows you to apply effects to it that relate to unarmed strike, such as a monk's unarmed strike improved damage. Choosing the latter results in replacing the NA's damage with whatever your monk's unarmed strike damage is at that moment.
I noticed you set chokehold to red, but there is a hidden beauty to it: the target is silenced. That means no verbal spells!
Covert Operator wrote: I noticed you set chokehold to red, but there is a hidden beauty to it: the target is silenced. That means no verbal spells! You could also just pin them. First thing I'd do really.
On the INA issue, feel free to faq it in the thread, but possibly a new thread would be more visible?
Kastar makes my stance (such that it is, I personally feel it wouldn't be awful to let INA work the other way, as Strong Jaw is what really powers the build and works in any instance) quite clear, which is what I also believe most of the rules queries I have made (I recall one to JJ and one to Mark Seifter) have been answered.
I cannot in good conscience recommend something to players on the basis that some DMs who haven't asked the question of Mark Seifter might let it fly. Better to stand on surer ground.
prototype00
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Covert Operator wrote: I noticed you set chokehold to red, but there is a hidden beauty to it: the target is silenced. That means no verbal spells! If you take a 2 level dip into Barbarian, I think there's also a synergy with the Breathtaker rage power. Use Greater Grapple to maintain the pin as a move action, then use your standard action to attack. I'm not sure if a successful grapple check to deal damage counts as a melee attack, but if so you could use Rapid Grappler to hit the target twice per round.
Assuming your opponent would spend a standard action each round to try to escape the grapple, he's burning 2 rounds worth of holding breath each round.
Assuming you're wild shaped into a large creature (+4 strength), raging (+4 strength), have a +2 belt (+2 strength), and started with 18 strength, you'd be hitting the creature for 9 rounds worth of breath each attack.
So, if you're hitting twice, that's 20 rounds of breath (10 constitution worth) each round. That'll get a little bit better once you're wild shaping into a huge creature and have a better belt, too.
Kastar wrote: Now, say a level 8 monk with FCT(bite) wild shapes into a large creature with a 2d6 bite attack. He is now a large monk with a bite attack. Being a large monk, his unarmed strike damage is 2d8. This is more than the normal damage for his bite, so he elects to use his unarmed strike damage instead (again, not a formulaic addition or an increase).
Suppose he has a buddy cast Strong Jaw on him. The buddy casts Strong Jaw not on his bite, but on his monk unarmed strike (a valid target for the spell). His monk unarmed strike damage increases, and since he replaced the value of his bite with his monk unarmed strike damage, his bite now also does that increased damage.
This was something I did not consider until after I posted what you quoted of mine. To be honest, I feel a little chagrinned to let somebody else post this correction before me. What you are proposing is a good explanation for how your alternate version of the rules works.
But it is an alternate version of the rules that the damage increases from INA and FCT do not stack. It is just not right with the RAW.
You are saying that if you have a Monk with Unarmed Strike Damage of 1d10 who grows to Large say via Wild Shape or maybe even Enlarge Person, the damage increases from 1d10 to 2d8. And you are saying that if this same Monk had a Natural Attack, a Bite Attack in your example that benefits from Feral Combat Training, growing 1 size larger also increases the Bite Damage from 1d10 to 2d8. Is that right?
If increasing your size increases your size increases your Natural Attack-benefitting-from-FCT damage, then Improved Natural Attack increases that damage, too by the same amount. That is precisely what the rules say.
description of Improved Natural Attack wrote: 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. What happens when a character with Feral Combat Training, Bite whose bite therefore does 1d10 grows 1 size category somehow? According to you, it goes up to 2d8.
What happens when a character with Feral Combat Training, Bite whose bite therefore does 1d10 takes the Improved Natural Attack Feat? It goes up to 2d8, too, "as if the creature's size had increased by one catagory."
That is what the rules say.
If you increase by one size, then your damage increases, not because your natural weapon damage increased, but because your unarmed strike damage increased.
Improved Natural Weapon has no effect on your unarmed strike damage. And that's the damage you are using for this attack.
But this really isn't the thread to be having this discussion. I think there's an old Rules Question thread you can revive, if you want this to be FAQed.
prototype00 wrote: I cannot in good conscience recommend something to players on the basis that some DMs who haven't asked the question of Mark Seifter might let it fly. Better to stand on surer ground. You do what you what your good conscious demands of you. My review comment on your guide is that you should say that INA and FCT are a powerful combination, but that it is a controversial one that might get outlawed at some tables.
Your guide is not intended exclusively for PFS play, and nonPFS players should have no trouble vetting their builds precisely with their referees before beginning play. It's a good idea anyway. And a PFS player who uses this build may have to have a heated rules argument every time he hops to a different table with such a character.
I, in good conscious, stand by my recommendation. I respect your acts taken in good conscious.
You still haven't told me if Mark answered you in an official rules post.
Avoron wrote: If you increase by one size, then your damage increases, not because your natural weapon damage increased, but because your unarmed strike damage increased.
Improved Natural Weapon has no effect on your unarmed strike damage. And that's the damage you are using for this attack.
But this really isn't the thread to be having this discussion. I think there's an old Rules Question thread you can revive, if you want this to be FAQed.
I don't object to another thread being revived or created to cover this topic specifically. I am not inclined to necro a thread: I have been heartily scolded for doing so in the past. So, you first, and I will follow. Link to it here, and I will look for it.
I feel that this topic IS appropriate to this thread: prototype00 is publishing recommendations in his guide based on this controversy, and has asked us to review it. That is what I am doing. I will leave it to prototype00 to tell us he has had enough input on this topic and wants to move the thread in a different direction. I would stop (or change the subject as per his request) directly.
So Avoron, my problem with your (and others') argument itself is that I used the rules to demonstrate my point, but I'm still waiting for a rules-based counter argument.
When you take Feral Combat Training, your Monk (and/or Brawler) Unarmed Strike Damage becomes your Natural Attack Damage, too. And when you take Improved Natural Attack, that augmented base damage increases by 1 size category. Show me the rules that say why these don't stack.
The best I've heard is that some people have some notion that FCT somehow squelches all other aspects of the natural attack and no other bonuses to that natural attack work with FCT. But nobody has shown me in the rules that that interpretation is valid. I have shown you that my interpretation is valid by the rules.
I'll argue my point another way. When you take a Feat, you get a Benefit. When you take 2 Feats, you get 2 Benefits. Some benefits stack, some don't. Which benefits don't stack? The kind that improve the same thing in the same way don't. The kind that improve different things or the same thing in different ways do. Well, Feral Combat Training changes the base damage to a Natural Attack by allowing it to benefit from Monk or Brawler training. Improved Natural Attack changes the base damage to a natural attack by sizing it up 1 category. Those are 2 different kinds of bonuses applied to the same stat. Normally, they stack. Can you quote a rule that says they don't? I'm pretty sure I can find plenty of evidence in the rules that proves the principles I described in this paragraph.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: You are saying that if you have a Monk with Unarmed Strike Damage of 1d10 who grows to Large say via Wild Shape or maybe even Enlarge Person, the damage increases from 1d10 to 2d8. And you are saying that if this same Monk had a Natural Attack, a Bite Attack in your example that benefits from Feral Combat Training, growing 1 size larger also increases the Bite Damage from 1d10 to 2d8. Is that right? No, that is not right. Specifically, the bolded part is incorrect. That's the thing we keep explaining, and you keep missing. And it is what your argument hinges upon.
When you grow large, your bite attack does increase in damage, but, unless by coincidence your bite attack also did 1d10 damage without FCT, it will not grow from 1d10 to 2d8. Your Bite Damage will probably grow from 1d6 to 2d6. Seeing as 2d8 is better than 2d6 and you have FCT (bite), you can use your bite attack to deal your monk unarmed strike damage. Increasing your bite damage through any means (such as INA), has no effect on your unarmed strike damage.
This does not mean that FCT "squelches all other aspects of the natural attack". No one has made that claim, saying we did and that that is incorrect is a straw man argument. If your bite is poisonous, you still get to apply the poison. If your bite grabs, you can still grab. The only thing we are saying, is that if you choose to apply your monk unarmed strike to your bite attack (which you can do thanks to FCT), monk unarmed strike replaces the damage of your bite attack as per the table in the monk unarmed strike class feature.
This is simply applying all the rules as they are written. It is not an "alternative" interpretation of the rules.
You can't really keep saying we need to provide you with a "rules-based counter argument", when we have repeatedly done so. Perhaps you don't think we are correct, but then the ball is now in your camp and you need to show why we are not correct. You can't keep claiming the rules show you correct and then simply ignore our repeated and extensive challenges to that notion.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: My review comment on your guide is that you should say that INA and FCT are a powerful combination, but that it is a controversial one that might get outlawed at some tables. Mmm... I do not think that it is fair for you to say that when you yourself just finished saying:
Scott Wilhelm wrote: But it is an alternate version of the rules that the damage increases from INA and FCT do not stack. It is just not right with the RAW.
That is what the rules say.
The only controversy is that conjured by posters on this board. PFS judges I would expect to follow RAW. I would expect the same from any GM barring a house rule.
I would agree that it is still a Frequently Asked Question and it would be nice for some clarity to be given. I'm fairly certain that is prototype00's perspective as well. But a FAQ is just meant to provide clarity, not change rules. That is the realm of errata.
I would think that this kind of discussion belongs in a rules forum somewhere. I don't think that it is too much to ask that if someone has a strong belief that the RAW needs to be given some clarity that a thread be created for that rather than clutter a guide thread.
When referring to the huge air elemental wildshape, you mention a +8 racial bonus to dex. Unfortunately due to it mimicking the spell. You only gain +4str, +6dex, and various elemental traits.
Ah, my mistake, I thought it gave the same bonuses as the Earth Elemental Form. Still pretty good for Dex based builds (and even better for Fury's Fall I suppose).
prototype00
Lol dang it I was hoping I was wrong and you knew something I didnt. Ah well, it should still be good for ki throwing! Is there any way to change the whirlwind DC to being dex based instead of str based?
What do you think of using Sacred Fist (Warpriest) levels instead of monk?
Kastar wrote: No, that is not right... When you grow large, your bite attack does increase in damage, but, unless by coincidence your bite attack also did 1d10 damage without FCT, it will not grow from 1d10 to 2d8. Your Bite Damage will probably grow from 1d6 to 2d6. Seeing as 2d8 is better than 2d6 and you have FCT (bite), you can use your bite attack to deal your monk unarmed strike damage. Increasing your bite damage through any means (such as INA), has no effect on your unarmed strike damage. I don't see how this is a material point. I may or may not agree with you, but I'll let this point pass, because how much the characters' damage grows due to size increase isn't what we are arguing here. it's whether the size increase--literal as in Wild Shape or virtual as in Improved Natural Attack--is to be applied and if it is, which basic damage it is to be applied to. Say in case of a half-orc with a bite attack that does 1d4, but with Feral Combat Training does 1d6, when she has Enlarge Person cast upon her, I say the damage goes up from 1d6 to 1d8. You say it goes up from 1d4 to whatever you say it goes up to. I'm guessing 1d4 to 1d6.
Rowe wrote: What do you think of using Sacred Fist (Warpriest) levels instead of monk? Sacred fists do not get access to Monastic Legacy, that can hurt your damage output.
Kastar wrote: This does not mean that FCT "squelches all other aspects of the natural attack". No one has made that claim, saying we did and that that is incorrect is a straw man argument. Making a straw man argument is the last thing I'd do. It was not my intention. Strawmanning is something I am particulary sensitive to. I am legitimately trying to formulate my understanding of your opinion. For this misunderstanding, I apologize.
I overspoke. I wasn't even thinking about things like Bite and Grab. I only meant (that you are saying) that FCT somehow squelches the Natural Attack Damage but somehow never truly becomes the Natural Attack Damage, as if the FCT-granted damage is like a mask the attack wears. And taking a feat that increases the damage of a Bite Attack wouldn't change the FCT-benefitted damage any more than it would affect a mask. Although, as you pointed out there FCT does provide for increasing the effectiveness of that mask (If it is a mask: I still disagree with you.)
If I am still mistaken, I would appreciate being corrected. I would like to understand your point of view.
Lune wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote:
My review comment on your guide is that you should say that INA and FCT are a powerful combination, but that it is a controversial one that might get outlawed at some tables.
<Lune wrote>
Mmm... I do not think that it is fair for you to say that when you yourself just finished saying:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
But it is an alternate version of the rules that the damage increases from INA and FCT do not stack. It is just not right with the RAW.
That is what the rules say.
Sure it is. I (everyone) was invited onto this thread to review protype00's guide, and that is what I'm doing. I have been called upon to justify my position, and that is what I am doing.
Lune wrote: The only controversy is that conjured by posters on this board. It is conjured by many posters on this board: many players and GMs. While what you say is true, that still leaves it a controversy.
Lune wrote: PFS judges I would expect to follow RAW. I agree completely. That is exactly what I am doing. And I am quoting the rules to positively demonstrate that what I am saying is square with the RAW.
Lune wrote: I would expect the same from any GM barring a house rule. ABSOLUTELY NOT! A GM at his own table with his own campaign in his own mother's basement can add, subtract, or rewrite the rules as he (or she) sees fit. That includes adopting another GM's house rule. That is completely between the GM and the players, and never for us to dictate.
That is part of the reason why I recommend to prototype00 the change that I do. It is a good idea for any player to map out a character build in advance and vet it as much as possible with his GM.
Lune wrote: I would think that this kind of discussion belongs in a rules forum somewhere. I don't think that it is too much to ask that if someone has a strong belief that the RAW needs to be given some clarity that a thread be created for that rather than clutter a guide thread. While that is for prototype to say, I don't disagree with you. Of course, as Avoron quite correctly pointed out, it has already been in the rules forums on more than 1 thread.
Avoron has called for necroing one of those threads or starting a whole new one and continuing that argument, there. I have voiced support for that. If someone picks up a new or old thread for that, and calls for the relocation, then I will follow.
You have called for an FAQ, and I have supported you on that. But you and I seem so far the only ones who have flagged the matter for FAQ. This, by the way is in spite of the fact that I see no need for the FAQ. I am quite certain in my understanding of the RAW.
|
