Absolutely not what? Did I not just say that I would expect any GM to follow RAW unless they make a house rule? Of course GMs can make house rules. Players agree to play by these house rules when they play in a game. It is a game of mutual understanding, after all. That does not change it from being a house rule and not RAW.
I don't think we (or prototype00 in his guide, for that matter) needs to reiterate that house rules can be made. Whether in general or for this topic specifically. Should he do that for every suggestion in his guide? That seems exhaustive.
Honestly, I do not see many people here disagreeing with his interpretation of the rules. What do we have?... two that disagree? And that constitutes enough people to you for him to put a note in his guide? IMO, get over it. Who cares what they think anyway? It is pretty obvious that they are in the severe minority of opinions. Why cater to them? If they want to house rule something for their game, let them. They are allowed. And no amount of their disagreement will change what is written in the rules.
As far as the number of threads in the rules forum on this topic I do not believe that there are many. If there is one where this kind of thing has been discussed then I would think it would be more appropriately discussed there, thread necro or not. It would probably receive more attention for a FAQ as well if that is your (or anyone's) goal. And if it is for prototype00 to say, as you said, then he has already requested the same thing.
Basically, I think this boils down to: don't feed the trolls.
Lune wrote: Absolutely not what? Did I not just say that I would expect any GM to follow RAW unless they make a house rule? Of course GMs can make house rules. Players agree to play by these house rules when they play in a game. It is a game of mutual understanding, after all. That does not change it from being a house rule and not RAW. Oops, I misunderstood what you said. It was a grammatical-word placement-editing thing.
My mistake.
Lune wrote: Honestly, I do not see many people here disagreeing with his interpretation of the rules. What do we have?... two that disagree? And that constitutes enough people to you for him to put a note in his guide? IMO, get over it. Who cares what they think anyway? It is pretty obvious that they are in the severe minority of opinions. Why cater to them? If they want to house rule something for their game, let them. They are allowed. And no amount of their disagreement will change what is written in the rules. I can introduce you to a few, and so can Avoron, btw.
I did not find the FCT + INA search to be quite as fruitful as I thought, but I did find 2 threads that dealt directly with it and several threads that were somewhat related.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pu03?Natural-Weapon-Character#1
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qrqh?Improved-Natural-Attack-and-Feral-Combat# 1
and as to how many people actually think the way I do on this matter, well, I did a quick look.
The question was posted by Spaarky
Chengar Qordath seemed to think it is unclear whether FCT replaces or improves
Dysfunction disagrees with you. Sindalla seems to think the stack, as does Tels, and so does Dash Lestowe.
So that is 6 so far to add to your 2, but most interestingly of all,
prototype00 wrote: Hmm, that seems to be a clever way to get around the INA limitation. Not bad (with an enlarge person and INA on a 20th lvl monk, you get to do 6d8 points of damage per hit)… And later,
prototype00 wrote: But where in the rules does it say that? There is nothing in the faq, or either feat description that says that once you use unarmed strike damage with your natural attack, you can't then apply feats that affect the natural attack to it.
In a home game, yes, you can limit it if you feel that it is too good, but the rationale isn't there in the rules.
It seems prototype00 has reversed himself over the months. It would be interesting to hear about how the author of this thread's opinion has evolved.
But honestly, Lune, even if I were the only one who held this opinion, I would stand behind it, because it is square with the rules. I am a Pathfinder player and a customer who has spent a lot of money on Paizo products, and those products are made out of rules. I can play this game with my personal friends or at official Paizo events just the way I want to as long as I am playing within the rules. Nobody has any right to bully a player's imagination off the table. The rules apply to both the minority and the majority. And if that means the rules protect a minority of 1 from an outspoken majority, then I don't think that is a bad thing at all.
And,
Lune wrote: Basically, I think this boils down to: don't feed the trolls. Excuse me, Lune, but did you just call me a troll?
Let me get this straight - say you do the underfoot adept/maneuver master build and wildshaped into a huge elemental. If you have the feral combat training feat, can you do your free maneuver master move or two, full attack, and then do the two slams at unarmed strike damage as well (which are...primary attacks so full bab and full str bonus right?) since it isn't a flurry of blows?
Ok, Don't let me get in the way of the rules debate (honestly I don't even know what it's about - all of its over my head xD) just needed a rules clarification on a build lol!
Scott Wilhelm wrote: It seems prototype00 has reversed himself over the months. It would be interesting to hear about how the author of this... Well, as I've said, the current face of rules arbritration (Mark Seifter, who presides over faq Friday) has given me his opinion (not an official rules judgement, mind), and I really don't feel like continually swimming against the current on this one. Simple as that.
If I get confirmation from a higher source (like say a faq), I will be more than happy to change it, in the meantime, I would like to keep things simple and straightforward.
Quote: Let me get this straight - say you do the underfoot adept/maneuver master build and wildshaped into a huge elemental. If you have the feral combat training feat, can you do your free maneuver master move or two, full attack, and then do the two slams at unarmed strike damage as well (which are...primary attacks so full bab and full str bonus right?) since it isn't a flurry of blows? Yes, with the caveat that your natural attacks are considered secondary natural attacks, so that is -5 to hit and 1/2 str bonus (or -2 to hit with Multiattack) in a full attack with your unarmed strike.
prototype00
Please ask your questions. Never mind a rules debate you are uninterested in. You are not in the way, and even if were, this thread and forum are not just Kastar's, Lune's, and my personal playground to dominate with our personal games.
I don't see how being an underfoot adept affects your question, but as a water elemental, you get your slam attacks--you say huge water elemtnals get 2--and you get your full attack compliment of unarmed strikes depending on what your BAB is. And Flurry of Maneuvers does let you get an additional Combat Maneuver on top of whatever else you did.
That wouldn't work with Flurry of Blows because FoB is its own full round action. But Flurry of Maneuvers is something else.
Kastar wrote: 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 So, lets look at this another way. What is this
Feral Combat Training wrote: effect that augments an unarmed strike. that Feral Combat lets you apply to a selected Natural Attack that makes the damage it does a higher number?
Monk Unarmed Strike in the Core Rulebook class description of Monk wrote: A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown above on Table: Monk. So, the base damage an Unarmed Strike from a medium sized creature, such a human, is 1d3. A level 1 Monk replaces this damage with a 1d6, level 4, 1d8, level 8, 1d10, and so on.
This is the effect that augments an unarmed strike, and Feral Combat Training allows you to apply this affect to your natural attack. So if you are a level 4 half orc Monk with the Toothy Racial Trait or the Razortusk Feat, you have a Bite attack that does 1d4, replaced with 1d8 Unarmed Strike Damage if you take Feral Combat Training.
Do we agree so far?
Feral Combat Training doesn’t change the nature of the Monk Class Ability: it simply allows it to be put on one other thing in addition to your unarmed strike. The unarmed strike damage is replaced by that granted by Monk training. The natural weapon damage is replaced by that granted by Monk training. In other words, when you have Feral Combat Training, the MUSD work the same way on the natural attack as it does on the unarmed strike.
Can anyone show me a rule that says that Feral Combat Training changes the nature of this Monk/Brawler ability as it is being applied to a Natural Attack?
Please, please look through the rules and show me the rules that say Feral Combat Training makes Monk Damage work differently on the NA than it does on the US.
Feral Combat Training
Weapons
Unarmed Strike
Universal Monster Rules
Don’t restrict your research to research I have already done. Look anywhere you like.
Because if they do work the same way, the logical conclusion of ruling Improved Natural Attack would cause this character’s Natural Attack Damage to go from 1d4 to 1d6 and not 1d8 to 2d6 because Feral Combat Training Replaces the Damage instead of increasing it, then if that level 4 Monk were also a level 4 Fighter and took Weapon Specialization Unarmed Strike, then the Unarmed Strike would not do 1d8+2 but rather 1d3+2 (or just 1d8 like before) because the Monk class ability to do more damage replaces the base unarmed strike damage: it doesn’t improve it.
When a Level 4 Monk is the target of an Enlarge Person Spell (or wildshapes into a large creature), he has to choose between keeping his Unarmed Strike Damage of 1d8 or having his Unarmed Strike Damage go from 1d3 to 1d4, because Monk Unarmed Damage replaces regular unarmed damage: it doesn’t improve it.
You see, Unarmed Strikes have a base damage just like Natural Weapons do. If Monk training replaces or improves the Unarmed Strike Base Damage with Monk training damage, then Feral Combat Training allows the exact same replacement/improvement on the selected natural attack. Feral Combat Training doesn’t change the way MUSD works: it only allows it to be placed on a new thing.
Show me the rules that say it is somehow different.
Or tell me that yes, when a Monk whose Unarmed Strike Damage does 1d8 Wildshapes into a Large Creature, he has to choose between his attack doing 1d4 or 1d8, and doesn't go up from 1d8 to 2d6.
If you do the latter, then you are saying protype00's Guide might need a rewrite.
If I'm right, his Guide would benefit from an added footnote.
the damage progression listed is specifically for medium monks. In the event that she is playing a smal race, or are subject to an enlarge person spell or some such reason for not being medium, there is a table to show how the unarmed strike would change.
So a 4th lvl monk subject to enlarge person would consult the table and change damage from 1d8 to 2d6 because she is now a large monk, and large 4th level monks do 2d6 unarmed strike damage.
Enlarge person changes your unarmed damage.
Strong Jaw changes your unarmed damage.
Improved Natural Attack does not. It has no effect on your unarmed damage. It only effects your natural weapon damage. So, congratulations. Your natural weapon damage is one step higher. Too bad you're not using that number. Instead, you're using a different number, the number for your unarmed damage. Improved Natural Attack has no effect on your unarmed damage.
Armitaje wrote: the damage progression listed is specifically for medium monks. In the event that she is playing a smal race, or are subject to an enlarge person spell or some such reason for not being medium, there is a table to show how the unarmed strike would change.
So a 4th lvl monk subject to enlarge person would consult the table and change damage from 1d8 to 2d6 because she is now a large monk, and large 4th level monks do 2d6 unarmed strike damage.
I don't agree with you, although the thing I am arguing doesn't really have to do with the exact numbers.
It's whether Improved Natural Weapon stacks with Feral Combat Training. Lune, Avoron, and I think Kastar say no. prototype00 and I say yes by RAW, although prototype00 bows to the opinion of Mark Seifter, who is on the Paizo Design Team.
I am not moved by Mark's opinion, since he did not back it with an Official Rules Post, an FAQ, an Erratum, or anything like that. I'm arguing RAW, and my review comment regarding prototype's guide is that while the build is clearly controversial as evidenced by this debate and others on other threads, it is also clearly a powerful one that shouldn't be dismissed.
I feel that it should be mentioned as a powerful but controversial option that is likely to cause arguments at the table, and any GM might want to outlaw it. And while prototype00's rationale for Red-Lettering it is sound, preferring as he does "sure paths to power," I feel like his language was too dismissive, by RAW.
But this is perhaps colored by my own preference in advice-giving, which is not to eliminate from my suggestions problemed options but to aggressively explore many or all options and disclose the possible problems. I always favor more information.
What my last post was arguing was more of a negative proof. I am showing that however Monk Unarmed Strike Damage replaces/improves Natural Attack Damage via the Feat Feral Combat Training, it must also replace/improve Unarmed Strike Damage in the exact same way.
Avoron wrote: Enlarge person changes your unarmed damage.
Strong Jaw changes your unarmed damage.
Improved Natural Attack does not. It has no effect on your unarmed damage. It only effects your natural weapon damage. So, congratulations. Your natural weapon damage is one step higher. Too bad you're not using that number. Instead, you're using a different number, the number for your unarmed damage. Improved Natural Attack has no effect on your unarmed damage.
You've said this already. It contradicts the RAW. And the scenario you propose does not stand to logic, as my negative proof showed.
If Improved Natural Attack does not USE THAT NUMBER, then neither does Enlarge Person nor Strong Jaw.
Unarmed Strike Damage is 1d3. Casting Enlarge person on the Monk would increase the unarmed strike damage, but too bad you are not using that number! The number for US damage is 1d3, so increasing your size 1 step would increase your damage from 1d3 to 1d4. Better to just keep your MUS Damage of 1d8.
Don't you see? Feral Combat Training doesn't change the nature of how MUS Damage works. It only allows it to be put on 1 other thing, like a Bite or Tentacle attack. You can't have it both ways, or rather, you MUST have it both ways, or you must have it neither way.
I promised you RAW and Logic. Here is more. I posted it before, but you seemed to have ignored it.
You say that if my Level 4 Monk with FCT on his Bite Attack enjoys his Enlarge Person, his Bite (and his MUSD) rise from 1d8 to 2d6.
Improved Natural Attack Feat Benefit desciption 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. Therefore, Improved Natural Attack would increase the Bite Damage from 1d8 to 2d6, too. Or your premise is wrong, and neither Enlarge Person nor INA increase the damage starting from the 1d8 MUSD. I would be from 1d4 to 1d6 for the Bite and 1d3 to 1d4 for the US. Better to just stick with the MUSD, then.
Your structure for explaining why INA doesn't do that is logically elegant, but it contradicts the RAW.
And you still haven't quoted me any written rules text that supports your interpretation of the rules.
Agree or not, important to your argument or not, saying that a monk subject to a enlarge person spell then deals LESS damage is absurd and wrong. I don't really care about the improved natural attack argument, but to imply that a character would go from being a trained martial artist - doing more damage unarmed for her size than someone untrained or even using the IUS feat - to losing the benefit of that class ability, somehow forgetting how to kick simply because they are larger is equally absurd.
Argue about improved natural attack all you like, that one has always been very controversial.
Armitaje wrote: Agree or not, important to your argument or not, saying that a monk subject to a enlarge person spell then deals LESS damage is absurd and wrong. I don't really care about the improved natural attack argument, but to imply that a character would go from being a trained martial artist - doing more damage unarmed for her size than someone untrained or even using the IUS feat - to losing the benefit of that class ability, somehow forgetting how to kick simply because they are larger is equally absurd.
Argue about improved natural attack all you like, that one has always been very controversial.
Yes, Armitaje. It is absurd. I am making a negative proof. That is the point.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Unarmed Strike Damage is 1d3. Casting Enlarge person on the Monk would increase the unarmed strike damage, but too bad you are not using that number! The number for US damage is 1d3, so increasing your size 1 step would increase your damage from 1d3 to 1d4. Better to just keep your MUS Damage of 1d8. This does not hold up, as MUS also increases when you enlarge. In the last sentence, your MUS damage is now 2d6, since you are a large monk, which makes Enlarge Person function splendidly for you, and voids your reductio ad absurdum.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Therefore, Improved Natural Attack would increase the Bite Damage from 1d8 to 2d6, too. Or your premise is wrong, and neither Enlarge Person nor INA increase the damage starting from the 1d8 MUSD. I would be from 1d4 to 1d6 for the Bite and 1d3 to 1d4 for the US.... ... and 1d8 to 2d6 for the MUS, which is what you're delivering with your bite attack when using FCT.
Kastar, that is precisely my point. Thank you.
My post, post number 157, I think, is a negative proof, a reductio ad absurdum argument, as you put it. My compliments on that term. I have heard it before, but I'm not comfortable with its use yet. My post #161, the response to Avorom, was just a continuation of my argument.
Kastar wrote: This does not hold up, as MUS also increases when you enlarge. In the last sentence, your MUS damage is now 2d6, since you are a large monk, which makes Enlarge Person function splendidly for you, and voids your reductio ad absurdum. ... and 1d8 to 2d6 for the MUS, which is what you're delivering with your bite attack when using FCT. Precisely. Again, thank you.
I wrote: the logical conclusion of ruling Improved Natural Attack would cause this character’s Natural Attack Damage to go from 1d4 to 1d6 and not 1d8 to 2d6 because Feral Combat Training Replaces the Damage instead of increasing it, then...
When a Level 4 Monk is the target of an Enlarge Person Spell (or wildshapes into a large creature), he has to choose between keeping his Unarmed Strike Damage of 1d8 or having his Unarmed Strike Damage go from 1d3 to 1d4, because Monk Unarmed Damage replaces regular unarmed damage: it doesn’t improve it....
You can't have it both ways, or rather, you MUST have it both ways, or you must have it neither way.
Anyway, Kastar, you summed up my point much more succinctly than I did. I am glad we came to an understanding, maybe even an agreement. I'm not completely sure we ever quite disagreed.
Your argument does not apply, because there is a distinct difference between these situations. Here, I'll explain.
A normal medium character has an unarmed damage of 1d3.
A monk has a higher unarmed damage. For example, a medium 5th level monk has an unarmed damage of 1d8.
This number is the monk's unarmed damage. That is RAW.
A monk with Feral Combat Training that attacks with their claws can use their monk unarmed damage with their claws. Their unarmed damage number replaces the damage their natural attack would normally deal, no matter what that damage would be.
Enlarge Person increases a characters unarmed damage by one step. So, an enlarged level 5 monk would have an unarmed damage of 2d6.
If they then use Feral Combat Training, their natural attacks deal their unarmed damage, which is 2d6.
Strong Jaw can increase a monk's unarmed damage by 2 steps. So, a level 5 monk with Strong Jaw would have an unarmed damage of 3d6.
If they then use Feral Combat Training, their natural attacks deal their unarmed damage, which is 3d6.
Improved Natural Attack has no effect on a monk's unarmed damage. So, a level 5 monk with Improved Natural Attack would have an unarmed damage of 1d8.
If they then use Feral Combat Training, their natural attacks deal their unarmed damage, which is 1d8.
It doesn't matter what the natural attacks would otherwise deal, whether it would be 1d4 or 1d6, you ignore that number and replace it with 1d8, because that is your unarmed damage.
Kastar, does that seem to be an accurate explanation of our argument? I'm not sure Scott understood it when you said it, since he seemed to be under the impression that the two of you agreed.
Avoron wrote: A normal medium character has an unarmed damage of 1d3.
A monk has a higher unarmed damage. For example, a medium 5th level monk has an unarmed damage of 1d8. This number is the monk's unarmed damage. That is RAW.
What RAW? You have quoted no RAW. Do you mean this RAW?
Monk Unarmed Strike wrote: A monk also deals more damage with his unarmed strikes than a normal person would, as shown above on Table: Monk. This is an “effect that augments an unarmed strike,” like what can be applied by Feral Combat Training. This, I agree with.
Avoron wrote: Improved Natural Attack has no effect on a monk's unarmed damage. True. It affects the Natural Attack Damage, a Bite in my example.
But whatever IS the Monk Unarmed Strike damage, then when my Monk takes Feral Combat Training, then that IS the Natural Attack Damage, too. Why? Because what Feral Combat Training does is allow this effect (and others) to be applied to the selected Natural Attack. What Feral Combat Training does NOT do—because it doesn’t say it does—is change the way this effect works. It works the same way on the Unarmed Strike as it does on the Natural Attack.
That is unless it does say that, and I somehow missed it. Show me where it says in the rules that Feral Combat Training does change the way the effects like this work beyond being able to apply them to one other thing. Then show me that the way it does change it is to make the Natural Attack with its new damage unsupportable by any Natural Attack Feat or spell.
I have asked you repeatedly to support your claim with quotations from the rules, and you have yet to do so.
Avoron wrote: That is RAW. It is unacceptable that you just say that it’s RAW. You have to show us.
I have shown you that your interpretation violates RAW.
You say that if a Monk with FCT Bite that does 1d8 grows from Medium to Large, his damage grows to 2d6.
Improved Natural Attack (the rules, the RAW) says that the selected Natural Attack (the Bite in this case) increases as if the creature had grown 1 size bigger.
Therefore you should say that the Bite Damage grows from 1d8 to 2d6 when this Monk takes Improved Natural Attack.
Now THAT is the RAW. Your interpretation violates the RAW. Show me the RAW that supports your claim and defeats mine.
"A monk has a higher unarmed damage. For example, a medium 5th level monk has an unarmed damage of 1d8. This number is the monk's unarmed damage. That is RAW."
"What RAW?"
"When worn, this simple brown robe confers great ability in unarmed combat. If the wearer has levels in monk, her AC and unarmed damage is treated as a monk of five levels higher."
"Feral Combat Training and Unarmed Strike Damage: Does this allow me to use my monk unarmed damage with the selected natural attack?"
Is that enough RAW to show you that a monk's special damage with their unarmed strikes is their "unarmed damage?"
Your "unarmed damage," no matter whether it is 1d3 or 1d8, increases with size.
And if you are using your "unarmed damage," you are using it instead of the damage your natural weapon would normally deal.
Increasing the amount of damage your natural weapon would normally deal has no effect on your unarmed damage.
And if your unarmed damage is still 1d8, then your natural weapon damage could be 24d8, for all the good it does you, because you don't deal your natural weapon damage. Instead, you deal your unarmed damage with your natural weapons, just like the FAQ explicitly says.
Improved Natural Attack has no effect on your unarmed damage, as the feat itself explicitly says.
Therefore, the unarmed damage that you deal with your attacks is unaffected by Improved Natural Attack, by pure RAW.
Is there a chance that the rules discussion could be moved to another thread?
Absolutely.
prototype00, I apologize for contributing to the derailment of your rather excellent advice thread.
Further rules discussion would perhaps be better suited to the thread
Improved Natural Attack and Feral Combat Training
Chris, I don't feel that this debate is derailing this thread or out of place, and I'd like to explain why.
This rules question weighs heavily upon the value of the OP's guide. The actual meaning of this set of rules being discussed, and the philosophy to be represented by prototype00 has tremendous relevance on the review of his guide. Depending on whether a ruling comes to this debate, prototype00 may be well-advised to amend his guide with a footnote expanding upon his advice regarding Feral Combat Training in addition to Improved Natural Weapon. One of the things that his debate has pointed out is that between the 2 Feats, it is in fact FCT and not INA that is the problem-child feat (if either is). And depending on that problem, he may even be well-advised rewrite his whole guide entirely since some of the logical conclusions of some of the posters completely unhinges Feral Combat Training, which has been the keystone of many of protype00's build concepts.
The RAW interpretation of how INA and FCT interact is intensely disliked by several posters, including a member of the Design Team. The OP himself, prototype00, has revesrsed himself on his position, not because he has changed his beliefs, but because he was pushed by the opinion--NOT a ruling--of a Paizo employee.
It is clearly a controversial issue, and some kind of synopsis of definitely has a place in any responsibly-written guide on the subject. prototype00 created his thread to announce his Guide and implicitly to ask for feedback: this is my feedback. Your guide does not need to speak with only 1 voice. Mention this debate. Quote people. Quote the rules. Mention problematic builds, and put warning labels on the problems that might arise. You are being given many pages of material. USE IT! Taking input from many sources and telling people where you got it from is good research. Representing multiple philosophies of character building will give your guide more credibility and not less.
Meanwhile, other people, Armitaje and prototype00 come to mind, have been able to post other advice questions to this thread, and they have been receiving prompt answers. I think that means that this thread has not been derailed, however large 1 issue on it has so far become.
Actually, this debate has kept this topic on the front pages of this message board for a good, long time, increasing the Guide's exposure to the community. I don't think that is contrary to the wishes of the OP. Since the OP has commendably continued to remain active on his own thread and has declined numerous invitations to ask for the debate to be removed, I don't think he entirely disagrees with me.
For all that, as I have said before, I am willing to argue this point--INA vis a vis FCT--somewhere else, only I am reluctant to start a new thread or necro an old one. Avoron has linked to an old thread, but he has not yet necroed it. He may do so by posting an argument advancing his position on that thread. I just visited that thread, and the last poster, Dash, posted a point that disagrees with Avoron, so he should have an easy time responding to it. If anyone flames Avoron for necroing the thread, I will publicly defend him for doing it, saying I put him up to it. I guess I just did say that.
So Avoron, I think you were trying to quote this:
FAQ wrote: 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.
FCT FAQ
By applying this effect that augments an unarmed strike to a natural attack, “this number is the monk's [Natural Attack] damage. That is the RAW.” That is because the only thing FCT is doing is allowing MUSD effect to affect the Natural Attack as well. It doesn't change what that effect is.
What is that effect? Well,
Avoron wrote: "This number is the monk's unarmed damage. That is RAW." Now it's the monk's Natural Attack Damage, too. That is also the RAW.
Avoron wrote: if you are using your "unarmed damage," you are using it instead of the damage your natural weapon would normally deal. So what? If you are taking levels in Monk, you have a class ability to use different base damage from what your unarmed strikes would normally deal. It is the exact same ability that FCT lets you apply to the Natural Attack. FCT doesn't change the effect. The effect is the same. The FAQ you were quoting didn't say that FCT changed the Monk Unarmed Damage effect, only that it allowed it to be used on the selected natural attack.
Avoron wrote: Increasing the amount of damage your natural weapon would normally deal has no effect on your unarmed damage. Of course not. We're not selecting Unarmed Strike for Improved Natural Weapon. In my example, the Monk selected his Bite Attack for Feral Combat Training, and he selects his Bite Attack for Improved Natural Weapon. Feral Combat Training makes it so the Bite Attack does 1d8 at level 4, and Improved Natural Attack makes the bite damage increase as if the Monk grew 1 size bigger, from 1d8 to 2d6.
It's nice to see you try to support your arguments with quotations from the rules, but you still haven't demonstrated that the Monk Ability to replace the 1d3 US damage with the monk-training damage is any different when it is applied to the natural attack via FCT.
And you still haven't defeated my argument that shows that it is against the RAW that Enlarge Person would improve the Bite Attack Damage from 1d8 to 2d6 but Improved Natural Weapon wouldn't. Your explanation is logical, even elegant, but you haven’t found the RAW that trumps the INA Benefits description, which is RAW, too. And until you, do your logic directly contradicts the RAW, fails to trump the rules and falls before the RAW like a statue with no pedestal.
Case in point, Chris. When you posted to this thread a topic that was not to the allegedly derailing topic, you were responded to directly and quickly. Your concerns and questions related to this thread are being taken seriously even by the most belligerent debaters on this thread, and I urge you to feel free to keep contributing.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Scott Wilhelm wrote: Chris, I don't feel that this debate is derailing this thread or out of place, and I'd like to explain why.
It has completely and totally derailed the thread, far beyond the point where there's any point in following it for anyone who's interested in the actual guide itself.
Well ZanThrax,
You are entitled to your opinion. I've made mine clear enough. I've explained and supported my opinion thoroughly. I've done a great deal to advance prototype00's guide, more than most, IMHO.
Furthermore, I think the only one who can just say the thread has been derailed from its original intent is the OP. Your, Lune's, Avoron's, and my opinions are not relevant compared with the OP in this matter. He is the one who had a reason for starting the thread. He is the only one who can just say some topic or another is no longer being served. Other people need at least to be able to support their opinions with some kind of reasoning or evidence.
That being said, ZanThrax, I do feel I have made my points convincingly and exhaustively. And if my points are no longer attacked, I will no longer defend them. If they are attacked, not here, but on the thread Avoron thoughtfully linked to, I will defend them there and not here.
Scott Wilhelm wrote: I've done a great deal to advance prototype00's guide You've done a great deal to make the thread useless to anyone (most of the people who are interested in the guide and are trying to watch the thread for posts about the actual guide) who isn't interested in your creative reading of the rules.
prototype,
You left out Dragon Style from the Style Feats in your Guide. How come's that?
There are some serious synergies with Snake Fang. If you aren't Flurrying with FCT, then you don't get iteratives with your Natural Attacks. And most animals won't give you more than 2 natural attacks of any given kind. But FCT + Snake Fang lets you use that natural attack with every one of those natural attacks. So, for example, you like turning into a Triceratops or Anklysaurus, dinosaurs with only 1 natural attack each but very high Natural Armor AC bonuses. This is classic synergy. Snake Fang turns your 1 Natural Attack into several Attacks of Opportunity, and the high natural armor bonus gets you missed more: Snake Fang triggers when you are attacked and missed. Of course, the problem is that by the time you grow to Huge, you've lost 4 Dex points and 2 attacks of opportunity.
Great Cleave, on the other hand does not have a scaling problem the way Snake Fang does. I think it's better than you do. I get your point about large animal reaches and multiple attacks, but remember that each time you take FCT or INA, it only applies to 1 attack. Great Cleave is an inexpensive way to give yourself lots of attacks with that 1 weapon. Once again, I am envisioning a Triceratops or Anklysaurus whose high natural AC offsets the -2 AC penalty imposed by Cleaving. But if you are turning into a T.Rex, Great Cleave is pretty awesome, too.
Consider adding Improved Critical to your guide. There are some animals that have critical hit abilities. The Iguanodon, for instance does triple damage on a crit.
Have you considered Barding armor for your Wild Shaped druids? The Armor for unusual creatures rules are pretty liberal, and even PFS legal. If you are going into Grappling Builds, you should really talk about Armor Spikes.
The Grappling characters I have on built were on-track for being able to take down Colossal Monsters. Be careful.
When I have emphasized Grappling in my character builds, my goal has been to Tie Up an opponent, not to damage it. The no-opposable-thumbs thing has been making me think.
I like the guide.
I think most of the rules arguments come from using monster feats (Improved Natural Attack I'm looking at you) on characters (why does the monk Unarmed Strike ability not work like any other unarmed strike???) that were not designed to interact with them. I don't have an opinion here on how it should shake out, but I do hate ambiguity.
I would like to see an updated version of the guide that has builds in it. To me the rest of a guide is fluff and the builds are crunch. Your guide is very entertaining, but I haven't actually learned anything.
Gregory Connolly wrote: I like the guide.
I would like to see an updated version of the guide that has builds in it. To me the rest of a guide is fluff and the builds are crunch. Your guide is very entertaining, but I haven't actually learned anything.
Sorry about that, was having way too much fun over my vacation. When things have settled down and I have transferred everything to my new rig, I'll post a next version of the guide with builds.
Gregory Connolly wrote:
I would like to see an updated version of the guide that has builds in it. To me the rest of a guide is fluff and the builds are crunch. Your guide is very entertaining, but I haven't actually learned anything.
Same here, I would love to see some sample builds. I don't think they need to be too intense, but at least recommended levels and any crucial feats.
Perhaps it's not polite to bring this up, but will your guide consider creating similar effects without Wildshape?
The Beastshape Spells allow you to turn into animals, too, and perhaps the feat/ability/spell combinations of Magi or Clerics are more favorable to some character builds. In addition, Beastshape 3 allows you to also turn into Magical Beasts, including the Aurumvorax, which has 4 proper claw attacks, not just 2 claws and rake or 2 claws and 2 talons. And Beastshape is not a Druid Spell
Monstrous Physique 1 lets you turn into a 4-armed Sahaugin with 4 claw attacks. You might be able to use a Wand of Monstrous Physique 1 with 1 level in Alchemist for a cost of around 10k gp: pricy, but plausible, and worth it with for a Claws build. The advantage of polymorphing into a Monstrous Humanoid instead of an Animal is that you don't lose ANY of your gear. Plus you still have your opposable thumbs
On another topic,
I don't think your Guide will be complete without a Monktopus Build. Lord Markov (a contributer to this forum) introduced me to the idea. I have been trying to come up with a PFS-legal one, but I don't know how get around the unacceptable -5 on the Tentacle Attacks without Multiweapon, which is all but impossible in PFS. I don't think FCT really relieves the tentacle of the -5, since octopi have a Bite Attack. Better to just grow an Alchemal Tentacle and take Snake Fang (A Secondary Natural Attack is not Secondary if it is your only Natural Attack, like the Tail Slap of an Anklysaurus). But if you can take Multiweapon, I've got the build up to like 20 attacks/round that do impressive damage even if you don't combine FCT and INA.
ZanThrax wrote: Scott Wilhelm wrote: I've done a great deal to advance prototype00's guide You've done a great deal to make the thread useless to anyone (most of the people who are interested in the guide and are trying to watch the thread for posts about the actual guide) who isn't interested in your creative reading of the rules. Since people have been willing to still post about the guide, it's pretty clear that the thread was not derailed, and I have not made it useless. Do you know what does derail a thread? Ad hominem attacks. But since it is only after you believe the thread to be useless to anyone who cares about the Guide that you contributed this comment, that must mean that you don't care about the Guide, unlike most of us. If you do care about the Guide, you'll knock off the personal remarks.
I usually appreciate being called creative, even creative in my use of the rules, but I have demonstrated comprehensively that among my fellow debating opponents on this thread that my reading of the rules is the less creative one. My reading of the rules is strictly RAW, and it is others' readings that clearly contradict the RAW. So I must demure on this compliment.
If you like, you can argue further about how creative my reading of the rules regarding INA and FCT is on this thread or another one, Avoron linked to one you might like. But I really think making personal remarks like what you made really may derail the thread.
|
4 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Seriously, Scott?
Maybe ZanThrax was referring to the 46 or so posts that have been made about a rules question on this advice thread.
Maybe ZanThrax was referring to the fact that about 25 of those posts were made by you (and a good many were made by me).
Maybe ZanThrax was referring to the fact that we were asked on about 5 different occasions to move our discussion to a rules thread, and didn't.
What ZanThrax was not doing was making personal remarks or ad hominem attacks.
He said three things in his post:
1. Your actions have made this thread more useless.
2. People who are interested in the guide are looking for posts about the guide itself.
3. Your reading of the rules is creative.
None of those is a personal attack, no matter how offended you may feel.
And comments like this
"that must mean that you don't care about the Guide, unlike most of us"
just aren't helpful.
Anyway, I recently posted on the Improved Natural Attack and Feral Combat Training thread, not so much because I have a desire to discuss this issue more, but more because I want to give certain people an alternative to discussing about it here. Enjoy.
So, prototype00, which sample build concepts have you been planning to make?
Pardon me if this question has already been asked - has anyone looked into "dipping" into the Brother of the Seal PrC for 7 levels to grab the Hands of Stone ability? As far as I can tell that's 8 total levels off your spellcasting, for Gargantuan-equivalent Wildshape unarmed combat flurries, right?
That actually is a really interesting idea. I've always found bro of the seal interesting (though idk what aquatic mammals have to do with protecting and runes etc, ;] lol) the only problem I can see is that since its prereqs require flurry of blows specifically, anyone using the terrorist or maneuver master archetype lose access. Which really stinks. I was also a little worried about the skill prereq but then my brain turned on and said take 2 lvls monk, 3 druid and then pic, then back to druid at 13. But that is also a very awkward build. Hmm.
Anyways I was interested in seeing if there was a table for unarmed strike damage somewhere, as the only ones I can find look absolutely ridiculous and homebrewed. Maybe you could add an official table to your guide?
Also, while looking for spells for a tripper, I came across Greater Thunderstomp. Usually combat maneuver spells are unusable for anyone that isn't a full caster, and terrible for full casters as well, but liberal use of the word "may" in the description lets trippers blow a third level spell to trip everyone in a 60ft line using their highly specialized trip CMB. Might be worth a mention :)
Also, slightly off topic, I'm new to these forums, but apparently there is an option I the flag post dropdown that I happened to be looking at, and there is an option - "just wanted to try out the flagging system." Made me giggle xD
You don't need to actually have the skill reqs as a Class Skill. So you can just funnel points into K:Arcana until you've got five ranks and not worry about actually being particularly good at it. I was wrong about the spellcasting interaction last night though, you need three levels of Monk to qualify for Monastic Legacy.
So basically you
Monk 1
Druid 10
Monk 2
BroSeal 7
All of this about fighting with your tusks and claws? Unnecessary in this build, because your Huge Walrus Kung Fu will be mighty as all get out, hitting as Gargantuan in regular, everyday sorts of flurries. This is all about pure mass and size, Walrus-slamming people across the battlefield with Awesome Blow, fully equipped with the best levels of druid buff spells. The test build I did didn't worry with multiple styles, it's all Dragon Style and power attacks.
I'm interested in this build now. What Wildshape would you use to be able to strike as gargantuan? In fact yeah - how exactly does that build work?
It's the Brother of the Seal 7th level ability.
Quote: Hands of Stone (Su)
At 7th level, a Brother of the Seal increases his unarmed strike damage as though he were a creature one size larger.
So when you're wildshaped into a Huge creature your kung fu is Gargantuan-damaged.
Hey, Prototype00, do you have an estimate for when the sample builds are going to be up? I really wanna see some cause this guide is awesome.
Wurlitzer wrote: I'm interested in this build now. What Wildshape would you use to be able to strike as gargantuan? In fact yeah - how exactly does that build work? You can turn into larger creatures faster via a lot of methods, and pototype00's unfinished Guide has a lot of things like this already. You should check out the link on the first page on the thread.
There are a lot of Druid Archetypes: Saurian and Feline for example, that give you a +2 on your ability to turn into big animals of those types.
There is the Shaping Focus Feat, which allows your nondruid classes to count as levels as Druid for the purposes of shapechanging into bigger things.
And there are the Powerful Shape and Improved Natural Attack feats, which let you act in some ways as if your beast form were 1 size bigger. There is some dissension about how some of these things interact with other things, and some of that is being debated currently on a thread which Avoron has thoughtfully linked to (I'm right, and he's wrong;P ) in a post above.
To answer your question exactly, maybe use the Saurian Shaman Archetype with Shaping Focus (Shaping Focus only if you multiclass a lot, and I usually do.). You can get up to Huge by level 6, hitting as Gargantuan if take Improved Natural Attack.
So you could be a Saurian Druid and transform into large Dinosaurs at level 4, and Huge by level 6. You could take Improved Natural Weapon Gore, and by level 6, you could Wildshape into a Huge Triceratops whose Gore Attack inflicts damage as if you were a Gargantuan Triceratops.
This tactic is attractive to me because when you polymorph into bigger things, you lose Dexterity, and therefore AC. But a Triceratops has a very high natural armor compared with other dinosaurs, so that more than compensates. They only have 1 attack, but INA only augments 1 attack, anyway. It's a good platform for attaching feats like Great Cleave, Powerful Charge, Trample, Spirited Charge and Bull Rushing feats. Barding and Armor Spikes are very real options. The party's Cavalier might leave behind his regular mount for a chance to level his lance charge into battle on the back of a Triceratops (wouldn't you?). Or maybe you could take the Leadership Feat, gain a Cavalier Cohort, and instead of a Mount, he'd have you.
In addition, there is a Large Ceratopsian, so you can begin applying this Wildshape tactic at level 4: the Styracosaurus. So no waiting.
Derek the Ferret wrote: Hey, Prototype00, do you have an estimate for when the sample builds are going to be up? I really wanna see some cause this guide is awesome. Recently switched computers, so slowly transferring stuff over, including the guide and related materials. Sorry about the delay. I'm happy to answer questions in the meantime, but the update might take up till the end of January (as work has picked up).
prototype00
What's good damage to have while progressing? Like dice-wise at least. Also, what's the highest damage on a single attack (not like grapple or anyhting) and maybe a list of what contributes to it?
Well, your best friends here are:
1. The Monk Unarmed Damage Progression (and things that advance it, like a Monk's Robe or Monastic Legacy)
and
2. Things that increase size (I posit that you can get one "actual" size increase and one "virtual" size increase, as the virtual size increases are all based on your current size and don't seem to stack, another reason I am not in favor of INA).
So around level 10, if you have a Monk's robe and 3 levels of Monk, thats 1d10 unarmed strike damage.
With huge wildshape and Strong Jaw running, thats 6d8 damage. Thats probably good damage for 10th level.
If you can swing Janni Rush, that becomes 12d8 on a charge.
By lvl 20, you hav 12d8 on an unarmed strike and 24d8 on a charge with Janni Rush. Without grappling and constrict, this is probably the upperlimit.
(Or you could have the 56d8 maximized of the conqueror ooze, but that is only for one attack - in that case, the list is Furious Finish and Greater Vital Strike working on a 7d8 base damage natural attack slam).
prototype00
So Druid animal growth spell should stack with strong jaw and huge wild shape (animal) right?
No, on account of wildshape being a Transmutation (Polymorph) effect and thus not allowing other spells that change size to take effect:
Quote: In addition, other spells that change your size have no effect on you while you are under the effects of a polymorph spell. prototye00
Here is build I’m currently playing (purely based on this guide which is awesome - hats off to proto). 1st level monk and then druid all the way to max casting abilities. I went with Lion shaman as I thought my DM’s head might explode if pulled out huge dinosaurs at level 7. And well, I feel like a Cat Lord would be slightly more acceptable in town than a rampaging Dino Man.
Gear wise - outside of the obvious choices, you can turn any magical item into an intelligent magical item for just 3.2k gold more that has Telepathy and Speech so you can chat with your team mates while in animal form. I went with an intelligent item that can also cast Divine Favor 3/day - which stacks nicely with Fate’s favored (and the item cast without using your action)..
I did mix in Quicken Spell at 17th because you can quicken your Strong Jaw at that point (and other good spells)!
Let me know if there are any mistakes / errors. Only at level 7 for now. If we actually make it past level 11 in the campaign, I might decide to augment summoning spells instead of buffing up my melee more. After getting Horn of Criosphinx, seems like melee combat is pretty darn ridiculous.
Class: Monk (Master of many styles) 1 / Druid (lion shaman) 19
Race: Half-Orc :
Alternate racial traits:
sacred tattoos: +1 luck bonus to all saves
shaman apprentice: various bonuses / Endurance feat (sleep in armor - never want to take it off since it is a pain to put on :)
Traits
Fate's favored (add +1 to all luck bonuses)
Magical knack (Druid: keep casting level maxed!)
Natures bond: animal companion
Scores (all level adv to str) (orc racial add to str) [I’m running with 25 pt buy]
25 pt: str 17 dex 14 con 14 int 8 wis 14 chr 8
20 pt: str 16 dex 14 con 14 int 7 wis 14 chr 8
15 pt: str 16 dex 14 con 14 int 7 wis 13 chr 7
Feats
1st dragon style, dragon ferocity // charge thru allies, add 1.5x str bonus to unarmed strikes
3rd wep focus (claw) // pre-req for feral
5th feral weapon training (claw) // source of madness
7th natural spell // cast in wild shape
9th planar wild shape // DR, elemental resist, & Smite !!
11th horn of the criosphinx // now add 2.5x str bonus to unarmed strikes
13th powerful shape // make sure able to initiate grabs on any sized monster
15th multi attack // make one of your primary natural attacks iterative
17th quicken spell // now quicken strong jaw, animal growth, etc.
19th pummeling style // will improve crit chances
So just a dip in monk?
Your unarmed strike damage isn't going to be stellar, but if you're all right with that, then thats fine (3 monk/17 druid will also net you 9th level casting and throw in 8d8 unarmed damage because you now can pick Monastic Legacy).
prototype00
Good point. I guess you would add in those 2 monk levels right after getting 4th level spells. I was mainly wanting to not interfere with my casting. If I go that route I might wait till 5 th level spells - would like animal growth for animal companion first!
So if I stick with just 1 level of monk with monk robes so base d8 unarmed. What is the huge damage with strong jaw in that case?
Getting 8d8 plus 2.5x str bonus plus smite plus misc other dmg bonuses on 4 claw attacks plus animal companion is likely to make my DMs head explode as well.
How does natural spell allow you to stay in wildshape form indefinitely? Do you use beast shape or something while in wildshape?
|
