"A brawler's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that modify either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."
What constitutes an "effect"? Is Power Attack an "effect"?
bump
Power Attack is irrelevant because it works on any type of weapon. But, yes it would be considered an effect. Mostly it means that both Magic Weapon and Magic Fang work on a Monk or Brawler's unarmed strikes.
Power Attack is irrelevant because it works on any type of weapon. But, yes it would be considered an effect. Mostly it means that both Magic Weapon and Magic Fang work on a Monk or Brawler's unarmed strikes.
On the contrary, if Power Attack is considered an "effect" and the brawler's unarmed strike is treated as his natural weapon, then based on this...
"If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls."
"This bonus to damage is increased by half (+50%) if you are making an attack with a two-handed weapon, a one handed weapon using two hands, or a primary natural weapon that adds 1-1/2 times your Strength modifier on damage rolls."
... a brawler's unarmed strikes qualify as getting +50% (+3 dmg & -1 atk) when using Power Attack.
Edit: Solved the mystery myself. Since "A brawler applies her full Strength modifier (not half ) on damage rolls for all her unarmed strikes.", a brawler does not get 1.5x because specific>general.
Not true for a couple of reasons.
1) Unarmed strike is nowhere listed as a primary natural weapon. Since it lacks that key designator it does not gain that increased benefit.
2) You can TWF with unarmed strikes, thus it has more than one natural attack and is ineligible for the increased benefit.
Not true for a couple of reasons.
1) Unarmed strike is nowhere listed as a primary natural weapon. Since it lacks that key designator it does not gain that increased benefit.
- Brawler says its unarmed strikes are natural weapons for the purpose of effects
- Universal monster rules says if you have only 1 natural attack, then it's primary.- Your whole body is the natural weapon, not just left fist, right fist, etc.
2) You can TWF with unarmed strikes, thus it has more than one natural attack and is ineligible for the increased benefit.
Can't argue with that assuming your assertion is true.
Not true for a couple of reasons.
1) Unarmed strike is nowhere listed as a primary natural weapon. Since it lacks that key designator it does not gain that increased benefit.- Brawler says its unarmed strikes are natural weapons for the purpose of effects
- Universal monster rules says if you have only 1 natural attack, then it's primary.
- Your whole body is the natural weapon, not just left fist, right fist, etc.2) You can TWF with unarmed strikes, thus it has more than one natural attack and is ineligible for the increased benefit.Can't argue with that assuming your assertion is true.
Sure unarmed strikes are natural weapons, they are just not primary natural weapons. Nor are they secondary, they are just natural weapons. The extra from Power attack requires your natural weapon to be a primary natural weapon.
My assertion on TWF must be true as that is how the Brawler gets his version of Flurry. A Brawler gets the TWF feat for free to use with weapons in the close group, including unarmed strike.
ok so here is another Question about how unarmed strike and Power Attack enteract.
If your Monk/Brawler has the Dragon Style feats and Power Attack, what is the damage bonus from an Attack that is getting 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus?
I have been going with the normal one-handed effect. But would it be treated as a two-handed? This also makes me ask, would you get the two-handed effect, from Power Attack when the Unchained Monk uses? style Strike(Hammerblow)
While the extra damage from Dragon Style is the same amount as if it were a two handed attack, it is not a two handed attack. Power Attack would still only give the normal one handed benefit.
Your second question about Hammerblow is interesting. I would guess that because it does not point it out, that you do not get it. But arguments could surely be made otherwise.
