Yeah, I know this has been addressed and debated countless times. That's part of my problem; I can't make heads or tails out of all the threads out there. I'm looking for help in connecting the dots and either confirming or refuting some confusing parts.
Let's say that the character is a medium dragon with monk levels. The idea is for him to fight with two monk unarmed strikes along with the two weapon fighting feat (not flurrying) along with his natural attacks (bite, claw, claw) as part of a full attack routine. The two monk unarmed strikes are, say, a horn butt and tail slap. Disregarding eventual iterative attacks from the unarmed strikes, this character would have five attacks: a bite, two claws, and the two unarmed strikes.
The questions are, what are the penalties to hit with each attack and which attacks receive the character's full Strength bonus to damage and which, if any, get only half the Strength bonus to damage? Does the following line from the monk's Unarmed Strike class feature affect this in any way:
"A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons."
If the character's unarmed attacks count as natural weapons, would that make all his attacks primary?
Unarmed strike -2, unarmed strike -2, bite -5, claw -5, claw -5. All but the primary unarmed attack deal 1/2 str damage. If you have the multi-attack feat the natural attacks only have a -2 to attack.
Unarmed attacks count as manufactured weapons for BAB attack bonuses. ANY manufactured weapons (including unarmed strikes) cause the natural weapon attacks to default to secondary.
monks don't have off-hand unarmed strikes, this applies even while not flurrying, TWF gives full str to both unarmed strikes. rest are secondary at -5 applying half strength.
SRD - the effect isn't enhancing the unarmed strike so it doesn't matter. the context is about the unarmed strike being a valid target, not counting as natural to not cause penalties for natural attacks.
But since the unarmed attacks also count as natural weapons, would that keep the bite and claws as primary attacks so that they don't suffer the -5 penalty to hit and do full Str to damage?
Graystone is correct, except for where Bandw2 corrected him about no off-hand unarmed strikes for damage, meaning all unarmed strikes deal full strength damage. And also except for bite strength damage, which is always 1.5 because dragon.
Ambrus, unarmed strikes only count as natural weapons for things that might enhance them. Counting them as primary natural attacks does not enhance them. Unarmed strikes count as manufactured weapons, and thus will always cause all natural attacks to become secondary (-5 to attack, and half strength damage except as noted).
But since the unarmed attacks also count as natural weapons, would that keep the bite and claws as primary attacks so that they don't suffer the -5 penalty to hit and do full Str to damage?
no, because they specifically only count as them for the purposes of effects that enhance natural and manufactured. an attack becoming not secondary is not an effect. and the context is specifically to allow you to cast magic weapon on your fists.
Graystone is correct, except for where Bandw2 corrected him about no off-hand unarmed strikes for damage, meaning all unarmed strikes deal full strength damage. And also except for bite strength damage, which is always 1.5 because dragon.
wait so am I correct or was Graystone correct?
Graystone is correct, except for where Bandw2 corrected him about no off-hand unarmed strikes for damage, meaning all unarmed strikes deal full strength damage. And also except for bite strength damage, which is always 1.5 because dragon.wait so am I correct or was Graystone correct?
You're right. I forgot he said monk and I was going off normal unarmed strikes. The dragon bite, I forgot they put an exception for it in the natural weapon section (I've ruled it DOES drop to 1/2 damage, but count that as my houserule).
Since having the character's natural attacks not becoming secondary would directly improve the character's natural attacks, might that not qualify as an "effect that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons"?
Not looking to contradict anyone; just want to make sure I get it right. Any all insight is appreciated.
Since having the character's natural attacks not becoming secondary would directly improve the character's natural attacks, might that not qualify as an "effect that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons"?
Not looking to contradict anyone; just want to make sure I get it right. Any all insight is appreciated.
It's been brought up and debated multiple times. I think the results of that was the majority of people that post agreeing with the view Claxon presented, except Scott Wilhelm who is adamant that everyone else is misguided and bound to an old and incorrect view.
It's been brought up and debated multiple times. I think the results of that was the majority of people that post agreeing with the view Claxon presented, except Scott Wilhelm who is adamant that everyone else is misguided and bound to an old and incorrect view.Since having the character's natural attacks not becoming secondary would directly improve the character's natural attacks, might that not qualify as an "effect that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons"?
Not looking to contradict anyone; just want to make sure I get it right. Any all insight is appreciated.
I can agree with Scott that effect, like so many terms is Pathfinder, is insufficiently defined. I find it a stretch though to try to expand it enough to allow what Ambrus suggests. The RAW is iffy at best and it's clearly not RAI.
Since having the character's natural attacks not becoming secondary would directly improve the character's natural attacks, might that not qualify as an "effect that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons"?
no because that is specifically in the context of allowing you to enhance or improve your unarmed strike, AND NOTHING ELSE.
Graystone is correct, except for where Bandw2 corrected him about no off-hand unarmed strikes for damage, meaning all unarmed strikes deal full strength damage. And also except for bite strength damage, which is always 1.5 because dragon.
Ambrus, unarmed strikes only count as natural weapons for things that might enhance them. Counting them as primary natural attacks does not enhance them. Unarmed strikes count as manufactured weapons, and thus will always cause all natural attacks to become secondary (-5 to attack, and half strength damage except as noted).
But Claxon, the Monk ability in the Core Rulebook doesn't actually say that that Monk Unarmed Strikes only count as natural only for things that enhance them. It says "count as manufactured and natural weapons for the purposes of spells and effects that enhance and improves manufactured and natural weapons." That's not the same thing.
Is there an official rules posting, an FAQ, or erratum that specifies that that it only counts as such for effects that affect them?
OH GOD NOT YOU
I WON'T LET THIS HAPPEN AGAIN. you ignore the context of the sentence and just read it to allow for something unintended.
But since the unarmed attacks also count as natural weapons, would that keep the bite and claws as primary attacks so that they don't suffer the -5 penalty to hit and do full Str to damage?no, because they specifically only count as them for the purposes of effects that enhance natural and manufactured. an attack becoming not secondary is not an effect. and the context is specifically to allow you to cast magic weapon on your fists.Sure, it's an effect. The effect of combining a manufactured weapon attack with natural attacks in a Full Attack Action is that any primary weapon natural weapon attacks become secondary attacks.
Isn't it? Is there a game-specific definition of "effect" that makes demoting a primary natural attack to secondary not an effect?
What is the game-specific, official definition of effect, and where did you find it?
YES, natural attacks specifically specify that they do str when primary and 1/2 when secondary, if used with a manufactured weapon then they become secondary. Their damage is conditional on their use. it is not an effect placed on them by some other object.
I don't know what the OP is planning
if he's a player, I'm like 90% sure it's a Taninim monk since their archetype specifically forbids flurrying. I went down this road, they don't end up very strong. (though combat maneuvers might be a different story) Tananim don't get goof dex and so their good reach is wasted since combat reflexes will be poor.
my response to reading scott's message is something like:
"AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA"
I don't know what the OP is planningif he's a player, I'm like 90% sure it's a Taninim monk since their archetype specifically forbids flurrying. I went down this road, they don't end up very strong. (though combat maneuvers might be a different story) Tananim don't get goof dex and so their good reach is wasted since combat reflexes will be poor.I've never heard of a Taninim Monk. I just found it in a search, and I shall have to read further. Taninim Monks don't sound like PFS. Are they PFS legal?
noooooooo
Still, without multi attack investment, I'd leave the natural attacks at -5 in my game. (and changing that really doesn't change how taninim monks turn out, my usual GM is really good at coming up with house rules to make characters work when pathfinder is being stupid)
still we're in the rules forum.
my response to reading scott's message is something like:
"AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA"
I remember it, too. I'll do my part to keep it civil, but I think I did last time, too. I was the target of such a serious barrage of online bullying that the moderator shut down the thread.
It's not easy to speak up again, to face that again.
pretty sure that happened because you were talking opinion in the rules forum, the rules forum is a dangerous place filled with people who are "correct".
liken it to trying to prove yourself in front of the supreme court. they don't take appeals to emotion well, it all has to be very rules language oriented.
It's been brought up and debated multiple times. I think the results of that was the majority of people that post agreeing with the view Claxon presented, except Scott Wilhelm who is adamant that everyone else is misguided and bound to an old and incorrect view.Since having the character's natural attacks not becoming secondary would directly improve the character's natural attacks, might that not qualify as an "effect that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons"?
Not looking to contradict anyone; just want to make sure I get it right. Any all insight is appreciated.
Chess Pwn, would you please share with us the survey that Paizo Publishing took and published that demonstrates that not only "the majority of people" but "everyone else" agrees with Claxon and not me?
Even if the majority of people do disagree with the points I raised, that doesn't mean they are not correct. It has to be demonstrated that what a player wants to do is illegal, not merely unpopular, to make it so he can't or shouldn't be able to do it.
I await rules-based evidence.
And if I want to tell anyone or everyone that they are misguided about something, I will do it myself: don't speak for me.
I remember it and you too, thus my post that the majority of posters disagree with you. And you also proved my point that you feel the other side is being bound by old thinking when you saymy response to reading scott's message is something like:
"AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA"
I remember it, too. I'll do my part to keep it civil, but I think I did last time, too. I was the target of such a serious barrage of online bullying that the moderator shut down the thread.
It's not easy to speak up again, to face that again.
Even if the majority of people do disagree with the points I raised, that doesn't mean they are not correct. It has to be demonstrated that what a player wants to do is illegal, not merely unpopular, to make it so he can't or shouldn't be able to do it.
Because are you not adamant that your view is correct? And you just stated that those opposed to it are wrong per rules. I did a very good job of factually summing up previous discussions and predicting this one.
if he's a player, I'm like 90% sure it's a Taninim monk since their archetype specifically forbids flurrying.
Sorry to disappoint, but I wasn't planning a taninim monk. I had to look it up before I remembered that it's a 3P PC dragon-race. An interesting notion to be sure.
For what it's worth, I tend to agree with Bandw2, Claxon & Graystone that it's unlikely that the monk's Unarmed Strike ability itself is the sort of "effect" that would provide the means to "enhance or improve" the character's other natural weapons. But I needed to check. Although attractive as a notion, it's a circular logic that seems to make it both cause and effect. I can certainly appreciate the opposite viewpoint and would understand if the devs ruled it so, but I find it unlikely to be the case.
For what it's worth Ambrus, Scott Wilhem has been in many threads espousing this exact opinion on how that portion of the monk's unarmed strike functions. I, and apparently others in this thread, have personally had arguments with him about it.
He is usually (almost solely) the only serious dissenting opinion.
Make of that what you will.
And remember, the developers aren't lawyers and aren't writing in legalese. Within the context of most things it should generally be pretty obvious what it means and what its intention is.
In this case, it means that things such as strong jaw can be cast on your unarmed strikes and increase the effective size of them to increase the damage, as though it were a natural attack.
if he's a player, I'm like 90% sure it's a Taninim monk since their archetype specifically forbids flurrying.Sorry to disappoint, but I wasn't planning a taninim monk. I had to look it up before I remembered that it's a 3P PC dragon-race. An interesting notion to be sure.
if you're not a player, then I'm not surprised if you are a player, then my curiosity is piqued.
Another question—is there any way to keep the natural attacks primary and make the unarmed strikes secondary; that is shifting the -5 to the unarmed strikes? I imagine not, but I figured I'd ask.
Another question—is there any way to keep the natural attacks primary and make the unarmed strikes secondary; that is shifting the -5 to the unarmed strikes? I imagine not, but I figured I'd ask.
None that I know of. Mixing natural and manufactured automatically changes all natural attacks to secondary.
The only thing you could do would be to take Feral Combat Training, and use the natural weapon in a Flurry of Blows.
But if you do this you're doing natural attacks instead of other weapon attack, you still don't get to add your natural attacks to the end of your other attacks.
|
The only thing you could do would be to take Feral Combat Training, and use the natural weapon in a Flurry of Blows.But if you do this you're doing natural attacks instead of other weapon attack, you still don't get to add your natural attacks to the end of your other attacks.
True. But if you have a feat that triggers on a bite or claw, or grab/poison with that natural weapon, etc, it would be worth it.