|
| 10 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Feral Combat Training and Unarmed Strike Damage: Does this allow me to use my monk unarmed damage with the selected natural attack after the 3rd printing errata?
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.
Post errata, the line "effects that augment an unarmed strike" has been removed from the feat. Does this mean that the existing FAQ is no longer valid?
yes
Yes to which question?
Sorry didn't read that there was a question at the top.
I was saying yes to, "Does this mean that the existing FAQ is no longer valid?"
So the answer to the first one is no. You don't get anything to natural attacks from unarmed strikes.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Yes, to the FAQ is no longer valid.
FCT allows you to flurry with natural weapons now and apply the effects of any feat with IUS as a pre-req to your natural weapon.
Choose one of your natural weapons. While using the selected natural weapon, you can apply the effects of feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite.
Special: If you are a monk, you can use the selected natural weapon with your flurry of blows class feature.
Yes, to the FAQ is no longer valid.
FCT allows you to flurry with natural weapons now and apply the effects of any feat with IUS as a pre-req to your natural weapon.
Choose one of your natural weapons. While using the selected natural weapon, you can apply the effects of feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite.
Special: If you are a monk, you can use the selected natural weapon with your flurry of blows class feature.
If this is true, then the old FAQ should be removed to prevent confusion/issues. Seems like a simple solution to implement when an errata invalidates a FAQ.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
If this is true, then the old FAQ should be removed to prevent confusion/issues.
Yep
Nerf
Maybe, but the question of using unarmed damage dice and/or "using unarmed's 3 bump up in dice" to my slam attack was never adequately answered.
I suspect the "as well as things that augment unarmed" was to catch things like "Weapon Focus Unarmed" and not things like Monk unarmed.
So I'd say the language was removed to remove unintended consequences of the language.
If this is true, then the old FAQ should be removed to prevent confusion/issues.Yep
NerfMaybe, but the question of using unarmed damage dice and/or "using unarmed's 3 bump up in dice" to my slam attack was never adequately answered.
I suspect the "as well as things that augment unarmed" was to catch things like "Weapon Focus Unarmed" and not things like Monk unarmed.
So I'd say the language was removed to remove unintended consequences of the language.
Unfortunately, when the original questions were posted about FCT/Unarmed Strikes for the FAQ/Errata, Monk's Unarmed Strike damage was the primary driving force on the majority of the discussions.
I'd find it hard to believe that it was an "unintended" consequence given how much it was brought up. Not to mention it was called out to work in the old FAQ if I remember correctly. Mind you, I didn't agree with the old FAQ, so the new one is more pretty much exactly with what I was arguing back then amusingly enough.
The problem is probably with things like pummeling style.rogues getting dex to damage and a slew of other things that they didn't like having to say if it works or not
unless it has IUS as a prereq its a no. Unless it would work with a natural weapon regardless.
I'd find it hard to believe that it was an "unintended" consequence given how much it was brought up. Not to mention it was called out to work in the old FAQ if I remember correctly.I was in on all or most of those discussions. I can promise you they never directly answered most of the interaction with unarmed questions. There was to this month much remaining confusion. I take it from this fact that much of the unarmed strike related interactions of FCT were unintended.
Just to repost it:
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.posted October 2013 | back to top
It was called out to work. It no longer does apparently. How is that remotely "unintended"? This is a flat out reversal after calling out that it worked.
Again, I'm okay with it because I was on the side of it not working way back when. But I'd rather call a spade a spade, and unintentional isn't even close to being an accurate description of what we have going on here.
Just like the SLA ruling. And probably others I can't think of right now.
Just like the SLA ruling. And probably others I can't think of right now.
The SLA ruling was specifically called out to be an exception to how they intended it to work. It was allowed to see what would happen. Not the same thing. They were upfront about saying it wasn't intended and so a reversal was always possible. People just got pissy that they did reverse it back to what had originally been intended.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Yes. The feat says you can apply "effects that augment an unarmed strike," and the monk's increased unarmed damage counts as such.It was called out to work. This is a flat out reversal after calling out that it worked.
That FAQ was from a thread asking if you could use your 1d3->2d6 bumps from Monk Unarmed to likewise bump your 1d6->4d6 bite.
They answered whether or not you can use your 2d6 Monk damage in place of your 1d6 bite. But never clearly confirmed or denied whether the "increased damage die" effects counted.
I and others kept asking if this was what that FAQ meant, and got nothing but silence.
Just like the SLA ruling. And probably others I can't think of right now.The SLA ruling was specifically called out to be an exception to how they intended it to work. It was allowed to see what would happen. Not the same thing. They were upfront about saying it wasn't intended and so a reversal was always possible. People just got pissy that they did reverse it back to what had originally been intended.
To be clear, they NEVER said the whole FAQ might be reversed. They said early PrC entry might be revisited. THAT is why people "got pissy", because they weren't up front about what might get reversed.
To be clear, they NEVER said the whole FAQ might be reversed. They said early PrC entry might be revisited. THAT is why people "got pissy", because they weren't up front about what might get reversed.Just like the SLA ruling. And probably others I can't think of right now.The SLA ruling was specifically called out to be an exception to how they intended it to work. It was allowed to see what would happen. Not the same thing. They were upfront about saying it wasn't intended and so a reversal was always possible. People just got pissy that they did reverse it back to what had originally been intended.
They said they were letting it work NOT as intended per the FAQ. That alone should have been a warning bell. The entire FAQ was in question at that point. Denying that is like putting your hands on your ears and screaming so you don't have to hear anything else.
They said they were letting it work NOT as intended per the FAQ. That alone should have been a warning bell. The entire FAQ was in question at that point. Denying that is like putting your hands on your ears and screaming so you don't have to hear anything else.To be clear, they NEVER said the whole FAQ might be reversed. They said early PrC entry might be revisited. THAT is why people "got pissy", because they weren't up front about what might get reversed.Just like the SLA ruling. And probably others I can't think of right now.The SLA ruling was specifically called out to be an exception to how they intended it to work. It was allowed to see what would happen. Not the same thing. They were upfront about saying it wasn't intended and so a reversal was always possible. People just got pissy that they did reverse it back to what had originally been intended.
I'm sorry I took them on their word on what was up for revisiting then. When someone says the tires on a car might be recalled, they'd be understandably upset when the entire car gets recalled instead. When an FAQ says only part of it might get reversed, you get the same kind of reaction when it's ALL reversed.
If the entire FAQ was in question, why single out that part of it was under review in said FAQ instead of saying the whole thing was? Sounds like you're the one screaming instead of me.
I'm not the one on a fanatical rampage to right the supposed wrongs and injustices of the Paizo Dev team, to let everyone know ad nauseam how I've been wronged. I just play the game as they write it. I don't have a need to scream and ignore anything. Because playing the game as they intended it is how I have my fun.
I acknowledge I'm playing by someone else's rules, that they can change. Acceptance of that, and not being so selfish or shortsighted to not realize that, makes the game significantly more relaxing and enjoyable.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
When an FAQ says only part of it might get reversed, you get the same kind of reaction when it's ALL reversed.
If the entire FAQ was in question
I'm so confused.
The FAQ basically said "they count but wasn't intended to count, we might change".
They changed.
How is this a problem? They did what they said they might do? Reverse it.
When an FAQ says only part of it might get reversed, you get the same kind of reaction when it's ALL reversed.
If the entire FAQ was in question
I'm so confused.
The FAQ basically said "they count but wasn't intended to count, we might change".
They changed.
How is this a problem? They did what they said they might do? Reverse it.
The FAQ ACTUALLY said that they might revisit early access to PrC in an extra line at the bottom of the FAQ. The FAQ never said "they count but wasn't intended to count, we might change". Reversing the entire FAQ was beyond the limited scope of what we where told was under review. That was what I pointed out that upset some people. If the entire FAQ was up to be revisited, that should have been said instead of posting that just a limited part was.
If it had really said "they count but wasn't intended to count, we might change", less people would have been upset at the reversal.
When an FAQ says only part of it might get reversed, you get the same kind of reaction when it's ALL reversed.
If the entire FAQ was in question
I'm so confused.
The FAQ basically said "they count but wasn't intended to count, we might change".
They changed.
How is this a problem? They did what they said they might do? Reverse it.
The FAQ ACTUALLY said that they might revisit early access to PrC in an extra line at the bottom of the FAQ. The FAQ never said "they count but wasn't intended to count, we might change". Reversing the entire FAQ was beyond the limited scope of what we where told was under review. That was what I pointed out that upset some people. If the entire FAQ was up to be revisited, that should have been said instead of posting that just a limited part was.
If it had really said "they count but wasn't intended to count, we might change", less people would have been upset at the reversal.
Unlikely, something changed and was "taken away", people were going to be upset regardless. Forum goers are like that.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
The FAQ ACTUALLY said that they might revisit early access to PrC in an extra line at the bottom of the FAQ.
I see. Well considering they never counted for anything in 3.5, some of us assumed the "revisit" line would apply in a more broad way.
Can you articulate a way this has impacted other than pre-reqs for PrC or other stuff?
"Can you articulate a way this has impacted other than the ways it has impacted?"
Wot
Unlikely, something changed and was "taken away", people were going to be upset regardless. Forum goers are like that.
Notice the words "less people". As with any change, people were going to be upset to a degree.
Can you articulate a way this has impacted other than pre-reqs for PrC or other stuff?
The "other stuff". Things like arcane strike feat entry that where unrelated to PrC entry, as the early entry was the only issue they said was getting looked at. The implication when someone says 'PrC entry may be reevaluated' is that the other parts aren't up for review or they could just say 'we'll be reviewing this FAQ if issues pop up'. I'd expect a "more broad way" in the wording for an expectation of a "more broad way" in implementation.
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Things like arcane strike feat entry that where unrelated to PrC entry
So a few (you only listed one) minor ways?
You have a reason to believe they knew about these and narrowed their discussion to PrC entrance? As opposed to not realizing there were order corner case ancillary connections like Arcane Strike?
It comes down to:
1) They didn't think of Arcane Strike so they wrote PrC as an all inclusive list.
2) They knew about Arcane Strike and limited their scope to PrC only but decided to hit AS also.
Which is more likely?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Things like arcane strike feat entry that where unrelated to PrC entrySo a few (you only listed one) minor ways?
You have a reason to believe they knew about these and narrowed their discussion to PrC entrance? As opposed to not realizing there were order corner case ancillary connections like Arcane Strike?
It comes down to:
1) They didn't think of Arcane Strike so they wrote PrC as an all inclusive list.
2) They knew about Arcane Strike and limited their scope to PrC only but decided to hit AS also.Which is more likely?
Number 2.
There were three main things the FAQ was used for:
-Prestige Classes
-Arcane Strike
-Crafting Feats
None of the above are "corner cases". They were used about equally (Arcane Strike being probably the MOST used by a small margin).
A corner case would be some weird off the wall Feat from a splatbook. Stuff I can't think of off the top of my head.
I don't know what this obsession is with simultaneously assuming Paizo knows best in every rules alteration they make, and that they don't understand their ruleset well enough to understand even the basic ramifications of said ruling.
One of the two may be true, but I have a hard time believing both are.
FAQ updated: http://paizo.com/paizo/faq/v5748nruor1fm#v5748eaic9qow
Edit 7/12/13: The design team is aware that the above answer means that certain races can gain access to some spellcaster prestige classes earlier than the default minimum (character level 6). Given that prestige classes are usually a sub-optimal character choice (especially for spellcasters), the design team is allowing this FAQ ruling for prestige classes. If there is in-play evidence that this ruling is creating characters that are too powerful, the design team may revisit whether or not to allow spell-like abilities to count for prestige class requirements.
Here is the exact wording of what might be revisited. It is SUPER, SUPER clear/obvious what they are talking about.
"If there is in-play evidence that this ruling is creating characters that are too powerful, the design team may revisit whether or not to allow spell-like abilities to count for prestige class requirements."
NOTHING about Arcane Strike or Crafting Feats. At all. Zero. Zip. Nada. I'm pretty sure they where aware of the content they LINKED to...
To be honest I don't recall any "in-play evidence" of "too powerful" prestige class characters, and THAT was the trigger for revisiting the SLA for PrC part.
EDIT: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2pt80&page=3?The-term-cast-as-a-part-of-abi lities-and-how#147
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Number 2.
-Prestige Classes
-Arcane Strike
-Crafting Featsassuming Paizo knows best in every rules alteration they make, and that they don't understand their ruleset well enough to understand even the basic ramifications of said ruling.
I know the rules very well, and I couldn't think of Arcane Strike and Crafting Feats when I asked what else.
I don't assume that Paizo is more perfect than myself, which is why I assumed Option 1. That they didn't think of Arcane Strike or Crafting when they made that FAQ.
NOTHING about Arcane Strike or Crafting Feats.
Which is consistent why my experience, as I forgot about those until mentioned here.