It's pretty concrete that something which increases the attack bonus of an unarmed strike is an 'effect' that 'augments' it by the straight definition of those words.
As far as your build idea goes, note that you can combine the Kata Master and Master of Many Styles archetypes, and that you don't actually need any charisma or ki to have a Panache pool (though one Extra Panache feat makes a pretty big difference).
Also, Brawling Armor.
No it doesn't work. Weapon finesse isn't a feat that augments an unarmed strike, it's a feat that augments a light weapon or a weapon that is specifically useable with weapon finesse. Ascetic style doesn't change the tutor the weapon to light or allow finesse.
All that Ascetic Style requires is that something is an "effect that augments an unarmed strike". The effect of Weapon Finesse on an unarmed strike is to augment it by switching attack bonus to a higher stat, and thus it will do the same to a weapon through Ascetic Style as if it were an unarmed strike. Whether or not Weapon Finesse normally works on a given weapon isn't any more relevant than whether or not any other effect will.
Or put another way, how does one argue that Weapon Finesse doesn't create an "effect that augments an unarmed strike" on a character with the right stats?
I think his point is that Weapon Finesse doesn't have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite. He is wrong in that unarmed strikes are indeed considered light weapons, and therefore benefit from Weapon Finesse; it even specifically calls out the Weapon Finesse feat in the core rulebook description of unarmed strikes.
The problem comes in the wording. This uses the same wording that Feral Combat Training used to, but it becomes muddier because all natural attacks are light weapons already, so they already benefit from Weapon Finesse without needing it to be specified. Unless you pick something like, say, the hanbo or cestus for Ascetic Style, you have to consider if you can apply effects coming from things that don't require Improved Unarmed Strike, such as Weapon Finesse or the Vine Strike spell.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ascetic Style comes in two separate phrases:
Benefit(s): Choose one weapon from the monk fighter weapon group. While using this style and wielding the chosen weapon, you can apply
"the effects of feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite,"
as well as
"effects that augment an unarmed strike, as if attacks with the weapon were unarmed attacks."
Improved Unarmed Strike has nothing to do with applying the effect of Weapon Finesse; the fact that Weapon Finesse produces an effect that augments an unarmed strike is all that's needed to apply the second clause.
Weapon Finesse does not "augment" any weapon. It lets you use your Dex bonus instead of your Strength bonus for your attack roll. It doesn't actually change the weapon in any way--the effect is on you, not the weapon.
Even if you think of "augment a weapon" as "improve the attack with the weapon," Weapon Finesse still doesn't qualify: If your Dexterity is lower than your Strength, Weapon Finesse would actually make the attack *worse* (and in that case, most people would just not to use it).
I don't think any GM I know would call that "augmenting" the weapon.
Gwen Smith: Neither one of those follows though. Going by the old Feral combat FAQ, you could use your unarmed damage instead of the natural weapons damage as it was counted as an effect that augmented unarmed strike. This was true even though the natural weapon damage might not be lower and not an 'augment'/improvement per se.
So following the PDT's understanding of 'augment', Weapon Finesse seems to fit.
"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."
Even if you think of "augment a weapon" as "improve the attack with the weapon," Weapon Finesse still doesn't qualify: If your Dexterity is lower than your Strength, Weapon Finesse would actually make the attack *worse* (and in that case, most people would just not to use it).
Yes, if DEX is lower than STR, then Weapon Finesse arguably doesn't augment an unarmed strike and doesn't qualify. If DEX is higher than STR, then it does, and it does.
Weapon Finesse does not "augment" any weapon. It lets you use your Dex bonus instead of your Strength bonus for your attack roll. It doesn't actually change the weapon in any way--the effect is on you, not the weapon.
The thing is, if an effect that increases attack rolls or damage rolls with a weapon doesn't augment it, what does?
Would you say that Dervish Dance doesn't "augment a scimitar", since "It doesn't actually change the weapon in any way--the effect is on you, not the weapon."?
Would you say Brawling Armor doesn't "augment an unarmed strike", since "It doesn't actually change the weapon in any way--the effect is on you, not the weapon."?
If the condition for the term "augment" is that the actual weapon itself, not attacks made with the weapon needs to be somehow 'increased', then what is there?
Gwen Smith: Neither one of those follows though. Going by the old Feral combat FAQ, you could use your unarmed damage instead of the natural weapons damage as it was counted as an effect that augmented unarmed strike. This was true even though the natural weapon damage might not be lower and not an 'augment'/improvement per se.
So following the PDT's understanding of 'augment', Weapon Finesse seems to fit.
FAQ"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."
I've bolded what I consider the important part. The monk's damage for unarmed strikes increases by level, which counts as "augmenting an unarmed strike."
Here's my "line": to augment a weapon, the effect must always improve the weapon (not have the possibility of making it worse), and the effect must be about the weapon, not the user.
For example, the monk class abilities that "let your unarmed strikes count as magic/silver/cold iron/etc." obviously improve the weapon itself. Anything that says "you do X with your unarmed strikes" clearly counts, and I would say that even "you do X with your chosen weapon" is is a strong contender.
"You may use your Dex instead of your Str to attack" doesn't "augment" the weapon: it's your ability that is restricted to a set of weapons.
I'm actually looking at Weapon Focus and Weapon Specialization to see if I would call them "augmenting"--and I think by my definition, they should.
But not Weapon Finesse.
Gwen Smith: monk's increased unarmed damage fails your test as it in fact doesn't always "improve the weapon" from a FCT perspective. So too would a warpriests Sacred Weapon, that actually talks about what to do when it's NOT an improvement. "If the weapon’s base damage exceeds the sacred weapon damage, its damage is unchanged."
What you're missing is these thing that augment don't require you to use them. You "can apply". So you "can apply" unarmed damage", you "can apply" sacred weapon damage and you "can apply" weapon finesse.
To quote the feat "you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls". So any time you'd use it, it would "always improve the weapon".
As to "the effect must be about the weapon, not the user". I'm not getting this one. What combat feat only effects the weapon and ignores the user?
EDIT: For an example of Feral combat and monk damage not being an improvement, take a Wyvaran with 1 level of monk. Tail damage 1d8 and base improved unarmed damage 1d6. A drop in damage but clearly counted as an ability that augments.
Gwen Smith: monk's increased unarmed damage fails your test as it in fact doesn't always "improve the weapon" from a FCT perspective. So too would a warpriests Sacred Weapon, that actually talks about what to do when it's NOT an improvement. "If the weapon’s base damage exceeds the sacred weapon damage, its damage is unchanged."
What you're missing is these thing that augment don't require you to use them. You "can apply". So you "can apply" unarmed damage", you "can apply" sacred weapon damage and you "can apply" weapon finesse.
To quote the feat "you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls". So any time you'd use it, it would "always improve the weapon".
I never mentioned the warpriest's sacred weapon, but the monk's improving unarmed strike damage does always improve the unarmed strike, which is what it has to augment to qualify.
Whether it is an improvement over the weapon (for Ascetic Style) or natural weapon (for Feral Combat Training) is irrelevant: it always improves the unarmed strike damage, so it counts as "augmenting an unarmed strike."
Except that ascetic style appears in a player companion book, which do not get errata. At most there might be a PFS-specific ruling.
Consider arguing the issue from a yes/no logical progression -
Q: If I take the feat Weapon Finesse and have a higher DEX modifier than STR modifier, is there an effect on an unarmed strike?
A: Yes, all attack rolls with an unarmed strike will now use a different ability modifier, thus they have been affected.
Q: Does the effect in question augment an unarmed strike?
A: Yes, under these conditions, all attack rolls with with an unarmed strike increase.
Q: What happens if I apply this effect to attacks with my chosen weapon as if they were unarmed attacks?
A: All attack rolls with the chosen weapon will increase their ability modifier as if they were affected by Weapon Finesse.
I think I foresee an errata to change this feat chains wording so that the feats actually flow from one another. The existence of the other two feats does seem to indicate that Gwen and Kazaan are correct (unfortunately for my build)
Ascetic Strike is perfectly relevant for any character that doesn't have full Monk progression on unarmed damage.
Ascetic Form is perfectly relevant for many purposes, including for a Monk using a monk weapon group weapon that doesn't have the Monk special property - for instance, Ascetic Form will allow a Monk to use a tri-point double-edged sword (reach weapon!) with Flurry of Blows.
|
Weapon Finesse does not augment "unarmed strikes" it only applies to light weapons and a small selection of other weapons. Unarmed Strike does not appear in the feat anywhere, just the light weapons.
Ascetic Style allows you apply feats that augment unarmed strikes to your chosen weapon. It does not allow feats that augment light weapons.
Weapon Finesse and Piranha Strike are not usable with a non-light weapon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Weapon Finesse applies to light weapons.
Unarmed strikes are a light weapon.
Thus Weapon Finesse applies to US.
Anything that applies to US transfers with Ascetic Style.
The effect isn't "things that only apply to US or list US specifically"
its "Things that do anything to US."
Weapon Finesse does not augment "unarmed strikes" (...)
Let's say I have a monk, 10 Str, 20 Dex, only feat is Weapon Finesse.
Does Weapon Finesse augment this monk's unarmed strike, yes or no?
So, I'm trying to make a monk/brawler character to embody the ideal of a quick swordfighter that ducks hits and ducks away before his next attack. The barebones of my original plan was to use a temple sword and utilize 2 levels of MoMs to acquire jabbing style and ascetic style (temple sword) (and the ability to fuse them). Obviously ascetic style would allow jabbing dancer to apply to my temple sword, but would it also allow me to apply weapon finesse to the temple sword because weapon finesse is "an effect that augments an unarmed strike"?
Since Temple Swords aren't in the Monk Fighter Weapon Group, I assume that you are using five "monk" levels to qualify for Ascetic Style (Temple Sword). Am I correct that you are taking three levels in Brawler and two in MoMS and will qualify for Ascetic Style (Temple Sword) at 5th level?
|
|
Because it's not an unarmed strike. It's a Monk weapon that is being augmented by feats as if it were an unarmed strike, but the weapon type does not change. Finesse does not augment unarmed strikes. It augments light weapons. It provides the same effect to a two-handed monk weapon as it would if you had two-handed unarmed strike. None.
Unarmed strikes are a light weapon.
Weapon finesse applies to unarmed strikes because unarmed strikes are light weapons.
We're are treating the weapon as an unarmed strike.
thus making it so we treat the weapon as a light weapon for effects that augment unarmed strikes.
Thus weapon finesse applies to our 2hw becauase we're treating that 2hw as an unarmed strike and unarmed strikes are light and get the effects of weapon finesse.
1:3 as it's still a 2hw even though it can also be treated as a light unarmed strike, which we are doing for the weapon finesse qualification.
|
|
No, you can't have it both ways. The entire argument that you are basing finesse to work with a non-finesse-able monk weapon is that you are treating the weapon as an unarmed strike for all "effects that augment an unarmed strike, as if attacks with the weapon were unarmed attacks". If you are treating the weapon as light unarmed strike for finesse, then it is a light unarmed strike for power attack.
However, if you are agreeing that the weapon is still a two-handed weapon, then it does not function with weapon finesse.
Yes, with this feat you do.
you can apply the effects of feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite, as well as effects that augment an unarmed strike, as if attacks with the weapon were unarmed attacks.
So I am using a 2hw. Power attack does +3 because it's a 2hw. Since Ascetic style says CAN count as US, I choose not.
Weapon finesse, lets me use dex because for this feat I will choose to apply as if I was an Unarmed strike.Your hangup is that you say.
The entire argument that you are basing finesse to work with a non-finesse-able monk weapon is that you are treating the weapon as an unarmed strike for all "effects that augment an unarmed strike, as if attacks with the weapon were unarmed attacks".
Which is not true and not being argued. It's a "per effect" choice. For this choice (PA) do I want to be an US or not. For this other choice (WF) do I want to be an US?
So I went back and picked up the exact text of the feat from the book and noticed a pretty important piece of punctuation:
"While using this style and wielding the chosen weapon, you can apply the effects of feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite, as well as effects that augment an unarmed strike, as if attacks with the weapon were unarmed attacks."
That comma with "as well as" separates the preceding text from the following text, which means that the second restrictive relative clause ("that augment an unarmed strike") can't possibly modify feats.
The way I would parse this sentence is (apologies for lack of ASCII sentence diagramming conventions):
"You can apply the effects of feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite (as if the attacks were unarmed strikes).
[You can also apply] effects that augment an unarmed strike."
It does not say:
"You can apply the effects of feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite.
[You can also apply feats and] effects that augment an unarmed strike."
Nor does it say:
"You can apply the effects of feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite.
[You can also apply] effects [of feats] that augment an unarmed strike."
Based on this, I'm revising my ruling to say "Only those feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite apply. Other 'effects that augment an Unarmed Strike' can't be feats." It called out "effects of feats" in the main portion, then it added other "effects" (without the "feats") in the afterthought.
YMMV/Expect table variation/Not valid in some states/etc.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Weapon focus and weapon specialization don't require unarmed strike, but they are effects that augment unarmed strikes. No where does it say that feat based effects AREN'T included, and thus they are included by the clause that includes effects.
The unarmed strike pre-req part is for things like boar style, where you trigger something on 2 successful US hits. This isn't augmenting unarmed strikes at all, thus it needs the first line to transfer this to natural attacks.
Wait. I can use Sap Mastery with UA strikes because UA strikes are bludgeoning and non-lethal. That means with Ascetic Style I can use a Kama or a 7Branched Sword to hit with Sap Mastery while doing lethal damage!! Also close combat feats can also be used. and, and, and.... No. It doesn't work like that.
If the feat requires UA or IUA strike it can work with Ascetic Style. It doesn't mean anything that can work with the other qualities of an UA strike automatically are transferred to the an Ascetic Style user's weapon.
Some things that would work:
Brawler's Armor enhancement
Vicious Stomp
Hex Strike
Nightmare Fist
Medusa's Wrath
Stunning blow
etc...
So many good feats to add to a weapon that there is no need to reach for things that don't.
...you need grammar. The commas in that sentence are separating out a nonrestrictive appositive. They are clarifying the "you can apply the effects of feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite" part of the feat description by adding an additional type of effect that you can add to the weapon.
Strange as it may seem, I've noticed that failure to apply basic grammar is at the core of an enormous amount of confusion over fairly simple rules. People will take a straightforward statement like "If X then Z, and also if Y then Z" and insist that you need X and Y to get Z.
Aight, so I can see Gwen's logic on this. The divide is on what specifically an effect is augmenting. In cases like the Vine Strike spell, it's affecting what your weapon does. Weapon Finesse, on the other hand, changes how you use a weapon, not what the weapon itself does.
And I think that's the point Imbaticus was trying to make too, in spite of how he worded it. Weapon Finesse doesn't affect unarmed strikes because it doesn't actually affect any weapon. It affects the user of a weapon, allowing them to use anything defined as a light weapon in a different way.
Think of it this way: pretend you could take your arm off and hand it to another person to use as a light mace that they're proficient with. If doing so would allow them to benefit from an effect you could take advantage of, then Ascetic Style should work with it. If not, then it won't unless it's from a feat with IUS as a prerequisite.
Aight, so I can see Gwen's logic on this. The divide is on what specifically an effect is augmenting. In cases like the Vine Strike spell, it's affecting what your weapon does. Weapon Finesse, on the other hand, changes how you use a weapon, not what the weapon itself does.
And I think that's the point Imbaticus was trying to make too, in spite of how he worded it. Weapon Finesse doesn't affect unarmed strikes because it doesn't actually affect any weapon. It affects the user of a weapon, allowing them to use anything defined as a light weapon in a different way.
Think of it this way: pretend you could take your arm off and hand it to another person to use as a light mace that they're proficient with. If doing so would allow them to benefit from an effect you could take advantage of, then Ascetic Style should work with it. If not, then it won't unless it's from a feat with IUS as a prerequisite.
Effect: a change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.
If a character uses Weapon Finesse with a better dexterity modifier than strength, it has an effect on an unarmed strike: that all attack rolls with an unarmed strike are augmented. Therefore, Weapon Finesse produces an effect that augments an unarmed strike.
Objecting that the effect is on the user and not the weapon doesn't hold up even if we accept that it's true, since the effect on the user produces the effect on the weapon. It's like saying "I didn't have an effect on you. I had an effect on the trigger of this gun, and then the gun had an effect on you. So I didn't have the effect on you that you got shot".
Introducing an objection about the nature of how or why Weapon Finesse has an effect on an unarmed strike and why it shouldn't therefore count is completely outside of what the rules require, and goes down the road of interpreting rules by personal conceptual preferences and/or drawn-out theoretical arguments in place of simple logical corollory.
That's the reason why Imbaticus was so emphatic about stating that it doesn't effect an unarmed strike. Because the effect isn't directly on the unarmed strike, it's on how a light weapon is used (which does include how the person with the feat uses an unarmed strike, since unarmed strikes are themselves light weapons).
I can see where you're going, but that analogy is kinda flawed. Shooting someone doesn't happen purely because one pulls a trigger; the person has to aim at their target as well. Their influence over their weapon takes their target into account. Something the shooter did (aiming) did indeed affect the victim (whom they aimed at).
That's the reason Weapon Finesse doesn't work with Ascetic Style. Weapon Finesse doesn't care what weapon you're using, so long as it's light or in its list of exceptions. It has no effect on the weapon itself, it simply affects how you, personally, use a weapon. It doesn't affect the weapon, it alters what YOUR effect is on the weapon. Using your analogy, it doesn't have any affect on the bullets themselves, or the gun itself; it affects how you grip the gun, allowing you to handle the recoil differently and forcing you to compensate for the altered grip by aiming in a different manner. Beyond that, the effect is the same. You're still pulling the trigger, the bullet is still hitting its mark and dealing the same damage. You're merely aiming it in a different way. Maybe you're used to using a gun in the traditional two-handed grip, and your friend holds it in one hand without using the other to brace their arm, and your other friend has the sideways stereotypical ganster grip. None of this affects what the gun is capable of itself; it affects how you each take aim, and how the recoil affects you, and that's all, assuming you're all equally proficient with aiming with your chosen style.
I'm sorry if you're not willing to accept analogies to explain how this works; that's the best I can do, is try and use real-world examples that parallel what we're discussing. It seems others have tried plain words, and you haven't accepted that either. My best advice at this point is to talk to your DM and just go with whatever s/he tells you, or if you're the DM and you're not bound to RAW, just interpret it however you like and inform your players of this so they can take advantage of it.
Right it's augmenting the way you throw your unarmed strike, aka your effect on the weapon. Thus you can treat the Ascetic weapon as if it was an unarmed strike and augment it like you would your unarmed strike. So since you can now punch differently, you can swing differently.
Basically Ascetic style makes the weapon an unarmed strike for everything but pummeling style and other such worded things.
Right the feat as it is wasn't meant to be, thus creator intent isn't there because it wasn't the intent. So we'd need the Designer/Person that approved it, intent to know of intent at all.
Because what is being discussed is "effects that augment an unarmed strike" So getting intent for that would also work.