Ascetic Style:
"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."
Feats, as well as "effects", it says.
So my weapon can benefit from an Amulet of Mighty Fists? Brawling armor?
As written, Ascetic Style works like this for an unchained Monk:
Monk class features that now work with the weapon:
● Stunning Fist
● Ki Pool's DR penetration
● The scaling damage (works like Warpriest's Sacred Weapon)
● Dealing full strength on off hand attacks (almost never relevant).
Other things that now work with the weapon:
● Feats that enhance US, e.g. Possessed Hand
● Feats that have IUS as a prereq, e.g. Hex Strike
● Traits that enhance US, e.g. Bullied
● Spells that enhance US, e.g. Magic Fang
● Items that enhance US, e.g. Amulet of Mighty Fists (multiple enhancement bonuses don't stack, but other magic weapon abilities can be stacked with them)
Monk class features that do not work with Ascetic Style:
● The extra attack from Ki Pool
● Style Strikes
● Ki Blocker, One Touch, and Quivering Palm
● Flurry of Blows (relevant for tri-point double-edged sword, urumi, and the versatile design modification).
All of these are 'unlocked' by Ascetic Form, though.
Thing I'm not sure about:
● The ability to deal nonlethal damage without penalty (on one hand, that basically comes from the general rules for US, but on the other hand, it it explicitly mentioned in the Unarmed Strike class feature)
● Weapon Finesse
● Effects that only apply to natural attacks - the "is treated as (...) a natural weapon [blah]" line does make US better, but only indirectly.
I would say yes that it should but that being said the effects wording caused some problems with Feral Combat Training before so I would recommend talking with your GM before committing to the build to heavily.
Though Derklord wouldn't the existence of Ascetic Strike mean that the scaling damage wouldn't apply?
Honestly wondering or are we working with the theory that it only applies to non-monks and monks use their own progression?
Though Derklord wouldn't the existence of Ascetic Strike mean that the scaling damage wouldn't apply?
Back when Feral Combat Training contained the exact same wording, it had an FAQ that said "The feat says you can apply "effects that augment an unarmed strike," and the monk's increased unarmed damage counts as such." As this isn't a ruling, but an explanation, I see no reasen why it shouldn't be valid anymore.
Honestly wondering or are we working with the theory that it only applies to non-monks and monks use their own progression?
Ascetic Strike works for everyone, but is simply useless for a single class Monk (except cMonk with Sohei archetype). A Monk with Asketic Strike feats could choose between doing the weapon's listed damage (by using neither, both are optional), the listed full-level unarmed damage (by using AStyle), or the unarmed damage of a Monk four levels lower (by using AStrike).
I would say yes that it should but that being said the effects wording caused some problems with Feral Combat Training before so I would recommend talking with your GM before committing to the build to heavily.
To my knowledge, the only real problem about the original FCT was that some idiots literally made up their own wording to make it work as a virtual size increase even instead of working like Warpriest's Sacred Weapon.
There are problematic things about Ascetic Style, but the Monk Unarmed Damage thing is not among them. Problematic are AoMF stacking with weapon enchantments, and the "indirect improvement" things.
The actual writer for Ascetic Style has said that it should probably just be revised in the same way that they revised FCT; the closest thing to an official answer is to read Ascetic Style as: "While using the selected natural weapon, you can apply the effects of feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite."
However, Ascetic Form is much more clear about allowing things to work with it.
the closest thing to an official answer is to read Ascetic Style as: "While using the selected natural weapon, you can apply the effects of feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite."
No. This is objectively, absolutely wrong!
What you've said isn't in any way official, it's the exact opposite. Even worse, it doesn't even match what the author said!
What the author intended is completely irrelevant, the feats are as they are printed. The PDT overrules explicit author intend more than once, proving this. Indeed, material getting changed by the developer after the writer handed it in probably happens in every book, here is an example.
The author first claimed that his notes said "feats and class features". Then he made a post on his blog where he called the feat "Aesthetic Style". In that blog post, he gave the "feats only" text, and claimed that was "exactly what Feral Combat Training was changed to post errata", which is simply wrong because Ascetic Style works with more feats than FCT does, and that "as written Ascetic Style completely invalidates its subsequent feats.", which is wrong because you need AForm for e.g. the bonus ki attack and AStrike still works for non-monks.
But, to quote the author, his "original notes don't matter very much, though, because if Ascetic Style is changed it'll be the Paizo team that'll decide how its done."
Now, a GM is totally eligible to ban certain aspects of the feat, or even the entire feat, but when we start to care more about author intend than what's written, we not only need to disregard every erratum and FAQ that changes stuff, would not only need to comb the internet for a possible diverging author's intent version, no, it gets worse: A lot of stuff, especially in the CRB, was originally written for D&D 3.x. Just one example: The original author's intend for the Barbarian was not to have the class have rage powers, so if author intend is more important than what Paizo publishes, Barbarian's shouldn't get rage powers!
....I dunno. I'm feeling that Ascetic Strike isn't a way to burn a feat to get worse damage. Because it exists as a feat, I wouldn't allow a player of mine to get full monk unarmed damage two feats earlier. But really, neither here nor there.
Mostly was just wondering about an Amulet of Mighty Fists. If that works....phew. 300k gp for a +15 weapon is not too bad.
....I dunno. I'm feeling that Ascetic Strike isn't a way to burn a feat to get worse damage. Because it exists as a feat, I wouldn't allow a player of mine to get full monk unarmed damage two feats earlier.
Or maybe Ascetic Strike is for characters that aren't single class Monks without the Sohei archetype? Only actual Monks get the unarmed strike damage from Ascetic Style, other characters need Ascetic Strike. If you, for instance, only dip into Monk, you get the option to use a whopping 1d6 instead of your weapon's damage. Even for a shuriken thrower, that's just +2 average damage for a feat.
Because of the FCT FAQ, there is no ambiguity - Ascetic Style does work with the Monk's improved unarmed strike damage. If you think a +1.5 average damage increase at 12th level is breaking the game so much that you need to nerf the feat via houserules, feel free, but be aware, and make it clear to your players, that it is indeed a houserule that goes against explicit developer statement.
Ahhh, I see what you're saying now. And I agree. I didn't think it through previously.
the closest thing to an official answer is to read Ascetic Style as: "While using the selected natural weapon, you can apply the effects of feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite."No. This is objectively, absolutely wrong!
What you've said isn't in any way official, it's the exact opposite.
I didn't say it was official.
Ascetic Style is a mess, and there's no official clarification.
The only words from anyone even remotely relevant come unofficially from the guy who wrote it. People can do what they want with that when trying to interpret how it works. Rules lawyers can, as always, petition for things they want to work to work, or petition to stop things from working that they feel are wrong. PFS just banned it, which is both sensible and a shame, since they could have just cut 'effects' and preserved a cool (on theory) style chain.
Edit: Personally, as a player wanting to use it, I would simply accept the more restricted version with the knowledge that Ascetic Form would pretty much guarantee that I got what I wanted anyhow. I don't really see any reason to insist on the 'effects' clause unless someone is looking to really cheese things, but maybe I'm wrong.
I didn't say it was official.
No, but you said what you wrote was "the closest thing to an official answer", which is just wrong. The closest thing to an official answer is the FAQ for a feat with the exact same wording. Just because you don't like the official answer, doesn't mean it's not there.
The feat's author (Alexander Augunas) is not an employee of Paizo Inc., but a freelance writer. Anything official can only come from Paizo's own developers. Those developers have already released a statement through the official FAQ system that "the monk's increased unarmed damage counts as ["effects that augment an unarmed strike,"]."
Anythign else is simply unofficial.
The only words from anyone even remotely relevant come unofficially from the guy who wrote it.
Said "guy who wrote it" actually confirmed that magic weapons and AoMF stack, and he also confirmed that "Ascetic Style currently does" "render Ascetic Strike useless for monks", thus in term confirming that Ascetic Style does apply the Monk's unarmed strike damage.
Author statement how the feat does work is surely 'more official' than author statement how he would in hindsight like it to be, even though he handed in something different. Not that you wrote either, you wrote something different from even the most narrow version the author gave.Ascetic Style is a mess, and there's no official clarification.
In what way is it a mess? What is so unclear or problematic about it? Yes, the magic weapon/AoMF stacking is pretty powerful, but ranged weapons can do almost the same thing by using magical ammunition. The Monk US damage is crystal clear, and not really that impactful (most people grossly overvalue weapon dice). Below 16th level, the damage dice is 2d6 or less, i.e. the what a Fighter et al. can have at 1st level. Indeed, any unMonk can pick one of the 1d10 weapons (sansetsukon/seven-branched Sword), and thus Ascetic Style doesn't even grant anything above the expected prior to 12th level.
The most "messy", i.e. unclear part is Weapon Finesse, a feat and thus still included in the author's most anrrow version 8the one on his blog).
I don't really see any reason to insist on the 'effects' clause unless someone is looking to really cheese things, but maybe I'm wrong.
I 'insist' on it because it's what the book says. Why should this feat be treated different from the hundreds of other options that don't match what the original author intended? I also do believe that some effects really should be transfered, like the "ki strike" ability (i.e. the Ki Pool's DR penetration), and I don't see why it should affect feats but not traits (or spells).
In the end, you could say I 'insist' on it because changing it even when it doesn't present problems would be completely arbitrary, and that I think arbitrarily nerfing something without it being problematic makes the game worse and not better.
Very well, I'll rephrase: "The closest thing to an official answer about how Ascetic Style was *intended* to work...".
Saying Ascetic Style isn't a mess is a bit disingenuous. "Effects that augment" is notoriously bad wording for obvious reasons. A permissive reading of feat 1 makes whole sections of later feats pointless. That's clearly a mess.
Striking the second clause from Ascetic Style instantly resolves and clarifies the feat chain, leaves it running as the auther intended, and still allows almost all uses. So it's an easy, attractive option for clarifying the situation. I'd consider it the best option for resolving disputes about it, but others may have more appetite for 'legal' battles than I do these days.
Very well, I'll rephrase: "The closest thing to an official answer about how Ascetic Style was *intended* to work...".
Still wrong. The blog post says "you can apply the effects of feats that have Improved Unarmed Strike as a prerequisite, as well as any feat that augments an unarmed strike.", the forum post says "I intended for Ascetic Style to apply class abilities and feats, not feats and effects."
A permissive reading of feat 1 makes whole sections of later feats pointless. That's clearly a mess.
If this were true, it would indeed be a mess, but it isn't. Ascetic Form is very much needed for unMonk as neither the bonus ki attack nor style strikes work via Ascetic Style alone, while multiclassed Monks or non-Monks need Ascetic Strike to gain the increased damage.
Striking the second clause from Ascetic Style instantly resolves and clarifies the feat chain, leaves it running as the auther intended, and still allows almost all uses.
How do you know what exactly the author intended? As you can see in the links I provided, he contradicted himself. Also, that blog post is littered with mistaked (he doesn't even get the feat's name right), so aparently it didn't really undergo a careful writing process.
So it's an easy, attractive option for clarifying the situation.
It is. Swinging the nerf hammer is an easy and attractive solution. Paizo does it often enough, after all.
But that does not make it the best option. It creates the question of why author intend should matter for this, but not for hundreds of other things; and it leads to players not knowing what their characters actually do because they can't go by what's written in the books.
Who knows maybe the martial arts book will have new wording for it.