Warforged and the Monk - doable?

[Hypersmurf]

IIRC, the battlefist changes the warforged's slam from a d4 to a d8. I do not believe that it says that it acts as Improved Natural Attack or that it makes the warforged do damage as if it were two sizes larger, just that it makes the slam do more damage.

Right. The Improved Natural Attack feat increases the slam from 1d4 to 1d6 (as though it were one size larger). Then the Battlefist makes it deal 1d8.

The Battlefist doesn't increase it by a certain amount; it increases it to 1d8. It doesn't matter whether it's increasing it from 1d4 or from 1d6; it increases it to 1d8.

(This is separate to how the Battlefist interacts with a monk's unarmed strike, where the damage is treated as one size category larger.)

-Hyp.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

(This is separate to how the Battlefist interacts with a monk's unarmed strike, where the damage is treated as one size category larger.)

Realized that was what the issue was on my walk to the Metro. Don't mind me...

Brad

 

[Cactot]

Right. The Improved Natural Attack feat increases the slam from 1d4 to 1d6 (as though it were one size larger). Then the Battlefist makes it deal 1d8.

The Battlefist doesn't increase it by a certain amount; it increases it to 1d8. It doesn't matter whether it's increasing it from 1d4 or from 1d6; it increases it to 1d8.

(This is separate to how the Battlefist interacts with a monk's unarmed strike, where the damage is treated as one size category larger.)

-Hyp.

But what order would you apply them? Would you not apply the adjustment to base damage before you apply the adjustment to size based damage?

For example, if you upgraded to a long sword from a rapier (d6->d8) and were enlarged your damage would go to 2d6 correct? Becasue your attack was made more damaging AND you were enlarged, you effectively have a larger version of a more damaging weapon. These battlefists make the slam a more damaging weapon (d4->d8), which happens to be a natural weapon, which is affected by the INA feat therefore if your natural weapon dmg category were 1d8, it would upgrade to 2d6. It seems clear to me that for slam this would be a fair adjustment.

I understand your argument as far as the double size increase for "unarmed" attacks, though it seems to me that they should be two seperate adjustments. The battlefists make your hands have spikes on them that cause your attacks to do as much damage as a barehanded person a size larger than you, the change is in the equipment, as your fists themselves are more brutally damaging due to sharp things being placed on them. On the other hand, the INA bonus damage is because you are better at using the weapons you have. Logically, when looked at in that fashion, they should stack.

For example if you were to get a sharper sword (say adding +2 to damage) and at the same time get a feat that made you more skilled at using it to inflict damage (say weapon specialization for +2 dmg), the fact that you got a more damaging weapon would not negate the fact that you also became more skilled at using the weapon, nor would the fact that you became more skilled at using the weapon negate the fact that your weapon became a more damaging version of your original weapon. (I suppose an example using brass knuckles vs regular fists would have been a better example, but oh well, if you dont get my gist i will try again later)

As i read it, INA makes you better at using your attacks, while battlefist makes your attacks more damaging. I realize logic and dnd often do not get along, but as i have never seen this covered by any official source i would be interested in hearing counterpoints as to why my reasoning does not stand up, if in fact it doesnt.

 

[Hypersmurf]

But what order would you apply them? Would you not apply the adjustment to base damage before you apply the adjustment to size based damage?

Would you not apply the effects of a feat before you apply the effects of an item?

-Hyp.

 

[Cactot]

Would you not apply the effects of a feat before you apply the effects of an item?

-Hyp.

I suppose it depends whether or not doing so makes any sense, if you are applying a feat that increases the damage you do with an attack as well as an item that increases the damage you do with an attack it would not make sense to have them combined do the same amount of damage as one of them alone would do. I dont see the rules pointing in either direction, so i suppose it is up to a matter of interpretation.

 

[ARandomGod]

Right. The Improved Natural Attack feat increases the slam from 1d4 to 1d6 (as though it were one size larger). Then the Battlefist makes it deal 1d8.

The Battlefist doesn't increase it by a certain amount; it increases it to 1d8. It doesn't matter whether it's increasing it from 1d4 or from 1d6; it increases it to 1d8.

(This is separate to how the Battlefist interacts with a monk's unarmed strike, where the damage is treated as one size category larger.)

-Hyp.

Yea, I was just talking about the natural attack increase. That part doesn't stack with Improved Natural Attack. Of course, neither does the making the slam attacks deal d8... in that both the battlefist and INA would increase the slam to d6 from d4, and then the battlefist would make it deal d8. I'm fairly certain that the battlefist can also be treated as a martial weapon that deals d8. And, of course, it makes monk attacks as if they were one size catagory larger.

But what order would you apply them? Would you not apply the adjustment to base damage before you apply the adjustment to size based damage?

It doesn't really matter what order you apply them in...
You start with a d4 attack. You then get INA, for d6 and battlefist adjustment, for d6... and, of course, the battlefist also simply makes it do a d8.

Or you could say that the battlefist makes the slam attack a d8, and then your improved natural attack feat makes you deal your slam attack as if you were one size larger, which would be a d6...

 

[Cactot]

Yea, I was just talking about the natural attack increase. That part doesn't stack with Improved Natural Attack. Of course, neither does the making the slam attacks deal d8... in that both the battlefist and INA would increase the slam to d6 from d4, and then the battlefist would make it deal d8. I'm fairly certain that the battlefist can also be treated as a martial weapon that deals d8. And, of course, it makes monk attacks as if they were one size catagory larger.

It doesn't really matter what order you apply them in...
You start with a d4 attack. You then get INA, for d6 and battlefist adjustment, for d6... and, of course, the battlefist also simply makes it do a d8.

Or you could say that the battlefist makes the slam attack a d8, and then your improved natural attack feat makes you deal your slam attack as if you were one size larger, which would be a d6...

I disagree, as i read it, it RAISES your slam base damage (just as gaining monk levels raises your base unarmed damage) then from which you would make adjustments based on size.

Also, you say that the natural attack increase does not stack with improved natural attack without giving any logical reason why it wouldnt. We would not be having this debate if it said "it adds 10 damage to each unarmed attack", yet the effect is identical except for that it varies depending on your size. The item itself adds damage to your attack, it does NOT add the feat, and as such i can not figure any reason why it wouldnt stack.

As far as i can see, you can interpret the INA feat in one of two ways:
A. Your natural weapons actually get larger and more powerful, increasing damage.
B. You learn to better use your natural weapons, increasing damage.

In which of those scenarios would adding blades and spikes to your natural attack NOT cause it to be a more damaging attack?

 

[ARandomGod]

Also, you say that the natural attack increase does not stack with improved natural attack without giving any logical reason why it wouldnt.

If you don't think that my statement that both cause you do damage as if you were one size catagory larger, while neither make you any larger, then I cannot help you. To me it does seem logical. You are size X. Improved natural attack makes you deal damage as if you were X+1. Battlefist makes you deal damage as if you were X+1. Neither makes you actually BE X+1, so the two do not make you either be or deal damage as X+2.

As far as i can see, you can interpret the INA feat in one of two ways:
A. Your natural weapons actually get larger and more powerful, increasing damage.
B. You learn to better use your natural weapons, increasing damage.

In which of those scenarios would adding blades and spikes to your natural attack NOT cause it to be a more damaging attack?

A) INA makes you deal damage because your natural weapons actually get larger.
A1) Battlefist is oversized so that it's larger than your normal natural weapons would be (And spiked, to help with some damage reduction and special abilities).

In this scenario they don't cause your unarmed damage to increase two sized because the battlefist does not grow to one size larger than your one size larger. Now, of course, this cannot actually be the case flavor-wise with a slam attack, because the slam attack can be used with any part of the body, so that would have to actually increase the size of your self, and therefore would actually increase your size. But that point seems irrelevant to me.

B) You learn to better use your natural weapons, increasing damage
b1) You then put on a battlefist, which is larger than your natural weapons actually are... Fortunately for you you're already accustomed to dealing this type of damage. But, of course, you're not better at using these overly large natural attacks in such a way as to be even *LARGER*

C) The feat makes your natural attacks *harder*, and deal more damage
C1) The battlefist is already harder (and spiked!). No net effect if your normal weapons are already this hard.


There. Now I've spelled out more clearly some of the logic behind that.

Now I'll go into something I personally also consider important: In a monk, one increase in unarmed attack is something I think helps balance the class. Two increases sends it well over the top. Now, if you're in a campaign where well over the top is wanted/needed, then I don't see why you shouldn't allow this to stack. Hell, allow the INA feat to stack with itself. And, for that matter, allow the Battlefist for non-warforged, and let them work on already Large PC's.

 

[ARandomGod]

I disagree, as i read it, it RAISES your slam base damage (just as gaining monk levels raises your base unarmed damage) then from which you would make adjustments based on size.

Of course, if I fully agreed with this interpretation of INA, I'd probably agree with you... however:

IMPROVED NATURAL ATTACK [GENERAL]
Prerequisite: Natural weapon, base attack bonus +4.

Benefit: Choose one of the creature’s natural attack forms. The damage for this natural weapon increases by one step, as if the creature’s size had increased by one category: 1d2, 1d3, 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 6d6, 8d6, 12d6.

A weapon or attack that deals 1d10 points of damage increases as follows: 1d10, 2d8, 3d8, 4d8, 6d8, 8d8, 12d8.

The feat does, as read, actually increase your base damage. By one step, as if you'd increased in size. In that it takes you out of the normal size based damage. So say you were at medium, which is d4 (warforged). You take this feat, you become d6. Then you take battlefist, which makes you deal natural attack damage as if you were one size larger than medium d4), which makes is a d6.

Or you could do it the other way around. Both ways the improvement reaches d6 max.

And, of course, the battlefist makes them deal d8. It does this after making them one size larger, of course. So you could say that the battlefist sets your size at one size larger, and enhances it to D8, then the feat sets you at one size larger (which you're already set at... so no net effect).

 

[RigaMortus2]

But what order would you apply them? Would you not apply the adjustment to base damage before you apply the adjustment to size based damage?

For example, if you upgraded to a long sword from a rapier (d6->d8) and were enlarged your damage would go to 2d6 correct? Becasue your attack was made more damaging AND you were enlarged, you effectively have a larger version of a more damaging weapon

Wouldn't another valid analogy be... Wielding a Rapier (d6) and then Enlarged (d8) then given a Longsword (d8)?