|
We have a player in my game who loves to min-max. Currently, said player is playing a Elven Witch in my legacy of fire game. Her starts are min maxed for a 20 point buy, with a Str of 7, and an Int of 20(now 21 at 4th). The heroes were working through a dungeon and he wanted to climb a wall with her hair as the main agent for climbing, with the argument being that her strength for the climb with her hair would be 21, instead of 7. I provisionally let it slide, but I don't think this is necessarily fair to the other players, what do you guys think?
Well... I can see why he'd get the idea, and honestly I see nothing that says it shouldn't work that way.
It says the hair is like a limb with strength score as Int. So if he can't use it for Str based skills, really what would it then be good for?
After all he spend a hex slot on it, and he can't use it to actually weild a weapon with it.
We have a player in my game who loves to min-max. Currently, said player is playing a Elven Witch in my legacy of fire game. Her starts are min maxed for a 20 point buy, with a Str of 7, and an Int of 20(now 21 at 4th). The heroes were working through a dungeon and he wanted to climb a wall with her hair as the main agent for climbing, with the argument being that her strength for the climb with her hair would be 21, instead of 7. I provisionally let it slide, but I don't think this is necessarily fair to the other players, what do you guys think?
Is is feasible to climb one handed? Because prehensile hair gets you the one extra limb, right? At the very least, he should take a circumstance penalty for the awkwardness of climbing in a non-standard fashion.
Alternately, allow it to provide a circumstance bonus to his base check for having the superior limb.
On the other hand, it would seem entirely reasonable for him to be able to, if the top of the wall was in the reach of his hair, simply lift himself to the top.
We have a player in my game who loves to min-max. Currently, said player is playing a Elven Witch in my legacy of fire game. Her starts are min maxed for a 20 point buy, with a Str of 7, and an Int of 20(now 21 at 4th). The heroes were working through a dungeon and he wanted to climb a wall with her hair as the main agent for climbing, with the argument being that her strength for the climb with her hair would be 21, instead of 7. I provisionally let it slide, but I don't think this is necessarily fair to the other players, what do you guys think?
I've just re-read the prehensile hair entry in the SRD and it seems he's right, thoiugh he can use his hair only 4 min/day in 1 min increment... ;)
I've just re-read the prehensile hair entry in the SRD and it seems he's right, thoiugh he can use his hair only 4 min/day in 1 min increment... ;)
Well if the climbing takes more than 4 minutes it's a high wall :)
But yes, he can only use it 4 times a day, and there are situations where it will not help him, and he feels the negative effects of a -2 str modifier eventually.
It won't help him carry more stuff
Won't help him swimming.
While it's a natural weapon, but only secondary, so it takes a -5 to attack already, which means it won't hit any better than if he had a 10 str either, and only adds half the str bonus (or int bonus in this case, aka +2)
He can't actually use real weapons with it
He can use it to lift stuff, bash in a door or climb etc, but usually letting the fighter do that stuff is better anyway.
This should absolutely be allowed. It's a pretty poor hex that occasionally lets the witch do something well beyond her own strength, but only a limited number of times per day. Give the ability the opportunity to be useful on one of the rare times that it can be.
While it's a natural weapon, but only secondary, so it takes a -5 to attack already, which means it won't hit any better than if he had a 10 str either, and only adds half the str bonus (or int bonus in this case, aka +2)
Call me crazy, but per the following part of the Natural Attack rules...
"If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls."
Unless the witch has additional natural weapons, the fact that the Prehensile Hair is secondary is irrelevant. It still uses full BAB and full Int modifier for attack and damage rolls.
Right?
Hmm... you might be right, I'm not entirely sure.
It would definitely increase the value of that hex by alot.
|
|
While it's a natural weapon, but only secondary, so it takes a -5 to attack already, which means it won't hit any better than if he had a 10 str either, and only adds half the str bonus (or int bonus in this case, aka +2)
Call me crazy, but per the following part of the Natural Attack rules...
"If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls."
Unless the witch has additional natural weapons, the fact that the Prehensile Hair is secondary is irrelevant. It still uses full BAB and full Int modifier for attack and damage rolls.
Right?
Nope, because it's a secondary natural attack. The secondary attribute trumps all of the other parts, so it still gets the -5 and half str, no matter what.
| 5 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Nope, because it's a secondary natural attack. The secondary attribute trumps all of the other parts, so it still gets the -5 and half str, no matter what.While it's a natural weapon, but only secondary, so it takes a -5 to attack already, which means it won't hit any better than if he had a 10 str either, and only adds half the str bonus (or int bonus in this case, aka +2)
Call me crazy, but per the following part of the Natural Attack rules...
"If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls."
Unless the witch has additional natural weapons, the fact that the Prehensile Hair is secondary is irrelevant. It still uses full BAB and full Int modifier for attack and damage rolls.
Right?
Here's the full entry from the SRD.
"Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon). These attacks fall into one of two categories, primary and secondary attacks. Primary attacks are made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and add the creature’s full Strength bonus on damage rolls. Secondary attacks are made using the creature’s base attack bonus –5 and add only 1/2 the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls. If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls. This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one. If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type."
Definately seems to imply the exact opposite is true. Immediately after describing a secondary attack, it goes on to list the exceptional cases; Only having one natural attack (specific exception) and having only one type of attack but multiple per round (specific exception).
EDIT: For an example, see the Manta Ray. It has a listed attack bonus of +4 (+2 BAB, +3 Str, -1 Size) for its a Tail Slap, normally a Secondary Attack as per the chart.
I am inclined to believe the intent was to always treat it as a secondary attack, though a point could be made that the intent was to classify it as a tailslap for example. I think I'll FAQ it to hopefully get an answer.
EDIT: FAQ'ed Krispy's post
Yeah I'm thinking it's like the non-war trained horse having all its attacks as secondary. Something that is done specifically on purpose.
Actually the barbarian's Animal Fury rage power has the same language (personally I don't thing animal fury should... but it does).
Yeah I'm thinking it's like the non-war trained horse having all its attacks as secondary. Something that is done specifically on purpose.
Actually the barbarian's Animal Fury rage power has the same language (personally I don't thing animal fury should... but it does).
Horses actually get a special rule specifically to render their hooves secondary though (Docile(ex)).
And I dont see where Animal Fury is ever designated as a Secondary Attack; its described like one, but its never actually specified in the description I'm reading (from d20pfsrd) whether its primary or secondary, just that if its made as part of a full attack its at -5. (I personally agree it should be a normal bite attack)
|
|
Definately seems to imply the exact opposite is true. Immediately after describing a secondary attack, it goes on to list the exceptional cases; Only having one natural attack (specific exception) and having only one type of attack but multiple...
Humanoid has 2x unarmed strikes... would these count as its primary natural attacks for this purpose? They can't be enhanced as natural weapons, I guess, but it seems to fly in the face of reason that these wouldn't be counted.
....Won't help him swimming....
Why not? Imagine a ten foot long spread of hair undulating as it propells the witch through the sea. This is the way sea snakes and most fish swim so why not witches?
Humanoid has 2x unarmed strikes... would these count as its primary natural attacks for this purpose? They can't be enhanced as natural weapons, I guess, but it seems to fly in the face of reason that these wouldn't be counted.
Definately seems to imply the exact opposite is true. Immediately after describing a secondary attack, it goes on to list the exceptional cases; Only having one natural attack (specific exception) and having only one type of attack but multiple...
I dont have a quote for it, but I'm fairly certain there is a big difference between Unarmed Strikes and Natural Weapons.
As in, I dont think there is any relationship between them at all.
Humanoid has 2x unarmed strikes... would these count as its primary natural attacks for this purpose? They can't be enhanced as natural weapons, I guess, but it seems to fly in the face of reason that these wouldn't be counted.
Definately seems to imply the exact opposite is true. Immediately after describing a secondary attack, it goes on to list the exceptional cases; Only having one natural attack (specific exception) and having only one type of attack but multiple...I dont have a quote for it, but I'm fairly certain there is a big difference between Unarmed Strikes and Natural Weapons.
As in, I dont think there is any relationship between them at all.
I do.
Some fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders do not possess natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses, and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands. See Table: Natural Attacks by Size for typical damage values for natural attacks by creature size.
| 22 people marked this as a favorite. |
Primary attacks are made using the creature's full base attack bonus and add the creature's full Strength bonus on damage rolls. Secondary attacks are made using the creature's base attack bonus –5 and add only 1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls. If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature's full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls.
Primary attacks are made using the creature's full base attack bonus and add the creature's full Strength bonus on damage rolls. Secondary attacks are made using the creature's base attack bonus –5 and add only 1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls. If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature's full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls.
So, that would seem to confirm that a raging barbarian with Animal Fury uses his full BAB, not BAB - 5, for his bite, if that's the only attack he's making. Would the same apply if he also had claws from lesser beast totem, or would the bite revert to being secondary?
At the point that SKR is using the standard rules I imagine it would stay a primary attack since a bite is such and the claws are such -- there isn't anything forcing it back to secondary.
Secondary attacks only become primary attacks when it's the creatures ONLY available attack form. That is not the case with the witch. Otherwise there is no single reason for listing it in the Hex as a secondary attack at all.
Actually, it is her only form of natural attack. Her fists do not count as natural attacks. If she is unarmed (as in, she doesn't have weapons in her hands), then her attack with the hair is her only attack. That invalidates your statement.
The fact that the DEV quoted the rules to you apparently has no impact on your view though, so not sure what good my comment will do either.
|
At the point that SKR is using the standard rules I imagine it would stay a primary attack since a bite is such and the claws are such -- there isn't anything forcing it back to secondary.Yes there is ... the specific rules regarding the hex itself. specific trumps general.
In general I would believe you but with all the confusion I've seen related to Natural Attacks and how they function leaves me less than certain.
Add to that the Lead Dev popping in and pointing to a specific ruling would lead one to erring on the side of maybe it should be Primary if that's all they use that round.
With the general rules in the beastiary and the errata stating to use it as cannon for all cases involving Natural attacks (specifically calling out the Barbarian animal fury power which is written exactly the same as this Hex) would probably let it go as ok at my table.
At the least I'd faq it and wait for some reply.
Secondary attacks only become primary attacks when it's the creatures ONLY available attack form. That is not the case with the witch. Otherwise there is no single reason for listing it in the Hex as a secondary attack at all.
Read it again.
If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature's full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls.
The reason it is listed as secondary in the prd is she might have another natural attack from a feat or something. She might be toothy and have a bite. Then she could do a bite and a hair attack. In most cases, the hair will be her only natural attack so it will use her full BAB.
Secondary attacks only become primary attacks when it's the creatures ONLY available attack form. That is not the case with the witch. Otherwise there is no single reason for listing it in the Hex as a secondary attack at all.Yes, it is a secondary attack. And when you attack solely with a singular secondary attack and nothing else in a round it is treated as a primary attack. Nothing in the Hex's description changes this.At the point that SKR is using the standard rules I imagine it would stay a primary attack since a bite is such and the claws are such -- there isn't anything forcing it back to secondary.Yes there is ... the specific rules regarding the hex itself. specific trumps general.
"Attack form"? There's no reference to such in the relevant rules... Only Natural Attacks.
Secondary attacks only become primary attacks when it's the creatures ONLY available attack form. That is not the case with the witch. Otherwise there is no single reason for listing it in the Hex as a secondary attack at all.Yes, it is a secondary attack. And when you attack solely with a singular secondary attack and nothing else in a round it is treated as a primary attack. Nothing in the Hex's description changes this.At the point that SKR is using the standard rules I imagine it would stay a primary attack since a bite is such and the claws are such -- there isn't anything forcing it back to secondary.Yes there is ... the specific rules regarding the hex itself. specific trumps general.
"If a creature has only one natural attack,..."
How many more natural attacks does your random witch have?IF the witch also has the Nails hex, it gains two additional secondary natural attacks, and then the hair also counts as secondary.
Secondary attacks only become primary attacks when it's the creatures ONLY available attack form. That is not the case with the witch. Otherwise there is no single reason for listing it in the Hex as a secondary attack at all.Yes, it is a secondary attack. And when you attack solely with a singular secondary attack and nothing else in a round it is treated as a primary attack. Nothing in the Hex's description changes this.At the point that SKR is using the standard rules I imagine it would stay a primary attack since a bite is such and the claws are such -- there isn't anything forcing it back to secondary.Yes there is ... the specific rules regarding the hex itself. specific trumps general."If a creature has only one natural attack,..."
How many more natural attacks does your random witch have?IF the witch also has the Nails hex, it gains two additional secondary natural attacks, and then the hair also counts as secondary.
That's just weird then. If I take the Prehensile Hair hex first, it becomes LESS effective when I take another, unrelated Hex? Makes no sense.
Secondary attacks only become primary attacks when it's the creatures ONLY available attack form. That is not the case with the witch. Otherwise there is no single reason for listing it in the Hex as a secondary attack at all.Yes, it is a secondary attack. And when you attack solely with a singular secondary attack and nothing else in a round it is treated as a primary attack. Nothing in the Hex's description changes this.At the point that SKR is using the standard rules I imagine it would stay a primary attack since a bite is such and the claws are such -- there isn't anything forcing it back to secondary.Yes there is ... the specific rules regarding the hex itself. specific trumps general.
That's not what it says -- it says when the attack form is the creatures only natural attack form. Indeed by this so long as the witch doesn't use any other weapon she would get 1 1/2 Int Mod as a bonus on damage (and with power attack).
Otherwise no creature would ever have its secondary attack moved to primary because all creatures can wear armor spikes.
I know skr has replied, but it still seems weird to me that a creature that has multiple natural attacks has less effective 'hair' even if she chooses not to use those other attacks. There isn't really a sensible explanation why it would work like that. If it were optional to not use other natural attacks and still get the improved natural attack it would be fine.
I know skr has replied, but it still seems weird to me that a creature that has multiple natural attacks has less effective 'hair' even if she chooses not to use those other attacks. There isn't really a sensible explanation why it would work like that. If it were optional to not use other natural attacks and still get the improved natural attack it would be fine.
Its definately weird, no doubt.
Is it a problem? That is doubtful.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know skr has replied, but it still seems weird to me that a creature that has multiple natural attacks has less effective 'hair' even if she chooses not to use those other attacks.
Them's the breaks, though. A lizardfolk that grows a tentacle (say, from the alchemist discovery) has to always treat its "hair" as a secondary attack, even if it doesn't attack with a manufactured weapon or its (primary) claws and bite. It keeps the stat block consistent (you don't have to remember to add +5 to its attack roll to compensate for the lack of the –5 secondary penalty) and means creatures with primary natural attacks are encouraged to use those natural attacks instead of attacks from other sources.
Unfortunately the wording of these abilities is -- quite frankly horrendous. Especially with the number of exceptions they bring with them (that are now being turned back around into the normal rules here).
A blog post clearly detailing how natural attacks and how the interact with weapon attacks would be rather welcome. How they interact with feats could be part of the post, can you take eldrich claws or improved natural attack with the Witch's hair for example.
If you are open to suggestions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Unfortunately the wording of these abilities is -- quite frankly horrendous. Especially with the number of exceptions they bring with them (that are now being turned back around into the normal rules here).
Yeah,
In my own games, anything that gives a person a natural attack follows the rules in the bestiary, just to keep it simple and easy to follow. If you are medium and you gain a bite, it's a primary natural attack that does 1d6. Claws do 1d4 and are primary. If you have claws and a bite, all 3 are primary. The hair is a secondary (because it's an unusual one and it's called out as secondary).If you have a secondary natural attack, and that's the only natural attack you have, then it's a primary.
Boom, done. Makes everything nice and simple and easy to remember. I don't care how your orc got his bite (he's got 3-4 options), it does the same damage and is a primary.
Unfortunately the wording of these abilities is -- quite frankly horrendous. Especially with the number of exceptions they bring with them (that are now being turned back around into the normal rules here).Yeah,
In my own games, anything that gives a person a natural attack follows the rules in the bestiary, just to keep it simple and easy to follow. If you are medium and you gain a bite, it's a primary natural attack that does 1d6. Claws do 1d4 and are primary. If you have claws and a bite, all 3 are primary. The hair is a secondary (because it's an unusual one and it's called out as secondary).If you have a secondary natural attack, and that's the only natural attack you have, then it's a primary.
Boom, done. Makes everything nice and simple and easy to remember. I don't care how your orc got his bite (he's got 3-4 options), it does the same damage and is a primary.
I think those are in fact the rules but the expression in the various books could use some clarity.
I think the orc has 6 ways to get a bite? 1.Toothy 2.Tusked. 3.Razortusk
4.Mutagen 5.Animial Fury 6. Synthasyst. I think that is everything.
|
|
A blog post clearly detailing how natural attacks and how the interact with weapon attacks would be rather welcome. How they interact with feats could be part of the post, can you take eldrich claws or improved natural attack with the Witch's hair for example.
If you are open to suggestions.
+1 to that.
With all the errata's, Natural weapon advancement charts and PC abilities that don't use that chart, and the serious re-write of Natural Weapon and manufactured weapons from the core book.
A Blog post would really really help.
A blog post clearly detailing how natural attacks and how the interact with weapon attacks would be rather welcome. How they interact with feats could be part of the post, can you take eldrich claws or improved natural attack with the Witch's hair for example.
If you are open to suggestions.
It's really quite easy, and it's all in the rules:
1) If you have more than one natural attack: Primary attacks are primary and secondary attacks are secondary, and you need a full attack action to attack with all of them.
2) You have one or more NA and melee weapons: You make a full attack action, melee attacks are normal, and ALL natural attacks are secondary. You can't use NAs that use the same limbs as the melee weapons. So bite, tail, wings etc are fine, but claws for example won't. Or not all of them at least.
3) You have exactly one natural attack: It counts as primary attack, if you don't also attack with melee weapons (then see 2). You can have melee weapons, but not use them. You can't have other natural attacks though.
That really covers all cases that can happen, I think. Or did I miss something?
That really covers all cases that can happen, I think. Or did I miss something?
It's not that the base rules are not clear. The problem is the abilities that give NAs to PCs are poorly written, and often try to explain the rules within their powers instead of simply stating 'grants a primary bite attack appropriate for size and follows all NA rules'.
In other words, it's not the NA rules that are unclear. It's all the bolt on things that grant NAs that are not clear.
BTW to the OP whose concern was his Str 7 Min-Maxer.... I only have two words...
Track Encumbrance.
A few two word words for you:
Bag (of) HoldingHandy Haversack
Pack Mule
Team Mates
But yes, str means 23 lbs is max to remain unencumbered. Enforce it if she goes above.
Problem is the rules regarding natural attacks were written with a critter only focus.
This one speaks truth. Now with more and more ways to get natural attacks becoming available to players the rules are coming under stress and need some attention.
Let's see who all gets natural attacks?
Alchemists? Yup
Barbarians? Yup
Bards? Haven't checked all the spells but I do not think so.
Cavalier? Nope
Cleric? Nope, maybe a spell.
Druid? Yup even ignoring wildshape
Fighter? Not that I can see
Gunfighter? Unknown
Inquisitor? Nope
Magus? Unknown
Monk? Nope
Ninja? Unknown
Oracle? Divine vessel and maybe other spells?
Paladin? Nope
Rogue? Nope
Samauri? Unknown
Sorcerer? Oh yeah
Witch? Yes
Wizard? No, but maybe a spell?
So at least 4 out of 19 classes and one of the core races have easy access to something like a natural attack.
Yea I think a blog post would be rather helpful.
You left off the half orc race which can all have a natural attack.
So that's 1/7th of the races -- not counting races like the tengu.
Also:
Ranger -- Yes
Monk -- Yes but function in a special way.
Inquisitor -- Yes (rage sub-domain (name might be wrong in APG)
Cleric -- Yes (same as inquisitor)
Magus -- Yes (hexcrafter can gain claws and prehensile hair)
Barbarian -- Yes
Alchemist -- Yes
Druid -- Yes
Fighter -- Yes (depending a a few factors such as racial heritage(lycanthropy with aspect of the beast, and a few other corner cases).
Oracle -- Yes (flame mystery)
Sorcerer -- Yes
Wizard -- Yes (polymorph spells, among other options)
Witch -- Yes
Summoner -- Yes (in several different ways)
Also prestige classes:
Stalwart Defender -- Yes
Dragon Disciple -- (bard or summoner)
... and possibly a few others -- I'm lazy not looking them up.
So we actually have a majority of classes -- and this doesn't take into account natural weapons of animal companions, mounts, familiars, eidolons or the like -- several of which have slight variations on the normal rules or specific feats, magical items, curse (lycanthropy for example) or the like.
Sorry to rock your boat Abraham, but you guys missed the big thing.
EVERYONE can have a natural attack now.
Eldritch Heritage
Sorry to rock your boat Abraham, but you guys missed the big thing.
EVERYONE can have a natural attack now.
Eldritch Heritage
Oops....
Well that makes a blog post even more timely.