|
Something that's broken has to deal a significantly higher amount of damage than other builds. You haven't shown that yet.A PFS-legal character capable of almost 150pts average by landing five non-crit attacks at 5th level? 70 from just the primaries (with a 90% chance of pulling it off versus typical opponent AC at that level)? Gimme a break -- you're either deliberately not reading what I've been writing, or your subconsciousness is <blanking out>.
Not too many builds in any version of the game can do 100pts in a single hit without a crit or a multiplier of some sort involved (aside from basic 2hPA) at 11th.That (11th-level) glaive-fighter did over 100pts on a single-chop with his patented "everything including the kitchen sink" attack at 11th: no crits, no multipliers.100 points doesn't really impress me :/ Sorry :/ I might be jaded from spending too much time on the forums though.
You seem like you want to change your argument from talking about feral to complaining about natural attacks in general, which is fine.Wrong. The real problems are, mainly, two: 1) Alchemist is flat-out broke (whomever wrote that class had to know what they were hatching; and that every munchkin in munckinland would glom onto it for Ragechemist and Feral Mutagen); 2) Being able to stack multiple natural and multiple manufactured weapon attacks.
It takes a specialized build to eke noteworthy damage from them
Well, I suppose if multiclassing is outside the realm of what the average DPR-obsessed player is capable of, then it could be considered "specialized"....
The Wildragechemist would be frightening with half the damage -- he'd still be twice as powerful as any normal STR:18 fighter build with a Belt +2 swinging a +1 two-hander at 5th level.
|
A PFS-legal character capable of almost 150pts average by landing five non-crit attacks at 5th level? 70 from just the primaries (with a 90% chance of pulling it off versus typical opponent AC at that level)? Gimme a break -- you're either deliberately not reading what I've been writing, or your subconsciousness is <blanking out>.
You mean that impossible-to-use build? You can't play that character in pfs, since you would be initiating party pvp on a frequent basis. :p Also, the character wouldn't survive the first adventure, another reason you couldn't *play* it. Nice try though :p
Not too many builds in any version of the game can do 100pts in a single hit without a crit or a multiplier of some sort involved (aside from basic 2hPA) at 11th.
Well, not too many doesn't mean none. Btw, what was the full-round damage potential of that build? I've noticed you like to post the *damage* and skip on the *to-hit*. Better statement would be what's that character's dpr per round, since there are a number of ways to stat up a single attack.
Wrong. The real problems are, mainly, two: 1) Alchemist is flat-out broke (whomever wrote that class had to know what they were hatching; and that every munchkin in munckinland would glom onto it for Ragechemist and Feral Mutagen); 2) Being able to stack multiple natural and multiple manufactured weapon attacks.
Ahh, so then why are you arguing about feral? Or perhaps a better question would be when did you stop arguing about feral, and switch topics without mentioning it? Anyhow, since we're changing topics to alchemist, ragechemist, and feral mutagen now, let's talk about those.
The alchemist isn't broken. It's flexible, interesting, and no, I'm not playing one :p
Ragechemist has such a terrible penalty to it that the archetype is only a reasonable choice if you're starting at a high enough level that you only fail on a 1. Even then, EVERY ROUND you get hit still makes for a lot of chances to roll a 1. It's an archetype that is absolutely terrible to try to use in play, and anyone can easily see that. A munchkin wouldn't need ragechemist anyways, since a munchkin is someone who ignores rules/cheats to *win* at a game. A min/maxer would stay away from it like the plague since it would end up with his character dead. Not a very good way to accomplish the minimize weakness part of a min/maxer.
Now, feral mutagen... Feral mutagen is a good ability to take in certain builds. However, the duration on mutagen is 10 minutes/level. So any of these min/maxed builds are going to suffer from not being able to use those attacks for the whole adventuring day. Something that significantly decreases its value. So at each combat, the user has to ask himself *use it now, or save it in case a harder fight is up ahead. Or *if I use it now, will we be able to get through the rest of the encounters before it wears off?*. It suffers from a similar problem as sneak attack. It looks nice on paper, but it won't actually be applied to every attack. This significantly reduces the number values once you account for it. Given an average of four encounters per day, and a broad estimate of 50% use, you can see how its only half as good as it appears.
For builds that take more alchemist levels, they end up sacrificing the better bab progression, and abilities of other classes like greater rage or weapon training, which would make this ability more useful.
Well, I suppose if multiclassing is outside the realm of what the average DPR-obsessed player is capable of, then it could be considered "specialized"....
No, Mr. Snarky. Specialized means that you're taking archetypes that synergise well with natural attacks. As in specifically altering the path/archetypes/alternate classes/prestige classes in order to get more mileage out of natural attacks so they contribute more than the base damage. For example, your above build that selects two terrible-to-use archetypes to try to stack more damage on your unarmed attacks. Which is something you have to do in order to get more than a marginal benefit from them. Though hopefully, most people would invoke reason here and conceptualize a build that they could actually play.
The Wildragechemist would be frightening with half the damage -- he'd still be twice as powerful as any normal STR:18 fighter build with a Belt +2 swinging a +1 two-hander at 5th level.
It doesn't matter how much damage the wildragechemist might or might not do. It's an unplayable combination. You're making the same arguments that were made about the frenzied zerker back in the day. Arguments that were easily dismissed because any character with that class either promptly killed their allies or were killed BY their allies. So you might try again with a combination that would last more than one combat :p
|
|
Like I said, it's a jerk-player build. Like I also said, you could do something very similar with Crusader's Flurry; it'd just take a little longer.A PFS-legal character capable of almost 150pts average by landing five non-crit attacks at 5th level? 70 from just the primaries (with a 90% chance of pulling it off versus typical opponent AC at that level)? Gimme a break -- you're either deliberately not reading what I've been writing, or your subconsciousness is <blanking out>.You mean that impossible-to-use build? You can't play that character in pfs, since you would be initiating party pvp on a frequent basis. :p
Show me another that did it in LG. (Gooood luck.)Not too many builds in any version of the game can do 100pts in a single hit without a crit or a multiplier of some sort involved (aside from basic 2hPA) at 11th.Well, not too many doesn't mean none.
Btw, what was the full-round damage potential of that build? I've noticed you like to post the *damage* and skip on the *to-hit*. Better statement would be what's that character's dpr per round, since there are a number of ways to stat up a single attack.Well, let's see; recollecting from not entirely hazy memory, he had 5 Smites (3.5-style) and 7 Avenging Strikes, both stackable for +12att/+2+5d6, and another 6d6 coming from various other bits, plus the usual two-hander numeric bonuses (in 3.5 you could sink in your full BAB, and I did). Bit glass-cannony given limited uses per day, but suffice to say not much needed more than one smack if it was naughty and I knew it. (Avg 45 vs non-evil.)
Because, *duh*, it's an example of the 2) part.Wrong. The real problems are, mainly, two: 1) Alchemist is flat-out broke (whomever wrote that class had to know what they were hatching; and that every munchkin in munckinland would glom onto it for Ragechemist and Feral Mutagen); 2) Being able to stack multiple natural and multiple manufactured weapon attacks.Ahh, so then why are you arguing about feral?
34 STR at 4th isn't broken? Fer sure. What-evah. <valley-girl gum-snap & roll eyes>Or perhaps a better question would be when did you stop arguing about feral, and switch topics without mentioning it? Anyhow, since we're changing topics to alchemist, ragechemist, and feral mutagen now, let's talk about those.
The alchemist isn't broken.
Ragechemist has such a terrible penalty to it that the archetype is only a reasonable choice if you're starting at a high enough level that you only fail on a 1. Even then, EVERY ROUND you...
Oh well, then; don't play a Ragechemist archetype -- and suffer the ignominiousness of having a mere 32 STR at 4th level. Said one ragechemist to his demoted colleague, "My God, man; how can you live with yourself being so weak?"
|
|
Like I said, it's a jerk-player build. Like I also said, you could do something very similar with Crusader's Flurry; it'd just take a little longer.
Then let's see how much longer, without using those kicked-from-party archetypes.
Show me another that did it in LG. (Gooood luck.)
Told you already that I didn't play LG. Can I just post a link to the old 3.5 forums? :p
Because, *duh*, it's an example of the 2) part.
Which is like complaining to the doctor about a papercut and failing to mention to him that you think you have leprosy. Then complaining to him about his failure to address your leprosy as he stares at you blankly.
34 STR at 4th isn't broken? Fer sure. What-evah. <valley-girl gum-snap & roll eyes>
Not when it's a build that won't ever see play. As I pointed out, and you ignored. But hey :p It's still about as broken as the frenzied zerker, in that the build won't get played.
Oh well, then; don't play a Ragechemist archetype -- and suffer the ignominiousness of having a mere 32 STR at 4th level. Said one ragechemist to his demoted colleague, "My God, man; how can you live with yourself being so weak?"
Yep, don't play an archetype that screws you over. So, what, barbarian 2, alchemist 2, fighter one?
Starting strength 18, racial bump to 20. Level four bump to 21. Rage it up to 25 for 5-8 rounds a day. Mutagen it up another 4 points to 29 for two or three encounters a day, enlarge for 31? I think that's it sans the self-lethal archetypes, and sans gear. Also losing a greatsword attack from that one archetype. So 1 greatsword, 1 bite, 2 claws.
Or barbarian 2 druid 3
starting str 18, racial bump to 20, level four bump to 21. Rage it up to 25 for 5-8 rounds a day, bulls str up to 29,Oh, and animal companion.
Better yet, barbarian 2 cleric 3, pick the enlarge and animal companion domains. 18 racial to 20, level four bump to 21, rage to 25, bulls str to 29, enlarge to 31. And animal companion.
Hey, animal companion is just like having three natural attacks! Oh, but we can still get there too! Trade a trait for a bite, two feats for two claws, and third feat to boost ac to character level.
Now you're looking at greatsword/bite/claw/claw + AC's (let's say ape) bite/claw/claw. That ape'll have a 22 str bonus, and we can toss the belt of str on it to knock it up to 24. :p
There is more than one way to get a high strength score/damage at low levels. Druid is well-known for having masses of damage potential at low levels, and yet are not considered broken.
Your ac can be attacking first round, offsetting the the buffing time.
Best of all? This character has no built in weaknesses that cause it to kill its party members. And that trait + two feats for natural attacks could be spent on other combat feats. I'm not going to bother statting this guy out. I didn't even look at archetypes that would synergize. All I looked at were domains :p I think as is it makes the point.
Poor ragechemist -- he never got to talk to his colleague. He didn't even live long enough to have one.
edit -- sidenote here, I'd still like to know how you were getting touch attacks with that rogue build in the other thread. If it wasn't a typo, I could get some mileage out of it in a build I'm working on :D
They're toe claws, like a velociraptor's. Why? Because nothing says they have to sprout from your fingers (this is true of both Feral Mutagen and Beast Totem:Lesser). Is it smelly Limburger? Oh, yeah. Is it murder on your shoes? Yup.
More cheese: Feral Mutagen for bite + claws (toes), beast totem:lesser for claws (hands), monk[martial artist] flurry: two head-butts + Feral Combat Training = seven attacks. (It takes longer to put together and is weaker that the wild rager build above, but in the way high levels could conceivably be stronger if you can find a way to pounce and get through DR, because 100% of your weapon cashoola can be thrown at a single item -- your Amulet of Mighty Fists.)
That won't work, Feral Combat Applies to a single natural attack and you can only take the feat once. Toe claws, hand claws and bite are 3 different natural attacks. You can only use 1 with the flurry. So it would be two head butts and a bite for 3 attacks or 4 if you use claws of which ever pair you have where the natural attacks are at 1/2 strength. Seems to me you'd be better off making 4 claw attacks and a bite for 5 attacks at full strength with possible bite 1.5 Strength and your to hit is lot better.
|
|
That won't work, Feral Combat Applies to a single natural attack and you can only take the feat once. Toe claws, hand claws and bite are 3 different natural attacks. You can only use 1 with the flurry. So it would be two head butts and a bite for 3 attacks or 4 if you use claws of which ever pair you have where the natural attacks are at 1/2 strength. Seems to me you'd be better off making 4 claw attacks and a bite for 5 attacks at full strength with possible bite 1.5 Strength and your to hit is lot better.
The build he was using wasn't a monk build and didn't use or need the feral combat feat. It was an alchemist/barbarian/fighter build.
|
This seems to no longer be a rules discussion. I may be wrong, but the conversation seems to have derailed. I hope that the civil discussion of the feat in question, will still be the main focus here. The need to provide dpr builds here seems unwarranted, at least, in excess. I hope this is errata'd, as it would appear to be a hot topic.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Now I keep hearing about these toe claws but my feeling is feet are generally required for... standing while you fight.
People keep insisting this is possible but I'd love to see an example from the bestiary of a creature which attacks with it's only set of legs, or all of them.
In the bestiary I see plenty of creatures that:
But I can't seem to find any "toe claws" which people claim you can use while you stand up.
Are there ANY examples of creatures in the game that attack with the legs they should be standing on? Essentially, if you can attack with the legs you need for standing up, why does every creature in the game who has them require a special ability to do so?
|
|
Well, a lot of it goes into things that aren't specifically stated in the books.
A character can take unarmed strike, but the only place that details the unarmed strike is the monk entry. There it talks about the body parts you can make unarmed strikes from. Now, is that monk-only, general, or a mixture of monk-only and general? The equipment entry sure doesn't specify.
Similarly, natural attack types are *for the most part* not explicitly limited to a particular type of limb. This is probably because the designers didn't want to limit the creative monster-designing dm. However, with the advent of all the new options for natural attacks, there's nothing now that says claws are or are not made with upper body limbs or lower body limbs.
So an equally valid question to go against your question is that there are many monster entries that use claws, and don't specify that they're using the upper body limbs. The assumption that those attacks are made with the upper body is just that, an assumption. For all you know, those attacks are already being made with the feet.
Logically valid, and yet it does seem like the intent was for claw attacks to be made by hands.
This is further muddied by the entry line "Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action (although often a creature must forgo one natural attack for each weapon clutched in that limb, be it a claw, tentacle, or slam)."
Poor wording here includes the word often, which implies "not always" or "sometimes I can make my natural attack while the limb is clutching a weapon". Which is even messier with unarmed strike, since no weapon is being clutched.
Additionally, how does a "slam" clutch a weapon?
No doubt the designers thought that the rules were explicit enough for a bestiary - and they were right. Until players start wielding natural attacks en masse, at which point the rules need to be clarified. This is pretty much a standard step in the cycle. People complaining, people taking advantage, people cheesing it up, until paizo comes down with some clarifications for natural attacks to lock them down into body slots and such.
The real question is how long will it be until the errata comes down, and not whether it will come down at all. :D And, for the record, I agree that claw attacks *should* be hands only. The rules, however, need to be clarified so they actually say it too.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Similarly, natural attack types are *for the most part* not explicitly limited to a particular type of limb.
Huh?
So... biting with hands is cool?
Wing buffets with arms is ok?
So an equally valid question to go against your question is that there are many monster entries that use claws, and don't specify that they're using the upper body limbs. The assumption that those attacks are made with the upper body is just that, an assumption. For all you know, those attacks are already being made with the feet.
Also, why does the bulette have a special ability called out to do what you suggest every creature already can do inherently? What is the point of rake if you can do this inherently?
In any case, it should be easy, trivial in fact, to provide some examples of creatures that attack with the feet they stand on.
Creatures with four legs that attack with four claws (excluding talons, rake, or other special abilities).
Creatures with two legs that attack with *claws* and don't fly.
Creatures with six legs that attack with six claws....
etc..
Just a few examples would make me happy.
No doubt the designers thought that the rules were explicit enough for a bestiary - and they were right. Until players start wielding natural attacks en masse, at which point the rules need to be clarified.
I think the developers expect people to understand that a critter needs to stand up.
|
|
Huh?So... biting with hands is cool?
Wing buffets with arms is ok?
Show me the line where those attacks are limited to certain body parts. No? There ya go, someone needs to add a line.
Also, why does the bulette have a special ability called out to do what you suggest every creature already can do inherently? What is the point of rake if you can do this inherently?
You mean the ability that lets them charge on a jump, bypassing rough terrain entirely? What's that got to do with the price of tea?
As for rake, that's just the ability to deal extra damage when grappling. Nothing in the entry at all about being from extra limbs.In any case, it should be easy, trivial in fact, to provide some examples of creatures that attack with the feet they stand on.
Creatures with four legs that attack with four claws (excluding talons, rake, or other special abilities).
Creatures with two legs that attack with *claws* and don't fly.
Creatures with six legs that attack with six claws....
etc..
Just a few examples would make me happy.
Well, let's see some monsters with claw attacks...
How about dire ape? Two claw attacks, nothing to imply they're made with the hands. Barghest, greater barghest, claw attacks and nothing to imply they're made with the hands. You're right, that was trivial.I think the developers expect people to understand that a critter needs to stand up.
I expect the developers to realize that the more vague the rules are, the more problems are involved. Ever seen someone do a double-kick? That takes about two seconds, and uses the feet they are standing on to attack. If I, as an overweight male, can do so, I see no reason why a variety of other creatures couldn't do so as well :/
Look, I don't disagree with you. I am, however, a realist in how people will deal with this. I've seen it many times over the last 15 years or so. Until specifics come down, people will keep trying to make claw attacks with their feet and so on. Because now the natural attack bag is open, and there is nothing to prevent them to do so. Except common sense, which isn't common and doesn't apply well to games where you can wave your arms and create a demiplane.
A character can take unarmed strike, but the only place that details the unarmed strike is the monk entry.
And the combat chapter.
There it talks about the body parts you can make unarmed strikes from. Now, is that monk-only, general, or a mixture of monk-only and general?
Since that's the monk ability in the monk class description, it's monk only.
Anyone can strike for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts, while a monk's attacks may also be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. In addition, only the monk gets to attack with hands full, no off-hand, full strength, manufactured weapon, etc.
Additionally, how does a "slam" clutch a weapon?
The slam is usually made using an appendage, often arms (Eidolon) but occasionally tentacles (Darkmantle), pseudopods (Gelatinous Cube), or I guess a tail? (Dolphin) If the limb used to make the slam can wield a weapon, then it can't do both. If not, then it doesn't really matter.
Well, let's see some monsters with claw attacks...
How about dire ape? Two claw attacks, nothing to imply they're made with the hands. Barghest, greater barghest, claw attacks and nothing to imply they're made with the hands. You're right, that was trivial.
Not really, since you didn't provide what he said. Ape can stand on feet and make claw attacks with hands. Barghest stands on back feet and claws with front.
If you really wanted an exception, you could use our friend the Deinonychus, who has two talons on his feet which are his primary attack. (He also has a bite, and tiny ineffective front arm foreclaws) None of which really matters, since he could simply stand on one foot and claw with the other one. And during a pounce/full attack he's ripping into something just like a lion or whatever.
Show me the line where those attacks are limited to certain body parts. No? There ya go, someone needs to add a line.
Are you honestly saying that the developers need to errata the core rulebook to include "A bite attack must be made with a mouth" and "Wing buffets must be performed with wings" ?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Show me the line where those attacks are limited to certain body parts. No? There ya go, someone needs to add a line.
You can make bite attacks with your feet because there is no rule against it?
Honestly, don't you feel a bit childish saying this? I was actually expecting something a little more interesting.
You mean the ability that lets them charge on a jump, bypassing rough terrain entirely? What's that got to do with the price of tea?
As for rake, that's just the ability to deal extra damage when grappling. Nothing in the entry at all about being from extra limbs.
Have you even read the bulette monster entry?
Well, let's see some monsters with claw attacks...
I guess since you didn't come up with any examples that met my criteria there are none?
Ever seen someone do a double-kick? That takes about two seconds, and uses the feet they are standing on to attack. If I, as an overweight male, can do so, I see no reason why a variety of other creatures couldn't do so as well :/
There is a feat for that, it's called Improved Unarmed Strike. Animals don't generally take it.
Look, I don't disagree with you. I am, however, a realist in how people will deal with this. I've seen it many times over the last 15 years or so. Until...
To be honest, maybe it is a little vague, but I don't think that means "It's vague, lets run with it!". Generally a reasonable person would suggest something and when someone points out an issue with it they either address the issue, or concede it. You've instead thrown up a screen of buffoonery and deliberate misdirection, demonstrating you have no interest in finding the answer, just in arguing the rules.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
@Grick - Dolphins IRL are known for ramming things with their noses in fact. Also, it's worth mentioning that I specifically asked for claws, not talons. If characters could actually take talons then they would go on the feet.
Which ultimately is the point, as far as I'm aware every creature who attacks with his feet does it though a special exception.
The build he was using wasn't a monk build and didn't use or need the feral combat feat. It was an alchemist/barbarian/fighter build.
That won't work, Feral Combat Applies to a single natural attack and you can only take the feat once. Toe claws, hand claws and bite are 3 different natural attacks. You can only use 1 with the flurry. So it would be two head butts and a bite for 3 attacks or 4 if you use claws of which ever pair you have where the natural attacks are at 1/2 strength. Seems to me you'd be better off making 4 claw attacks and a bite for 5 attacks at full strength with possible bite 1.5 Strength and your to hit is lot better.
I see, just assumed monk was in there somewhere due the title on this thread.
Similarly, natural attack types are *for the most part* not explicitly limited to a particular type of limb.Huh?
So... biting with hands is cool?
Wing buffets with arms is ok?
If you hands have the ability to make a bite attack by say adding a toothy mouths to you palms then sure why not. I can't see a character with that ability but I could see a monster like that.
Personally in my game I'd say no to toe claws though I can't really see any rule saying claws have to apply to hands only.
@Grick - Dolphins IRL are known for ramming things with their noses in fact. Also, it's worth mentioning that I specifically asked for claws, not talons. If characters could actually take talons then they would go on the feet.
Which ultimately is the point, as far as I'm aware every creature who attacks with his feet does it though a special exception.
I would think anyone could kick. Now a kick would really allow you to use claws in my opinion.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
If you hands have the ability to make a bite attack by say adding a toothy mouths to you palms then sure why not. I can't see a character with that ability but I could see a monster like that.
While you are adding foot claws why not some groin tusks?
Toothy: Some half-orcs' vestigial tusks are massive and sharp, granting a bite attack. This is a primary natural attack that deals 1d4 points of piercing damage. This racial trait replaces the orc ferocity racial trait.
You attack by making pelvic thrusts like Michael Jackson.
There are a couple different ways you can add tusks so you might want some knee tusks too.
Personally in my game I'd say no to toe claws though I can't really see any rule saying claws have to apply to hands only.
The question is, did the developers assume natural weapons are assigned to specific body slots or not?
The developers don't state "Half orcs tusks are on their mouth and they can only have one set of tusks." Why? Because it's bloody obvious. Similarly, people naturally assume that a biped would make claw attacks with their hands, this is why *you* assumed this is the case, because everyone *knows* this. The developers don't tend to write down rules for things that they assume people *know*.
Points 1 (in agreement with Grick): All humanoids can unarmed strike (kick) without being a Monk.
Points 2: Quardrupeds have foot claws...
Points 3: Bipedal Eidolons have foot claws...
So, we really need a clarification on the claws locations.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Points 1 (in agreement with Grick): All humanoids can unarmed strike (kick) without being a Monk.
This is different and EXCLUSIVE of a claw attack.
Points 2: Quardrupeds have foot claws...
Can you please give an example of this from the bestiary that does not involve a special ability?
Points 3: Bipedal Eidolons have foot claws...
This is a good point.
Can you please give an example of this from the bestiary that does not involve a special ability?
It's a bit of a stretch because Quadrupeds have 4 legs... so all their claws are located on their feet.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
You are recycling an argument and it still doesn't work.
You are again referring to foreclaws, the ones they attack with as opposed to their rear claws which they STAND on when they are attacking. Similar to the way a biped stands on his rear legs while attacking with his front legs.
For what it's worth, eidolons can't attack with their rear claws either. The only reason people talk about claws on biped eidolons is because it's not explicitly banned, there is nothing that explicitly allows them either.
In my eyes, it's a matter of playing game style.
Do you want to play in a game where silly details must be called out in the rules (Bite attacks are on the head only and one bite attack per head) or where people make reasonable assumptions (crotch tusks and toe claws don't work).
You are again referring to foreclaws, the ones they attack with as opposed to their rear claws which they STAND on when they are attacking. Similar to the way a biped stands on his rear legs while attacking with his front legs.
Sorry, I'm not familiar with the natural attack Foreclaws. But there are claws detailed in Pathfinder.
I'm unsure why you think it is impossible for a quadruped to use their rear feet for anything. Bucking bronco? Mule Kick? all refer to back leg "attacks" from four legged animals. Similarly, I think that it would not be inconceivable for a big cat to swipe with their back feet (albeit not very accurately).
Do you want to play in a game where silly details must be called out in the rules (Bite attacks are on the head only and one bite attack per head) or where people make reasonable assumptions (crotch tusks and toe claws don't work).
I'm pretty sure there is a one bite attack per head rule out there somewhere.
Pathfinder really goes down the rules rabbit hole with many, many things. I expect no less from the developers regarding the level of clarity for the rules involving Claws.
Personally, I'd like to see a deliniation between front and rear claw attacks, so the players can be clear on these issues.
So a Lion would have a bite, 2 Front Claws and Rake (2 Rear Claws) and a Bipedal Eidolon would have Talons for their feet (if at all) and would be prohibited from taking claws on their legs.
|
|
Actually, Dennis, my examples did meet your criteria. It's only your opinion that the claw attacks from those creatures must come from their arms. And, obviously, there are a lot of people who disagree with your opinion. Or, again, can you provide a line of text from the core books to back your opinion up? After all, I've backed mine up on the point that there isn't a line that details attack type to body slot.
And, as a matter of fact, I went and read the bulette entry as I posted. Perhaps you should reread it? Or maybe copy/paste it and point out what specifically there gives it the ability you claim it does? Because all I see it doing is talking about charging through a jump, and being able to make a "special kind of pounce" when doing so.
I'm pretty sure I didn't pick up IUS in my spare time. And I'm pretty sure that an animal with claws would be proficient in using those claws, whether they're on hands or feet. And since you still haven't provided any evidence in relation to location, both options remain viable places for claws.
Also, there is NO facing in pathfinder. Thus, no such thing as *rear* or *front* claws.
And actually, I'm pointing out that as the content stands, there is no *answer* either way. Until something comes down from the top, certain types of people are going to try to play characters with claws on their feet, wielding greatswords, and dm's will be left to judge on their own what the rules say about it. And since the rules are so vague on the subject, there will be quite a few campaigns where these guys see play.
The question is NOT "did developers assume". The question is "what do the rules actually say on the subject". This is a fundamental difference, here. We're not trying to divine the opinion of the devs. We weren't there, we can't know. Any attempt to do so falls solidly into the *this is my opinion and has no bearing or weight* category. Opinions are easy. But it's the evidence that backs them up which is important. All we can do at this point is divine what the rules actually say to the subject.
I've addressed every issue you've brought up. However, you're too busy trying to *win* an argument to realize that there's no way to win OR lose this one. There just isn't enough support in the rules either way to prove yesclawfeet or noclawfeet. Also, you don't see me accusing you of "buffoonery and deliberate misdirection" just because you disagree with me.
So, let me ask you this. Why are you trying to change a discussion into an argument? Why don't you provide evidence to support your claim beyond your base opinion? And why don't you take a few more seconds to consider your post before you decide to post something slanderous and insulting?
Also, there is NO facing in pathfinder. Thus, no such thing as *rear* or *front* claws.
Not that I'm trying to help dennis out here, but the facing doesn't really factor in here, because even without facing you could distinguish between front and rear claws rules wise.
It's essentially the difference between hands and feet for bipeds.
|
|
Also, there is NO facing in pathfinder. Thus, no such thing as *rear* or *front* claws.Not that I'm trying to help dennis out here, but the facing doesn't really factor in here, because even without facing you could distinguish between front and rear claws rules wise.
It's essentially the difference between hands and feet for bipeds.
Well, I understand what you're trying to say, but Front and Rear sound like facing words to me. Front to what? Rear of what? Since the answer to both would be the creature, and the creature doesn't have facing, it seems like an artificial distinction.
May I suggest instead load bearing limbs and non-load bearing limbs? Or something that doesn't reference facing? For an example, if front claws are those closest to the head, and a particular monster walks on its front limbs and strikes with its rear ones, we'd be right back in the pot again.
Hmm... maybe something like *limbs not used to stand on*, but then we've got issues with the fly spell and such...
Of course, there could be reference to front and rear claws in the core books somewhere :p I don't know everything, no matter what I like to believe sometimes :p
It'd be great if you could dig up that rule about bites being limited to one per head. It'd be a good place to start constructing some options the devs could use to errata the situation more clearly.
Something like claws are for non-load bearing limbs, while talons are for load bearing limbs. Yeah, that looks terrible. *sigh*
The load bearing really doesn't matter. A biped can kick just fine. I think its a bit odd to infer these load restrictions on quadrupeds, since a mule could ...mule kick.. with its back hooves pretty easily, then rear up on its back legs and judo chop you with it's front hooves. But that is a limitation of the stat blocks, and I digress.
If a monster stands on its "upper" limbs and uses the "lower" legs to attack the rules would spell out something like: 2 Rear Claws (1d4..etc), as well as noting this in the monster description.
Foreclaws and Rear Claws is the best I have for you
|
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Suffice to say there are, at present, no rules explicitly restricting claws to hands.
Consequently, sans some new FAQ, it will be cheese-weaseled all to heck & gone in campaigns (such as PFS) where the table GM doesn't have absolute control over the rules environment. So, expect somebody out there to eventually make an alchemist2/figh4[weapon master]/barbarianX with four primary claws attacks + 1 bite attack, WF+WS Claw, Weapon Training:Claw, and wear a Furious Amulet of Mighty Fists and Gloves of Dueling.
Aw, what the hell; I'll do it right now -- and I'll even make him "responsible" (no class features dumping saves):
STR+19 ...half-orc
DEX:12
CON:14
INT:12
WIS:12
CON:07
traits: Accelerated Drinker, Mindlessly Cruel
01 barb1 [Armored Hulk,Totem], Raging Vitality
02 alch1 [Vivisectionist], Sneak Attack +1d6
03 alch2 [Feral Mutagen] (gain two claw + bite attacks), Extra Rage
04 barb2 STR>20, Beast Totem:Lesser (gain two claw attacks)
05 fight1 [Weapon Master:Claw], Weapon Focus:Claw, Ferocious Tenacity
06 fight2 Power Attack
07 fight3 [Weapon Training:Claw +1], Gore Fiend, (buy Gloves of Dueling)
08 fight4 STR>21, Weapon Specialization:Claw
09 barb3 Intimidating Prowess
10 barb4 Reckless Abandon
11 barb5 Dazzling Display
12 barb6 STR>22, Boasting Taunt
Weapons: 5 natural attacks by 4th (all primary since he does not ordinarily make manufactured weapon attacks), MW glaive (kinda rusty looking), +1/Seeking STR+10 composite longbow (9,250gp)
Big-ticket Equipment: +2/Furious Amulet of Mighty Fists (45,000gp), +5 Dwarven Plate (31,500gp), +2 Belt of Physical Might (STR/CON)(10,000gp), Gloves of Dueling (15,000gp)
If you hands have the ability to make a bite attack by say adding a toothy mouths to you palms then sure why not. I can't see a character with that ability but I could see a monster like that.While you are adding foot claws why not some groin tusks?
Toothy: Some half-orcs' vestigial tusks are massive and sharp, granting a bite attack. This is a primary natural attack that deals 1d4 points of piercing damage. This racial trait replaces the orc ferocity racial trait.You attack by making pelvic thrusts like Michael Jackson.
There are a couple different ways you can add tusks so you might want some knee tusks too.
Personally in my game I'd say no to toe claws though I can't really see any rule saying claws have to apply to hands only.The question is, did the developers assume natural weapons are assigned to specific body slots or not?
The developers don't state "Half orcs tusks are on their mouth and they can only have one set of tusks." Why? Because it's bloody obvious. Similarly, people naturally assume that a biped would make claw attacks with their hands, this is why *you* assumed this is the case, because everyone *knows* this. The developers don't tend to write down rules for things that they assume people *know*.
I totally agree with you. I'm just saying I can't find any rule saying what I agree with is the rule. So this kind of falls into that ask you GM sort thing. In my game toe claws and knee tusks are a no go.
About the bite being one per head. It says so at the extra head evolution for an eidolon.
I think Claws should be limited to the hands, and there should be only talons at the 'feet'.
In anyway, I see no reason why the feet cannot be used to attack, since a human can use them with the hands without a problem.
|
About the bite being one per head. It says so at the extra head evolution for an eidolon.
I think Claws should be limited to the hands, and there should be only talons at the 'feet'.
In anyway, I see no reason why the feet cannot be used to attack, since a human can use them with the hands without a problem.
For a kick yes however since there is an entry on the natural weapons chart specifically for natural attacks on feet (talon, hoof) I'd definately not allow claws on feet in my game.
One last thing, personally I'm not a fan of trying to use any of the eidolon rules on anything but an eidolon. That is a unique creation that is composed of like 90% exceptions to the normal rules and trying to shoehorn them to fit anything else is just an exercise in frustration.
I agree on the eidolon part, but saying you can use a bite without a mouth is just plain ludicrous. Why not clawas on the eyelashes then?
That's ridiculous as an argument.
|
|
Personally in my game I'd say no to toe claws though I can't really see any rule saying claws have to apply to hands only.
Claws (Ex)
An eidolon has a pair of vicious claws at the end of its limbs, giving it two claw attacks. These attacks are primary attacks. The claws deal 1d4 points of damage (1d6 if Large, 1d8 if Huge). The eidolon must have the limbs evolution to take this evolution. This evolution can only be applied to the limbs (legs) evolution once This evolution can be selected more than once, but the eidolon must possess an equal number of the limbs evolution. Source: Advanced Player's Guide
Personally, I would rule this RAI = quads only for the toe claws. RAW, they need to hire better lawyers to check their wording for any possible chance of ambiguity or deliberate misinterpretation.
|
|
Suffice to say there are, at present, no rules explicitly restricting claws to hands.
Yup, and until a ruling comes down for it, there will be plenty of games where dm's end up allowing it because they can't find anything that says it doesn't work.
Claw/claw/bite from feral mutagen.
use lesser fiend totem for a gore attack.
Skill focus- perception and eldritch heritage for two more claw attacks.
claw/claw/bite/claw/claw/gore
agility, improved unarmed strike (knees) and twf chain and eventually you can get:
4 attacks main knee, 3 attacks offhand knee, six natural attacks, one additional attack from haste.
multiattack means that all the natural attacks are at -2, which puts all of them at the same ab as your first mainhand attack.
If you take the alchemist beastmorph up to 10, you can nab pounce. That nets you a +7 bab, so by taking the rest of your levels in primary bab classes, you can still nab all those primary attacks. You can also use the ability to pick up fly 60 and grab or trip. Good times.
Of course, if we can find ways to garner more limbs for natural attacks, there are a number of ways to net more. Druid archetypes for example :/
Paizo opened the can by offering natural attacks to everyone. Now they're going to have to do some damage control.
The slam is usually made using an appendage, often arms (Eidolon) but occasionally tentacles (Darkmantle), pseudopods (Gelatinous Cube), or I guess a tail? (Dolphin) If the limb used to make the slam can wield a weapon, then it can't do both. If not, then it doesn't really matter.
Sorry, no. Dolphins slam attacks are with their nose. You might actually call it more of a ram attack, but it's the same idea. Imagine a dolphin swimming 40mph and driving his very hard snout into your solar plexus.
And by the way, the slam on a dolphin is preposterous. They can do some serious damage with those things.
I have no issue with a talon or claw attack with a foot. For reference, it's happened on earth. Deinonychus is a prime example. And, in six seconds, I see no reason why one of these bad boys could not hit you with both claw/talon attacks (however you want to call it). Considering that was it's primary weapon attack.
So, it all depends on your race. If your race is, say, a biped with no reach with it's arms, but normal reach with legs, and those legs are elongated and built for fighting, yeah, I have no issue with that race having a pair of talon or claw attacks on the feet and using both to attack in a six second turn.
Edit : As an experiment, set your microwave timer for 6 seconds. Then start it. See how many times you can kick a pillow before the ding goes off with one foot. Now, see how many times you can kick a pillow alternating legs. Yes, you get more with just the one leg, but you can get in at least two good solid kicks in that 6 second window, if you use each foot one after the other. More likely, you'll get 5 or 6.
Similarly, natural attack types are *for the most part* not explicitly limited to a particular type of limb.Huh?
So... biting with hands is cool?
If you hands have the ability to make a bite attack by say adding a toothy mouths to you palms then sure why not. I can't see a character with that ability but I could see a monster like that.
I would say that a fiddler crab type species is more of a candidate for a 'bite' on the arm.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I have no issue with a talon or claw attack with a foot. For reference, it's happened on earth. Deinonychus is a prime example. And, in six seconds, I see no reason why one of these bad boys could not hit you with both claw/talon attacks (however you want to call it). Considering that was it's primary weapon attack.
So, it all depends on your race. If your race is, say, a biped with no reach with it's arms, but normal reach with legs, and those legs are elongated and built for fighting, yeah, I have no issue with that race having a pair of talon or claw attacks on the feet and using both to attack in a six second turn.
*shrug*
In PFRPG Deinonychus has "Talons", they are listed as something other than claw attacks.
I have no issue with a talon or claw attack with a foot. For reference, it's happened on earth. Deinonychus is a prime example. And, in six seconds, I see no reason why one of these bad boys could not hit you with both claw/talon attacks (however you want to call it). Considering that was it's primary weapon attack.
So, it all depends on your race. If your race is, say, a biped with no reach with it's arms, but normal reach with legs, and those legs are elongated and built for fighting, yeah, I have no issue with that race having a pair of talon or claw attacks on the feet and using both to attack in a six second turn.
*shrug*
In PFRPG Deinonychus has "Talons", they are listed as something other than claw attacks.
Yes, but, the difference between a talon and a claw is pretty thin when it comes to things like Deinonychus. Honestly, it's really an overgrown claw on one toe, the other toes still had claws on them. Just not the trip hammer muscles and infrastructure of the second toe.
To me, a proper talon is what I see on an eagle, a spike of bone coming out of the toe. No ability to flex or retract. However, the arguments over whether it's a claw or talon really don't matter. The point is, it's a natural attack on both feet of a biped, and both are usable in one full action.
Similarly, natural attack types are *for the most part* not explicitly limited to a particular type of limb.Huh?
So... biting with hands is cool?
Wing buffets with arms is ok?
I'd say a flying squirrel type anthromorph could be a good candidate for a wing buffet on the arm. His wing and his arm are the same thing.
To me, a proper talon is what I see on an eagle, a spike of bone coming out of the toe. No ability to flex or retract. However, the arguments over whether it's a claw or talon really don't matter. The point is, it's a natural attack on both feet of a biped, and both are usable in one full action.
*monkey wrench*! Birds evolved from dinosaurs, so Talon is a great name for the natural attack of a dinosaur. This however, doesn't really help us in our quest for clarity as something like a Leopard does not have Talons.
To me, a proper talon is what I see on an eagle, a spike of bone coming out of the toe. No ability to flex or retract. However, the arguments over whether it's a claw or talon really don't matter. The point is, it's a natural attack on both feet of a biped, and both are usable in one full action.*monkey wrench*! Birds evolved from dinosaurs, so Talon is a great name for the natural attack of a dinosaur. This however, doesn't really help us in our quest for clarity as something like a Leopard does not have Talons.
Not a monkey wrench. Humans evolved from apes which evolved from little fuzzy pig looking things way back when. Doesn't mean my big toe is an opposable appendage, like an ape's. Also doesn't mean that just because an eagle evolved a real talon that you can call the claw it evolved from a talon.
Not a monkey wrench. Humans evolved from apes which evolved from little fuzzy pig looking things way back when. Doesn't mean my big toe is an opposable appendage, like an ape's. Also doesn't mean that just because an eagle evolved a real talon that you can call the claw it evolved from a talon.
You'll have to take that one up with the scientists.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Yes, but, the difference between a talon and a claw is pretty thin when it comes to things like Deinonychus. Honestly, it's really an overgrown claw on one toe, the other toes still had claws on them. Just not the trip hammer muscles and infrastructure of the second toe.
To me, a proper talon is what I see on an eagle, a spike of bone coming out of the toe. No ability to flex or retract. However, the arguments over whether it's a claw or talon really don't matter. The point is, it's a natural attack on both feet of a biped, and both are usable in one full action.
In the rules there is a distinction though.
There are no bipeds that attack with "claws" on legs, nor are there any quads that attack with "claws" on their rear legs unless they use some sort of special ability (rake/ etc).
Yes, but, the difference between a talon and a claw is pretty thin when it comes to things like Deinonychus. Honestly, it's really an overgrown claw on one toe, the other toes still had claws on them. Just not the trip hammer muscles and infrastructure of the second toe.
To me, a proper talon is what I see on an eagle, a spike of bone coming out of the toe. No ability to flex or retract. However, the arguments over whether it's a claw or talon really don't matter. The point is, it's a natural attack on both feet of a biped, and both are usable in one full action.
In the rules there is a distinction though.
There are no bipeds that attack with "claws" on legs, nor are there any quads that attack with "claws" on their rear legs unless they use some sort of special ability (rake/ etc).
The problem is, Dennis, that there are no rules against it either. All we have are bestiary entries that follow a pattern. A pattern, alas, does not a rule make. All it makes is a pattern. One can infer all one wants from the pattern, but until and unless an FAQ or something else is put out by the devs, there are no hard-fast rules on where a natural attack can and must be placed.
So while the rules do differentiate between Talon and Claw, they do not differentiate where it can be placed. There are no specifications for any of the attack modes. Now, common sense says 'hooves only go on the feet'. However, that's common sense, not rules. I could probably come up with some weird outsider that had hooves on striking limbs that didn't get used for locomotion, if I tried hard enough. By the same token, what do you call a spike of bone that grows out of a creatures' forearm or elbow and is used to poke into people? A gore? A Talon? What if it's a poisoned spine, is it then a sting?
I think the natural attacks are intentionally not defined as being any certain spot, so that any creature imagined by the devs can have any natural attack imagined, without having to do special rule callouts. If they said 'Gore is head only' and then wanted to do arm spikes, they'd have to come up with 'Spike' as an attack, or they'd have to give it special dispensation to have a gore in a non-standard location.
By the same token, although there is no creature that currently is biped and has a claw attack on it's feet, there's nothing inherent in the RAW that precludes it. Only tradition.
Personally, how I would run it follows. Natural attacks can always be used in addition to any other kind of attack with a weapon, whether it be a manufactured weapon, a regular unarmed strike, or some ability like flurry of blows, as long a full round action is used. In this case, all natural attacks are treated as secondary weapons (i.e. -5 to attack, half strength to damage). Feral Combat training allows you to use the selected natural attack as part of a flurry of blows, allowing you to add full strength to the damage, and using the flurry of blows penalties instead of the secondary attack penalties to hit. Any natural attacks not used in the flurry of blows can still be used in conjunction with flurry of blows as secondary weapons.
Basically, the way I read it, that part of the feat allows the monk to get a better to hit and damage out of the selected natural attack. Every natural weapon you apply this to, and subsequently use in the flurry of blows, and I would expect this to be able to be applied to each natural attack you have if you wish to spend the feats for it, reduces your overall attacks by one, but the increase in the attack and damage modifiers in most cases can make up for that, especially in trying to get past DR and high AC.
All in all, I call it a very nice feat to blend martial arts with natural attacks. It's not going to be great for every build, but there are still plenty of PC builds that can benefit from it without being overpowered, and, as some people have mentioned, not all feats are built to be PC specific.
The problem is, Dennis, that there are no rules against it either.As I said above, "there is no rule against it" is not very good measuring stick. This sort of 'whatever I can get away with' attitude is why organized play has such a bad reputation.
That is not the attitude Dennis, and your insistence on saying it is is rather insulting. The attitude is this : The rules say X does Y damage. There's no specification on limitations on X. A, B and R have limitations, X doesn't.
I would turn it around and say that reading in to rules text that is not written is why GMs have a bad reputation around here. Please note that an Eidelon explicitly limits where attacks can be placed. I see no reason for the Eidelon to explicitly limit something if there is a general rule against it. Again, just because something is intuited that doesn't make it RAW.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The problem is, Dennis, that there are no rules against it either.As I said above, "there is no rule against it" is not very good measuring stick. This sort of 'whatever I can get away with' attitude is why organized play has such a bad reputation.That is not the attitude Dennis, and your insistence on saying it is is rather insulting. The attitude is this : The rules say X does Y damage. There's no specification on limitations on X. A, B and R have limitations, X doesn't.
I would turn it around and say that reading in to rules text that is not written is why GMs have a bad reputation around here. Please note that an Eidelon explicitly limits where attacks can be placed. I see no reason for the Eidelon to explicitly limit something if there is a general rule against it. Again, just because something is intuited that doesn't make it RAW.
I haven't really said much about the eidolon because I think it's a lot less clear, they are supposed to be weird. I was talking primarily about the suggestion that rangers could take 'foot claws' so they could get claw attacks from two classes.
Please note that an Eidelon explicitly limits where attacks can be placed. I see no reason for the Eidelon to explicitly limit something if there is a general rule against it.
You see a limitation (Eidolon can only have one set of foot claws, regardless of how many feet it has) while I see a specific rule (Eidolon can put claws on feet, normally claws don't go on feet).
Claw/claw/bite from feral mutagen.use lesser fiend totem for a gore attack.
Skill focus- perception and eldritch heritage for two more claw attacks.
claw/claw/bite/claw/claw/gore
agility, improved unarmed strike (knees)...
Without a level in monk, unarmed strikes can only be made with punches, kicks, and head butts. Since you're already using your hands, feet, and head, you can't make your iterative attacks with the limbs you're using for natural weapons.
Thus, you should take claws on your elbows and knees, gore on your shoulders, and bite on your chest, so you can still use your head to strike with, feet to stand on, and hands to hold a torch and make rude gestures.