What about a slam?
Slams are usually made with arms, so if you use your arm to swing a sword, you can't also slam with it.
When the Kolyarut, for example, attacks with a sword, it can only make one slam attack. If it doesn't use the sword, it has 2 slams. One for each arm. (And, you can note that it is only using one hand on the sword, not both.)
What about a slam? Can you not use an unarmed strike, or armor spikes because that uses the "body" limb? Nevermind, sometimes it makes sense, but has no place in the rules, or maybe it does, and it just makes no sense.
The slam is using an arm like appendage if not the arm itself. So if you slam then nothing that used the arm.
Off the top of my head I can't think of any natural attacks that would interfere with armor spikes. The "body" is not a natural attack.Claws, tentacles, or slams, and maybe talons(I can't think of any examples) are the only ones that I know of that would interfere with a weapon using that limb.
|
The d20pfsrd words it differently. This is much clearer. Going to start using this website too. I love having multiple sources by which to win arguments against my powergaming players.
I just confirmed: The text on d20pfsrd.com under Combat > Standard Actions > Natural Attacks exactly matches the text of the PRD.
There are creatures with out arms that have slams, and can wield armor spikes. Can they not attack with both?
Not if the armor spikes are on the same appendage used to slam.
There are creatures with out arms that have slams, and can wield armor spikes. Can they not attack with both?
I always assumed the armor spikes are on the armor(central body area, not arms or legs) itself, and represent a body check which is why they do extra damage on grapple checks.
|
|
There are creatures with out arms that have slams, and can wield armor spikes. Can they not attack with both?I always assumed the armor spikes are on the armor(central body area, not arms or legs) itself, and represent a body check which is why they do extra damage on grapple checks.
I always think of it on the arms, shoulders and legs, using shoulder slams, kneeing and elbowing to jam spikes into the foe.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why are you trying to cheese the system?Why is it cheese? I am not doing anything power level breaking, or even something hard to imagine being done. I was sure there was no game breaking or mind breaking here. If I am wrong, tell me how and why. I can accept a reasonable response.
Because trying to find a loophole in the system to get an extra attack per round is cheese.
Because the game doesn't have a rule for everything, because it assumes the players have common sense to know that you don't need rules for everything.
Because the game is already designed expecting the players to win (a typical encounter is an *easy* encounter). You don't need to "win harder." Trying to build a character that does even more damage than what's expected is just going to create an escalation race between the players and the GM.
I don't think it's in error. If you fight with weapon and fist, you're treated as fighting with two weapons, so -2/-2 with TWF. If you fight with weapon and claw you're treated as weapon and natural attack, so 0/-5 without feats. Unarmed strikes seem to be an exception to the natural attack rule.It's in error as it disagrees with the bestiary.
CRB: "In addition, all of your attacks made with melee weapons and unarmed strikes are made as if you were two-weapon fighting."
Bestiary: "Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack's original type."
Your iterative attacks are not penalized by TWF rules when you make natural attacks. (Unless you are TWF with the melee weapons)
Unarmed Strike: "Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons"
-edit- Here's the citation
No, it agrees with the bestiary. Unarmed strikes are weapon attacks as (I think) we both agree, so they do use the TWF rules. But that has nothing to do with natural weapons and nor does the CRB quote. I know SKF posted that it was wrong, but it actually agrees with everything else we're saying and looks correct to me.
If you weapon and claw then you get no TWF penalties, you just get -5 on the claw. If you weapon, unarmed strike and bite then you get -2 to attacks with the weapon and unarmed strike, and -5 for the secondary natural weapon attack. It would be the same as fighting with two hand axes with TWF and then biting as well: -2/-2/-5.
There are no TWF penalties unless you get extra attacks above and beyond what you normally get using manufactured weapons.
As an example if your BAB is +6 and you attack with a sword and an unarmed strike you take no TWF penalties. If you get an extra sword or unarmed strike attack in such as sword/unarmed strike/sword, then you take the TWF penalties.
No, it agrees with the bestiary. Unarmed strikes are weapon attacks as (I think) we both agree, so they do use the TWF rules. But that has nothing to do with natural weapons and nor does the CRB quote. I know SKF posted that it was wrong, but it actually agrees with everything else we're saying and looks correct to me.If you weapon and claw then you get no TWF penalties, you just get -5 on the claw. If you weapon, unarmed strike and bite then you get -2 to attacks with the weapon and unarmed strike, and -5 for the secondary natural weapon attack. It would be the same as fighting with two hand axes with TWF and then biting as well: -2/-2/-5.
Actually, the relevant rule for natural attacks was posted earlier by Grick. Posting the full Natural Attack rules from Combat section in CRB:
Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks). If you possess only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage rolls made with that attack.
Some natural attacks are denoted as secondary natural attacks, such as tails and wings. Attacks with secondary natural attacks are made using your base attack bonus minus 5. These attacks deal an amount of damage depending on their type, but you only add half your Strength modifier on damage rolls.
You can make attacks with natural weapons in combination with attacks made with a melee weapon and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used for each attack. For example, you cannot make a claw attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a longsword. When you make additional attacks in this way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus 5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on damage rolls. In addition, all of your attacks made with melee weapons and unarmed strikes are made as if you were two-weapon fighting. Your natural attacks are treated as light, off-hand weapons for determining the penalty to your other attacks. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.
Your natural attacks are treated as light, off-hand weapons for determining the penalty to your other attacks.
Ah yes, SKR was responding to that sentence, which is indeed a contradiction. I was responding to Gricks quote, which isn't:
CRB: "In addition, all of your attacks made with melee weapons and unarmed strikes are made as if you were two-weapon fighting."
and assumed SKR was talking about the same sentence. My bad.
No, it agrees with the bestiary. Unarmed strikes are weapon attacks as (I think) we both agree, so they do use the TWF rules.
Only if you're using the Two-Weapon Fighting combat style.
The following fragment was mistakenly left in the CRB, "In addition, all of your attacks made with melee weapons and unarmed strikes are made as if you were two-weapon fighting."
This means if your level 1 Toothy Half-Orc wants to swing his greataxe and then use his Bite, his greataxe takes TWF penalties.
The bestiary says your iterative attacks are made normally. No mention of TWF. This means if you're not TWF, then you don't take TWF penalties.
Or it's going to create an interesting character who excels at hurting people but has more weak points in other areas and could provide some interesting points to roleplay off of.Why are you trying to cheese the system?Why is it cheese? I am not doing anything power level breaking, or even something hard to imagine being done. I was sure there was no game breaking or mind breaking here. If I am wrong, tell me how and why. I can accept a reasonable response.Because trying to find a loophole in the system to get an extra attack per round is cheese.
Because the game doesn't have a rule for everything, because it assumes the players have common sense to know that you don't need rules for everything.
Because the game is already designed expecting the players to win (a typical encounter is an *easy* encounter). You don't need to "win harder." Trying to build a character that does even more damage than what's expected is just going to create an escalation race between the players and the GM.
Just to build on this, why is it that some DM's are so terrified of damage output that they insist on entering an 'arms race' over damage capacity/ac/hp?
There are dozens of other ways to win a fight, and most of them are more versatile than damage (especially melee damage.) Is it that bad for a given character to excel in an area and be particularly good at shredding opponents dumb enough to make themselves easy targets?
Most players ingenious enough to build up one way to annoy a GM often bring others. It is not the I have high damage guy that is the issue. The same guy often brings high AC and saves along also.
There is also an issue when one party member is heads and tails above the rest of the party. If he plays down to them the encounter is trashed. If he plays up to super soldier everyone else might die.
There is also the issue of the NPC's being allowed anything the PC's are allowed. Having a maralith get 6 or 7 attacks or however many it gets with a sword then switch to natural attacks because it has some item that allows it to store and retrieve items as free actions would have players crying foul.
It is better for most GM's to handle such things before they become an issue. Keeping the rules to the way they were intended to be played normally does that.
No, it agrees with the bestiary. Unarmed strikes are weapon attacks as (I think) we both agree, so they do use the TWF rules.Only if you're using the Two-Weapon Fighting combat style.
The following fragment was mistakenly left in the CRB, "In addition, all of your attacks made with melee weapons and unarmed strikes are made as if you were two-weapon fighting."
This means if your level 1 Toothy Half-Orc wants to swing his greataxe and then use his Bite, his greataxe takes TWF penalties.
The bestiary says your iterative attacks are made normally. No mention of TWF. This means if you're not TWF, then you don't take TWF penalties.
Yep, we're agreeing with each other if you look at my examples, but getting confused over the quotes, or I am anyway... :-)
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is not a damage heavy build, it does not give me "extra" attacks. It is fun, and new, and I could have swore it was within the rules. If I wanted DPR up the wazoo, I would just go ranged. I seriously have no clue where the "munchkin" and "cheese" come in. This is not 3.5 Hulking Hurler, just some player with a unique idea. Sword and board is not the only way to build a fighter, and imagining new concepts was what I thought was part of the game.
This is not a damage heavy build, it does not give me "extra" attacks. It is fun, and new, and I could have swore it was within the rules. If I wanted DPR up the wazoo, I would just go ranged. I seriously have no clue where the "munchkin" and "cheese" come in. This is not 3.5 Hulking Hurler, just some player with a unique idea. Sword and board is not the only way to build a fighter, and imagining new concepts was what I thought was part of the game.
As a GM I agree with you Kirth, but as a maralith I would definitely do it, and I would see no reason not to do it.
@BBT: It would give you extra attacks by the rules, and extra attacks lead to huge DPR's. That was(probably still is) the issue with the summoner during the playtest.
Now I don't think you were trying to break any rules on purpose, but the intent is there, and with if your vision of a limb being used twice were allowed eidolons and other multilimbed creatures would be DPR machines even if your character was not.
You can't really double the number of attacks without expecting a DPR increase, and if someone is DPR focused people/creatures will fall quickly, probably too quickly depending on what side of those attacks you are on. Haste only grants only extra attacks, and it has a big impact on DPR.
You make a good point about the Maralith, but I'd feel really weird about giving it that many gloves of storing. (Plus do they actually GET more glove slots for having more hands.)
I don't know*, but the point was that someone, even if it is not be can find a rules legalway to bring the pain if that(double dipping on limbs) were possible.
*I don't think that all those gloves would work RAW or RAI.
Why are you trying to cheese the system?Why is it cheese? I am not doing anything power level breaking, or even something hard to imagine being done. I was sure there was no game breaking or mind breaking here. If I am wrong, tell me how and why. I can accept a reasonable response.
I agree with blackblood here about this not really being cheese or munchkining (using that term incorrectly only makes you look stupid, people). He's not trying to pull off infinite wishes or any other crap like that with this question. This is a flavor thing that happens to be stopped by the game mechanics of attack rolling, if you ask me.
|
|
I agree with blackblood here about this not really being cheese or munchkining (using that term incorrectly only makes you look stupid, people). He's not trying to pull off infinite wishes or any other crap like that with this question. This is a flavor thing that happens to be stopped by the game mechanics of attack rolling, if you ask me.Why are you trying to cheese the system?Why is it cheese? I am not doing anything power level breaking, or even something hard to imagine being done. I was sure there was no game breaking or mind breaking here. If I am wrong, tell me how and why. I can accept a reasonable response.
Trying to get an extra free attack is not cheese?
This is not a damage heavy build, it does not give me "extra" attacks. It is fun, and new, and I could have swore it was within the rules. If I wanted DPR up the wazoo, I would just go ranged. I seriously have no clue where the "munchkin" and "cheese" come in. This is not 3.5 Hulking Hurler, just some player with a unique idea. Sword and board is not the only way to build a fighter, and imagining new concepts was what I thought was part of the game.
As a GM I agree with you Kyrt, but as a maralith I would definitely do it, and I would see no reason not to do it.
@BBT: It would give you extra attacks by the rules, and extra attacks lead to huge DPR's. That was(probably still is) the issue with the summoner during the playtest.
Now I don't think you were trying to break any rules on purpose, but the intent is there, and with if your vision of a limb being used twice were allowed eidolons and other multilimbed creatures would be DPR machines even if your character was not.
You can't really double the number of attacks without expecting a DPR increase, and if someone is DPR focused people/creatures will fall quickly, probably too quickly depending on what side of those attacks you are on. Haste only grants only extra attacks, and it has a big impact on DPR.
edit:changed "Kirth to Kyrt"
He's not in this thread :P
As a GM I agree with you Kirth, but as a maralith I would definitely do it, and I would see no reason not to do it.
You people and your K's. This is clearly not my fault. :)
I agree with blackblood here about this not really being cheese or munchkining (using that term incorrectly only makes you look stupid, people). He's not trying to pull off infinite wishes or any other crap like that with this question. This is a flavor thing that happens to be stopped by the game mechanics of attack rolling, if you ask me.Why are you trying to cheese the system?Why is it cheese? I am not doing anything power level breaking, or even something hard to imagine being done. I was sure there was no game breaking or mind breaking here. If I am wrong, tell me how and why. I can accept a reasonable response.
He might be doing it for flavor, but it can definitely lead to a very huge increase in DRP. I would rather give him haste as a permanent spell than let him use every limb twice.
First off, I am disappointed and shocked to see people (especially disappointed in SKR) call this guy a cheesy munchkin over one measly attack roll (which comes with a -5 penalty like Kyrt here had said), when it's quite clear his damage output probably isn't even optimized. Cheese and munchkining are both seriously heavy offenses, and shouldn't be thrown around so casually, especially when actual number-crunching still seems to be frowned upon by some people around here. All in all, I am quite sure there is a way he could roll that attack without the DM or anyone else starting to cry. Then again, how immature and whiny would the players be if they started to whine about one player getting one more attack roll by the rules, even though that attack roll is an inferior one?
And now I need to switch off from rant mode. These forums are going to be the death of me...
|
|
First off, I am disappointed and shocked to see people (especially disappointed in SKR) call this guy a cheesy munchkin over one measly attack roll (which comes with a -5 penalty like Kyrt here had said), when it's quite clear his damage output probably isn't even optimized. Why the hell would he lie about his intentions here anyway?
Then why not allow him 2 attacks? What about the guy that wants his barbarian the "flavor" of his rage hissyfit giving him a punch/punch/kick/kick/headbutt/bite attack routine, even at -5? or the guy that say the male dragon should get an extra attack for having an extra member?
First off, I am disappointed and shocked to see people (especially disappointed in SKR) call this guy a cheesy munchkin over one measly attack roll (which comes with a -5 penalty like Kyrt here had said), when it's quite clear his damage output probably isn't even optimized. Why the hell would he lie about his intentions here anyway?
People lie all the time:)
Seriously though most of us were arguing the rules not his intentions. I have let players break rules if they agree to not take it to an extreme. My comment about SKR needing to write in legalese was for the other cases I have seen around here. I don't know BBT well enough to judge his intentions.
|
|
It really is not extra attacks. I will explain. I have BAB of +6, I am wearing armor spikes, I have two claws. Attack goes like this:
Armor spikes, armor spikes, claw, claw.
I can do this again next turn too.
Now, with let's say, longsword, and dagger:
Longsword, dagger, (drop both), claw, claw.
Same amount of attacks, but now I have to pick up two weapons to repeat.
Why would this be wrong?
I'll stick to my solution to this, and that is to ask the DM.
It really is not extra attacks. I will explain. I have BAB of +6, I am wearing armor spikes, I have two claws. Attack goes like this:
Armor spikes, armor spikes, claw, claw.
I can do this again next turn too.
Now, with let's say, longsword, and dagger:
Longsword, dagger, (drop both), claw, claw.
Same amount of attacks, but now I have to pick up two weapons to repeat.
Why would this be wrong?
It is extra attacks because as I explained earlier not all weapons are equal so it matters where the attacks come from.
An attack involving a longsword and dagger, are better than armor spike attacks.
With the armor spikes tactic you don't have to drop weapons, but you are you are paying for it by using inferior weapons. With the dagger and longsword you are restricted from using the limbs at all once those weapons come into play.
PS: If you want to use the "real(not armor spikes)" weapons you must pay the price and give up the attacks from the limbs(claw, slam, etc).
|
|
I typically get along well with my DMs, but this is for a new guy, and I want to know all angles first. This is one of the many ways I get DMs to like me, I find out stuff they never even heard of, and sometimes they even use it in their campaigns. I am usually the first to look up errata, an FAQ, because I know DMing keeps one very busy.