We have sort of a side issue going on in another thread and I wanted more options.
Tentacle Discovery reads as follows:
"Benefit: The alchemist gains a prehensile, arm-length tentacle on his body. The tentacle is fully under his control and cannot be concealed except with magic or bulky clothing. The tentacle does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round, though he can use it to make a tentacle attack (1d4 damage for a Medium alchemist, 1d3 damage for a Small one) with the grab ability. The tentacle can manipulate or hold items as well as the alchemist’s original arms can (for example, allowing the alchemist to use one hand to wield a weapon, the tentacle to hold a potion, and the third hand to throw a bomb). Unlike an arm, the tentacle has no magic item slots."
The isssue in question is whether the tentacle attack can be combined with a natural attack regimine. We have one person who says that because the text says that the tentacle does not grant you any extra attacks, you cannot use it as a full round action in combo with Feral Mutagen or any other full round attacks.
My argument is that the "no extra attacks" text is referring to iterative attacks, and thus an alchemist cannot use the tentacle to lets say throw a bomb while he attacks with a sword, but does not affect the normal natural attack that the tentacle provides.
Thus while an alchemist may not swing a sword and then use the tentacle to throw a bomb, he may during a full round action use the tentacle attack in combination with any other natural and/or iterative attacks that he wants to make.
Which interpretation is correct, or are they both wrong?
James Jacobs was asked this a bit ago, and his opinion can be found here.
For my money, due to the extremely different nature of the text as compared to most natural attacks, I think it's not treated the same as all other natural attacks. From my reading, it is kind of like a "iterative natural attack". You don't get the extra attack when full attacking (the "any extra attacks" clause), like you would any other natural attack that hasn't been used.
An odd concept, for sure. You can see the same thing with the vestigial arm discovery. SKR explains that one here. It has the same language.
Hope that helps! :)
It cannot be used as part of a natural attack routine, because it simply isn't effectively treated as a natural attack you possess.
Just look at the character attacking without using the tentacle, and the same character using a tentacle : they should have the same number of attacks per round, despite wielding their items in a different fashion.
I do not believe that you get extra attacks from the tentacle or vestigial limbs. It says they don't grant extra attacks, so I'm really not sure where all the arguments that they grant extra attacks are coming from. I agree with Cheapy (and SKR and JJ). They can be used as a part of your normal attack sequence, but do not grant you any extra attacks.
your SKR link is broken
I've read the JJ thing and I don't think it's saying that you can't use the tentacle. I think it's saying that when you wield a weapon in a natural weapon, you have to chose between attacking with the weapon or using the natural weapon.
i.e. You cannot hold a sword with your claw, attack with the sword, and make the claw attack.
yes. They're supposed to be a choice. Use the claws/tentacles or use a weapon. All monsters with claws and tentacles have to make that choice.
He even groups the claws and tentacles together. I think it's pretty clear he's referring to
If you use the rules interpretation that it gives you no extra attacks, no matter what, then the discovery makes no sense. It explicitly says that you may make a tentacle attack with it, so it's clearly giving you a natural attack. And yet, if we are to believe that "No extra attacks" refers to natural and iterative attacks, instead of just iterative, then we are left with a nonsense result: A secondary natural attack that you can only make as a standard action.
And yet, we don't have that problem if it only applies to iterative attacks. Makes perfect sense: Tentacle doesn't give you an extra iterative attack, but you can make your 1d4 natural secondary attack as a part of your full attack routine.
the definition of ANY 'tentacle attack' is a secondary natural weapon.
To be fair, I guess I just have to ask the more 'obvious' question: what was the point of making this discovery if it just gave you 'almost' the exact same benefits as vestigial arms?
is the idea of giving an alchemist a 'secondary natural attack' with this discovery so unreasonable? (yes, I know someone is gonna argue - unreasonable, no...but by RAW *insert explanation* )
this also goes back to the argument of 'can vestigial arms be the target of Feral mutagen...thus giving you two extra claw attacks while still being able to wield a weapon in your normal hands?'
the answer, again, is yes.
you don't gain extra attacks from your 'normal attack routine' (in other words, attacks from you BAB). that is what the clause is there to explain.
a tentacle attack, in every instance, is treated as a natural weapon.
same with bites, with claws, and with ANY other natural attack that is listed under the 'natural attack section'.
How is using claws on your vestigial limbs any different from equipping them with additional weapons and using multiattack? Both are extra attacks.
Look at SKR's posts in that thread. Clearly, vestigial limbs and tentacles to NOT grant you any additional attacks, as secondary natural weapons or not.
Ya know, this also reminds me of another discussion on a similar topic regarding the 'animal fury' rage power.
for whatever reason, a lot of people seemed to think that the 'bite attack' granted by the animal fury rage power was ALWAYS considered a secondary natural attack, regardless of whether or not a barbarian attack with manufactured weapons or not.
However, the rule about 'bite attacks' is that they are ALWAYS considered primary UNLESS they are used with manufactured weapons.
Of course, many argued that 'animal fury' was the EXCEPTION to this rule, just like how the 'tentacle attack' is the EXCEPTION to the rule once again.
Can we please have someone make a 'common sense' check?!!!
I'm not arguing anything related to primary vs. secondary natural attacks. I'm saying that vestigial limb and tentacle do not grant you any extra attacks, regardless of how you use them.
The wording isn't totally clear, but SKR has clarified on the forums that they were never intended to grant additional attacks. I would guess it will get officially changed in a future errata, but for now this is all we have to go on.
Your group is welcome to do whatever they want with them, just as you're free to create an archetype that gives the alchemist a full BAB and d12 hit points. The RAI is pretty clear that these discoveries do not allow you to make any extra attacks. Hopefully the RAW will be updated to reflect this, so these arguments stop popping up.
for the claw question, you are gaining the 'extra attacks' because your vestigial arms are now CLAWS (and you ARE allowed to attack with claws BECAUSE they are natural weapons).
You don't gain the extra attacks because of the Vestigial arms...you gain the extra attacks because they are now CLAWS.
and as I said before...the 'extra attack clause' refers to attacks made with your BAB.
you cannot multiweapon fight because of the clause referring to the 'no extra attacks'. However, this does NOT prevent you from using CLAWS or a tentacle as natural weapons.
ya know, I would almost want to say that 'natural attacks' are never considered 'extra attacks' anyway. They are simply attacks that can be made as part of your 'normal attack routine' (the only difference is that they follow a different set of rules rather than being restricted by a base attack bonus).
A tentacle is a secondary natural weapon, but the alchemist's tentacle is not. A normal tentacle is explicitely called as being a natural weapon, and thus could be used to perform additional attacks during a full-round attack.
The alchemist's is neither a "primary" or "secondary" natural weapon, and is explicitely written as able to wield items but unable to provide additional attacks during a round (including as a secondary natural weapon, which it is not).
By that logic, an off-hand weapon isn't an extra attack either. It's an attack that can be made as a part of your normal attack routine. The limb/tentacle discoveries don't specifically call either out - they just refer to extra attacks, which I think both of these fall under. In both cases, you're making more attack rolls due to your limbs, and are "extra."
The link has been fixed.
1st Paragraph: While I respect his intent, I don't see any real reason why an alchemist who's sunk 2 discoveries into vestigial arms can't attack with two greatswords using TWF if they take the penalties. But that's not the issue, I don't want to get off topic.
2nd Paragraph: This I think lends credit to my argument: He specifically says "Therefore you don't get any extra attacks...you're still limited by the normal limitations of the attack sequence." And that makes sense, but natural attacks are NOT limited by the attack sequenced; they operate off your max BAB.
Although this leads to an interesting segway: If an alchemist get's a third arm from Vestigial Arm, can he take Multi-weapon fighting from the beastiary and gain a 2nd and possibly 3rd off-hand?
3rd Paragraph: Again, this makes sense in the context. Just because you have an appendage doesn't make it a natural attack as per the rules. I have a mouth and teeth, but not a bite attack because the rules specifically say so.
However, the Tentacle Discovery explicitly says you get a tentacle attack. Which makes it a Secondary Natural Attack.
Although this leads to an interesting segway: If an alchemist get's a third arm from Vestigial Arm, can he take Multi-weapon fighting from the beastiary and gain a 2nd and possibly 3rd off-hand?
If the alchemist can use the vestigial arms as a natural attack via feral mutagen, and an off-hand via multi weapon fighting... how is that "no extra attacks" in any way?
........ya know, I feel like those 'common sense' checks are all rolling 1's.
an off-hand attack isn't an extra attack, and CAN be made in a normal attack routine, but it IS limited by your BAB (you break that limitation by getting feats that give you EXTRA attacks)
natural attacks are not subjected to this limitation.
there is no need to houserule this discovery just because something is not 'explicitly stated'. Interpretation and deduction are common elements in any campaign.
I'll say again...natural attacks are not EXTRA attacks.
*picks up those 'common sense' dice and rolls again*
to be perfectly fair, I don't see how everyone is ignore the obvious evidence - in every instance, a 'tentacle attack' is a natural weapon (just as how the 'bite attack' is a primary weapon).
Yet when it comes to the animal fury rage power, or this tentacle discovery, people always want to keep saying 'its the exception...even though such rules are NEVER applied to anything else in the game).
bite attack = primary natural weapon
it's not that complicated!
The tentacle never says it's a secondary natural weapon. It would only be considered secondary if you were using it during an attack sequence with a weapon (primary). If you were just using the tentacle, it would be primary.
A bite attack is the same thing. It's primary, unless you are also using a weapon, at which point it becomes secondary.
Hahaha, the Multiweapon fighting thing was just a joke really.
As for the other one, think about it this way.
You have a Tengu alchemist with the Tengu Claw racial and 2 vestigial arms.
The alchemist has TWF and Unarmed Strike. He has a bite and 2 claws.
As per the rules, he's entitled to one unarmed strike, or 2 if he two weapon fights. So he can make those two attacks with his vestigial arms as he is not getting "Extra Attacks" but rather making the attacks he is entitled to make with those limbs. Then he gets to make 2 claw attacks and a bite because he is entitled to those attacks as well.
Now, if he drinks a feral mutagen, he gets two extra claws. There is no rule that says that those claws cannot go on his vestigial arms.
Now, the alchemist is again entitled to his two attacks from TWF. Therefore, he can make those as kick attacks using his legs. Now he has the two claws and bite from being a tengu, which he is entitled to make. And now the Vestigial arms and claws. Now, correctly, he cannot make unarmed strikes with his Vestigial arms, as he is only entitled to two unarmed strikes as per the TWF rules and his current BAB. However, because those limbs currently hold claws and he IS entitled to make those claw attacks because they are natural weapons, the alchemist can make two more claw attacks.
he doesn't qualify for multiweapon fighting. He has two claws (natural attacks) and 2 hands.
he does not have 3 hands, therefore no multiweapon fighting.
even if you transform the hands into claws, you do NOT gain extra attacks with them (per the rule of vestigial arm). you CAN use the claw attack to make an attack with your 'natural weapon' though.
[okay, i know this doesn't sound clear, so try to think of it like this...even with claws...you still can't 'multiweapon fight' because you need 3 hands....well, vestigial arms doesn't give you any EXTRA attacks...so that doesn't work, even if they are claws...however, you CAN make a natural attack with them...because natural attacks are NOT extra attacks...they are attacks that can be made as part of your NORMAL attack routine]
Tentacle attacks are always secondary natural attacks. Look it up in the beastiary under Universal Monster Rules.
Huh, was not aware. Thanks!
Well I think you and I are out of sync there, I'm not talking about alchemist with claws and multi weapon fighting.
Lets just say an alchemist, no feral mutagen, gets 2 vestigial arms and wants to wield a short sword in each arm. Can he take multiweapon fighting and make 1 short sword attack and 3 off-hands?
Wings, Hooves, Stings, Pincers, Tentacles, and Tail Slaps are all Secondary Natural Attacks, no matter what.
Claws, Bite, Gore, Slam, Sting and Talons are all Primary unless combined with a weapon attack in which case they are also secondary.
Are you using the tentacle as a natural weapon as part of a full-round attack to gain an additional attack ? Then yes, you are using the tentacle to gain an extra attack during your round ; and it is explicitely forbidden by the ability's writting, even if I can understand the "tentacle = still a natural weapon that can be used as normal" interpretation.
Just treat the tentacle as an additional free hand you can use to wield items OR as a weapon with the grab ability. It is way potent enough on it's own right as written without needing a buff.
okay, this is where things get tricky...as far as I know, I wasn't exactly sure if the Alchemist could take multiweapon fighting since his 'extra limbs' don't give him 'extra attacks'.
I mean, we do agree about giving vestigial arms the claws from feral mutagen, and yes, I still contend that the 'tentacle discovery' is a secondary natural attack.
multiweapon fighting though, I'm not sure about (i mean, i personally don't see why not, but I just never looked into it)
And I agree, like I said, Interesting Segway, not the topic at hand. I would probably agree that it doesn't work just because it's such a contentious issue, although I don't really find the concept that game breaking. The big problem with Multi-weapon fighting is that you don't get iterative off-hands.
yea, in that instance, multiweapon fighting wouldn't help an alchemist (at least I don't think).
i mean, u would get 3 attacks with primary hand, then 3 attacks with your secondary hands (with no iterative off-hands).
in this instance, u might as well just stick with TWF....same number of attacks really.
So... I guess all the "no extra attacks" bit really just means that the alchemist can't use the tentacle as his haste attack? I guess that makes sense!
This thread is bananas.
Ah right. I should've kept reading the thread I linked.
The wings comment is in the context of this:
And no, having the wings discovery doesn't mean you automatically get an extra wing attack. Most creatures that naturally have wings don't get wing attacks; the rules for wing attacks in the Bestiary are mainly there so you know if wings are primary or secondary, and how much damage they should do if you're building your own monster. If, for example, your alchemist wanted to attack with a wing *instead* of an unarmed strike, you'd know how it would function (secondary, bludgeoning, probably 1d4 for a Medium creature). But the wing attack wouldn't be in *addition* to the alchemist's normal attack routine, it would take the place of one of the alchemist's other attacks that round.
from the post I originally linked to.
His (and 0gre's) post was in response to this one.
Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but it seems like you do not get any extra attacks from it at all, even natural attacks, and can just use it as a replacement for another unarmed or manufactured weapon attack. It gives the reason why it says you can attack with it, which is due to the grab special ability.
Note that in this post, SKR is talking about the confusion this differentiation brings, and how to make it more clear in the future.
I think something like "you gain X as an additional natural attack" vs. "you may use X as a natural attack in place of an existing manufactured weapon attack or unarmed strike" would help.
Interesting...whelp I guess I have to admit defeat there. Although I will say that I don't think my interpretation was outrageous as apparently Tentacle discovery is the only natural weapon in the game that doesn't work like a natural weapon.
But that is about as clear a ruling as it gets. Shame. Thanks for digging that up Cheapy. I wish I had your knack for that.
the thing is, this discovery 'specifically states' that you get a 'tentacle attack' (as in 'tentacle attack' = natural attack).
wing discovery never says you get a 'wing attack', but tentacle discovery specifically says you get a 'tentacle attack'.
*ROLLS THEM BLOODY DICE*
and this is not true because the 'haste spell' specifically grants an extra attack (thus overruling the limitation).
Keep in mind that a 'tentacle attack' can only be used once per round (due to the rules of 'natural attacks') You need multiple tentacle attacks to several attacks, but each tentacle can only attack ONE time.
haste specifically allows you to break that limitation.
flurry of blows is a mess, and is even disagreed upon by the design team.
again, I ask...what is the definition of a 'tentacle attack'
answer...a secondary natural weapon.
never does it EVER state anywhere in the discovery that you can make a 'pseudo-tentacle attack' in place of your normal attack routine.
therefore, it follows that the attack uses the SAME RULES as a tentacle attack.
Dusk, I'm with ya bro, but it does appear that we are wrong about this. I will say that I think our interpretation, while wrong, is more...sane, but the SKR post that Cheapy posted does say that the Tentacle attack is made in place of a manufactured weapon attack.
WHY this is the case, I have no idea. Makes no damn sense. But that does appear to be SKR's ruling on it.
Let's compare Feral Mutagen's, Bite/Claws/Tentacle evolution's and Tentacle discovery's wording.
"Whenever the alchemist imbibes a mutagen, he gains two claw attacks and a bite attack. These are primary attacks and are made using the alchemist’s full base attack bonus."
Tentacle Discovery :
"The alchemist gains a prehensile, arm-length tentacle on his body. The tentacle is fully under his control and cannot be concealed except with magic or bulky clothing. The tentacle does not give the alchemist any extra attacks or actions per round, though he can use it to make a tentacle attack (1d4 damage for a Medium alchemist, 1d3 damage for a Small one) with the grab ability. The tentacle can manipulate or hold items as well as the alchemist’s original arms can (for example, allowing the alchemist to use one hand to wield a weapon, the tentacle to hold a potion, and the third hand to throw a bomb)."
No mention of it being a natural attack at all + cannot use it to perform extra individual attacks per round, as made obvious by SKR's RAI. Thus, clear exception to the rule and more likely bad use of the term "tentacle attack" ; the same way Spell Combat is "like TWFing with a spell as your off-hand weapon" but your off-hand hand is still treated as free.
I would still argue that a 'tentacle attack' by RAW is a natural attack. Sorry guys, I understand your position and everything, but i will admit...if I ever met a DM who looked at rules in such a strict and unforgiving fashion (and in some cases, disregarding 'common sense' entirely) then I would say that person honestly shouldn't be a DM.
And I get that now that you've posted his ruling, but I think where Dusk and I were coming from is that NO other natural attack works that way, you can make then IN ADDITION to your iterative attacks, instead of as a replacement. I concede that I was apparently wrong, but I think my interpretation while wrong makes more sense and will probably house rule it in games I run to avoid confusion.
I will definitely agree that calling it a tentacle attack without it being a natural attack is terrible wording and needs to be fixed.
I think at this point, I'll just make an appeal to Occam's razor...
"All things being equal, a simpler explanation is better than a more complex one."
In this case, is it more likely that this is an 'exception to the rule', or should it follow that this discovery actually adheres to the same rule?
Well, lets see....
It has the 'same' damage, it uses the 'same' appendage, and it even goes by the 'same name'.
Anyway, I think I'll go ahead and let the matter drop, though I will say that by RAW, it can be interpreted either way (although I still feel that my explanation was the more sensible one, and thus should be the one that is normally applied).
I guess I'll just wait for errata/clarification like everyone else.
not to add more confusion to the pile here, but the quotes from the developer don't seem to make any mention of natural attacks as a full attack routine. All his references seem to be regarding iterative attacks, which is the sticking point for Dusk, I believe.
Unarmed strike is considered an iterative attack, so when using iterative attack routines that have limits on the number of attacks per round, the character can choose to replace those attacks with a natural attack that specifically calls out the above rules.
It isn't perfectly clear how this is applied to natural attack routines as each attack is essentially "on its own".
Recent threads in Rules Questions