Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

Combining Natural Attacks With Unarmed Strikes


Rules Questions

51 to 99 of 99 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

mplindustries wrote:
cartmanbeck wrote:
I totally agree with Duskblade on this interpretation. This is how the rules are written. Just putting my two cents in.

I totally disagree, however.

You cannot just insert the tentacle attack like that into your other attack sequence, nor can you calculate the maximum number of attacks your capable of via all sorts of features and feats and whatnot before deciding what an "extra" attack is.

The Alchemist's Tentacle must be used on its own or not at all. That is it. You absolutely cannot use it together with other attacks.

As I said a few posts above, extra attacks are those beyond the base rules. If you are using a weapon or unarmed strikes, any attack beyond those granted by BAB are "extra." So, two weapon fighting grants extra attacks, any secondary natural weapons are extra, Rapid Shot gives you an extra attack, etc.

It's already been clarified (by multiple devs and even the guy who made the discovery), that the 'tentacle discovery' basically gives you the ability to make a 'tentacle attack' in place an attack you could normally make. It can be used in conjunction with other attacks during a full-round action, but can only be used once.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Yeah, the Tentacle works on a number of exceptions, and is a poor example as to how the basics of Natural Attacks works.

Shadow Lodge Dedicated Voter 2014

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Other than his confusing explanation of the Tentacle, SKR's comments can be summed up as "This is how I would like them to work, but it's not how they work".

He then proceeded to state that it was Lead Developer Jason who designed the Natural Attack rules, and if we don't like them, then blame him.

There is no current evidence of Jason's RAI, and we cannot assume anything yet.

So, what we have is that SKR doesn't like that particular part of the rules, he didn't write them, but they haven't changed, and there is no evidence that they will be changed.

Can you show me the rules for how unarmed strikes and natural weapons DO interact then?


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

There is no difference between how natural attacks interact with manufactured weapons, and how they interact with unarmed strikes.

The rules are one and the same.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16 , Star Voter 2014

mplindustries wrote:
cartmanbeck wrote:
I totally agree with Duskblade on this interpretation. This is how the rules are written. Just putting my two cents in.

I totally disagree, however.

You cannot just insert the tentacle attack like that into your other attack sequence, nor can you calculate the maximum number of attacks your capable of via all sorts of features and feats and whatnot before deciding what an "extra" attack is.

The Alchemist's Tentacle must be used on its own or not at all. That is it. You absolutely cannot use it together with other attacks.

As I said a few posts above, extra attacks are those beyond the base rules. If you are using a weapon or unarmed strikes, any attack beyond those granted by BAB are "extra." So, two weapon fighting grants extra attacks, any secondary natural weapons are extra, Rapid Shot gives you an extra attack, etc.

I'm really confused by your position. Are you saying that the tentacle can only be used as an attack if you're taking no other attacks that round? That would be completely useless, and is not how it's written.

Tentacle discovery wrote:
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.

Now, these two bolded statements sound a little confusing when taken together, but each separately is clear enough. You can't get any "extra attacks or actions per round", but you can use the tentacle to make an attack. Notice that it doesn't say "make an attack as a standard action", it just says "make a tentacle attack". A single attack can be used as part of a full attack action, therefore you can use the tentacle in place of an iterative (weapon) attack you would normally be able to do. A tentacle is a type of natural weapon, so the tentacle attack is a natural attack, and so it would follow natural attack rules, always being treated as a secondary attack when combined with weapon attacks.

So, for a 2nd-level Alchemist who can only make one attack with his dagger (BAB +1), that means the tentacle takes up your only attack per round. If the same alchemist had Two-Weapon Fighting, he'd get two attacks in a round, so he could use a tentacle in place of either of those.

Now, let's jump forward to 8th level. The Alchemist can now take two iterative attacks per round with his dagger (BAB +6/+1). He has also picked up the Two-Weapon Fighting feat. Without TWF, his attacks are dagger/dagger at +6/+1 OR dagger/tentacle at +6/+1. If he used TWF, his maximum full attack action would be either dagger/dagger/dagger at +4/+4/-1 OR dagger/dagger/tentacle at +4/+4/+1. <--I'm sure someone is going to balk at this, but a tentacle is a natural weapon, so it would be used at your highest BAB -5, and would not take TWF penalties. This is really the ONLY reason to use a tentacle instead of a weapon, and I think it's a fair trade for a Discovery.

Now, let's say instead of a dagger, this Alchemist is particularly fond of punching people. He has picked up Improved Unarmed Strike. As a full attack action he can do up to three punches or kicks (thanks to Two-Weapon fighting) at BAB +4/+4/-1. He can also decide to replace one of THOSE attacks with a tentacle, and since it's a natural attack it would be at BAB +1. Now we're up to punch/kick/tentacle at +4/+4/+1. So far, so good?

Now, this Alchemist decides that he wants to go for a few levels of Barbarian to get rage and some rage powers (he'll go Master Chymist later, obviously). Two levels later, he has a BAB of +8 and now has the Animal Fury rage power, giving him a bite attack. That bite attack is a natural weapon, so it doesn't have to follow the rules of normal iterative attacks. His full attack can now be punch/punch/kick/bite at +6/+6/+1/+3 OR punch/punch/tentacle/bite at +6/+6/+3/+3. Good so far?

At 11th level (BAB +9), he picks the Extra Rage Power feat and gets Lesser Beast Totem, granting him two claw attacks. Claws go on the hands, so he can no longer punch, but he can always use kicks instead! So now, his full attack action can consist of kick/kick/elbow/bite/claw/claw at +7/+7/+2/+4/+4/+4 OR kick/elbow/tentacle/bite/claw/claw at +7/+7/+4/+4/+4/+4.

Notice that at each of these levels, when he gains new attacks, his total number of possible attacks in a full attack increases. He can ALWAYS choose to forego one of his iteratives and take a single tentacle attack instead.

Now, let's say we go even further, 2 more levels of Barbarian, so level 13 and BAB +11/+6/+1. He never took the time to pick up Improved TWF, by the way. He can now use unarmed strikes and natural attacks in a full attack action like this: kick/kick/elbow/elbow/bite/claw/claw at +9/+9/+4/-1/+6/+6/+6 OR kick/kick/elbow/tentacle/bite/claw/claw at +9/+9/+4/+6/+6/+6/+6. Thanks to his tentacle being used in place of an iterative attack, he's getting an extra +7 on one attack. Whooptie-doo! Is it overpowered? Hardly!

I'd like to challenge anyone to tell me BY THE RULES why any of this wouldn't work. Seriously, this is how it's written, accept that Duskblade and many others have found a rules exploit and pat them on the back instead of attacking them.


Duskblade wrote:
It's already been clarified (by multiple devs and even the guy who made the discovery), that the 'tentacle discovery' basically gives you the ability to make a 'tentacle attack' in place an attack you could normally make. It can be used in conjunction with other attacks during a full-round action, but can only be used once.

Can you link to or quote the relevant bits?

cartmanbeck wrote:
I'm really confused by your position. Are you saying that the tentacle can only be used as an attack if you're taking no other attacks that round? That would be completely useless, and is not how it's written.

That is how it's written. It's written such that you can't take extra attacks with it, and it's also a natural weapon.

Natural attacks can't be used iteratively. They only make a single attack each per round. Since they can't be used iteratively, adding a natural weapon to a normal iterative attack string is fundamentally an extra attack. So, the tentacle attack can't be added to normal weapon attacks.

When you use natural attacks, you make one attack per natural weapon. If you have two claws and a bite, you can make a claw/claw/bite attack string. If you were to add the tentacle to those natural attacks, that would be an extra attack as well.

Thus, the only possible way to use this tentacle is to use it by itself, and by itself, it can only make one attack (as it is a natural weapon).

You can't just "sub it in" for an attack (i.e. you can't change your normal attack string of claw/claw/bite to claw/tentacle/bite or Spear/spear to spear/tentacle or whatever else). There's nothing in the game that works that way and allows you to interchange natural weapons like that except for Flurry of Blows with Feral Combat Training.

cartmanbeck wrote:
A single attack can be used as part of a full attack action, therefore you can use the tentacle in place of an iterative (weapon) attack you would normally be able to do.

The only time you can use a natural weapon as an iterative attack is during a Flurry of Blows when you have the Feral Combat Training feat. Otherwise, you're out of luck there. You can't just sub it in.

cartmanbeck wrote:
A tentacle is a type of natural weapon, so the tentacle attack is a natural attack, and so it would follow natural attack rules, always being treated as a secondary attack when combined with weapon attacks.

If it is a secondary attack added to an iterative string, it is by definition an extra attack (as you cannot just sub it in for a weapon attack).

cartmanbeck wrote:
So, for a 2nd-level Alchemist who can only make one attack with his dagger (BAB +1), that means the tentacle takes up your only attack per round. If the same alchemist had Two-Weapon Fighting, he'd get two attacks in a round, so he could use a tentacle in place of either of those.

The off-hand attack granted by Two-Weapon Fighting is already an extra attack itself. Even if you could sub in this tentacle for an iterative attack--which is utterly unlike everything else in the game--you couldn't sub it in for an extra attack when it explicitly can't be used for extra attacks.

cartmanbeck wrote:
This is really the ONLY reason to use a tentacle instead of a weapon, and I think it's a fair trade for a Discovery.

No, there are two reasons to take the tentacle:

1) To hold extra stuff (like shields or elixirs and whatever)
2) To get an attack with Grab attached (especially if you get a high enough CMB that you can take the -20 to grapple them entirely with the tentacle and take your normal actions otherwise.

cartmanbeck wrote:
I'd like to challenge anyone to tell me BY THE RULES why any of this wouldn't work.

By the rules, you cannot use the tentacle for extra attacks (i.e. adding a natural weapon to an iterative attack string as a secondary attack or dual wielding via TWF or whatever), and likewise, by the rules, you can't just randomly sub in a natural weapon for a normal iterative attack.

Now, if this character had Flurry of Blows and Feral Combat Training, that's another story--that is the only way you could take your tentacle attacks in place of iterative attacks.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

If you decide to somehow alter the very basics of how natural attacks interact with manufactured weapon attacks(or unarmed strikes, which interact the same), then you create a houserule.

Iterative attacks due to high BAB have absolutely no bearing on natural attacks, and do not increase, or decrease the number of them available.

The manner in which an Alchemist's Discoveries function has no bearing on the core rules regarding natural attacks.

Some of these Discoveries are exceptions to the rules, but the core rules have not changed.

Do not expect the core rules regarding natural attacks to change either.

In your home games, you are free to houserule, but to declare them as unwritten RAW, is in itself, a logically fallacy.


SKR wrote:
If you didn't have the tentacle, and you normally could make 3 natural attacks per round (claw/claw/bite), having the tentacle doesn't change the number of natural attacks per round you can make, you're still making 3 natural attacks per round. If you wanted, you could make a tentacle attack in place of a claw or bite attack, but the text of the tentacle ability says it doesn't give you any extra attacks per round, so it doesn't give you any extra attacks per round.

The Link For It Is Right Here

However, what Sean doesn't account for (and what the rules for combining natural attacks and unarmed strikes specifically allow) is that if you can also add other attacks to your claw/claw/bite sequence.

For example, if you had 3 natural weapons (and keep in mind that you don't even need to have improved unarmed strike to make this work), your attack sequence can look like this:

claw/claw/bite/unarmed strike (Provided that your BAB is +5 or less).

Further support for this can be found here

Now, from what Sean states, the 'tentacle' discovery can be used in place of any attack you could 'normally make' (now, if we consider the off-hand attack as an 'extra' attack, then obviously we can't use it...however, there is nothing stopping us from following the sequence of claw/claw/bite/unarmed strike).

That being said, you can basically use that formula to create the following:

claw/claw/bite/tentacle (basically replacing your unarmed strike with the tentacle attack).

Of course, as I've previously stated, once your BAB reaches +11, you are also allowed to make the following attack sequence:

claw/claw/bite/unarmed strike/unarmed strike/unarmed strike (using BAB +11/+6/+1 respectfully for your unarmed strikes).

Therefore, if you have an 'extra set of claws' (lets saying from being a tiefling with the claw trait) and you put your 'feral mutagen' claws on vestigial arms, you can basically achieve this attack sequence as well:

claw/claw/bite/tentacle/claw/claw (again, you are STILL not exceeding the maximum number of attacks you could normally make due to this substitution).

Keep in mind that you DO NOT need to have Improved Unarmed Strike in order to make these attack sequences (after all, ANYONE can make an unarmed strike attack, but they would normally provoke an attack of opportunity by doing so, and can only thus deal nonleathal damage. However, because we are 'substituting' the attack for natural attacks instead, that doesn't matter).


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

For some, if it doesn't somehow decrease the number of attack made, it's an "extra attack".

Moving on, the Tentacle Discovery already has it's own thread, so it would seem fitting to discuss it there.

It's really simple to combine natural attacks with unarmed strikes.
You do it the same way you would combining them with any other non-natural attack.

It is just that simple.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

For some, if it doesn't somehow decrease the number of attack made, it's an "extra attack".

Moving on, the Tentacle Discovery already has it's own thread, so it would seem fitting to discuss it there.

It's really simple to combine natural attacks with unarmed strikes.
You do it the same way you would combining them with any other non-natural attack.

It is just that simple.

And there goes my little goblin buddy, holding up his flag and screaming at the top of his lungs (lolololol). I love u man.


Duskblade wrote:
The Link For It Is Right Here

I appreciate the link. I actually disagree with Sean on this one. It didn't seem like he wrote it, so he's just giving his opinion, not necessarily even RAI.

And even if it is RAI--and I'd accept his answer as much if I had to--it's certainly not written that way.

Duskblade wrote:
claw/claw/bite/unarmed strike (Provided that your BAB is +5 or less).

I have no problem with that at all--I answered all your questions a few posts up and I totally agree unarmed attacks can be dual wielded and that natural attacks can be added on top.

Duskblade wrote:
Now, from what Sean states, the 'tentacle' discovery can be used in place of any attack you could 'normally make'

He says that, and if you take his word, that's cool and I'm fine with it, but reading the text, there's nothing about that whatsoever there. Nothing about the text suggests you can substitute one attack for another in a sequence or even how to calculate what constitutes an extra attack and what doesn't.


Tis fine. To be honest, I would just be cool if we just treated the 'tentacle discovery' as a 'normal' secondary natural attack (which would basically still allow someone to make the claw/claw/bite/tentacle sequence anyway).

We had a whole discussion about this topic on the 'tentacle attack' thread that I linked to you, so if you wanna check it out, feel free to do so.

Sczarni

I'm not sure why anyone is trying to make a distinction between natural attacks and unarmed strike except specifically in the question of flurry of blows. Which isn't the focus here, although it's oddly close to it and would be assumed to be talking about it.

Frankly I wish the restriction or lack there of in flurry was present in two weapon fighting or in flurry.


The monk already gains a slew of benefits above and beyond normal two-weapon fighters, namely that they have no 'off-hand' attack, and thus can two-weapon fight with all their unarmed strikes with full strength modifier applied to each attack (without even needing to take the 'double slice' feat).

I'm not sure how this works with Power Attack of course (as two-weapon fighting requires you to use an 'off-hand' strike...but monks don't have 'off-hand' strikes...so...yea).

But anyway, flurry just allows a monk to hit more accurately, or in some cases, gain more attacks (which is probably why devs decided that natural attacks can't be added on top of that).

I've honestly never been a fan of flurry myself, and I have to say that I'm also one who supports a strong redesign for the monk as well (I'm currently building my own version of classes based on Pathfinder, and the monk is one of the classes that is getting a major overhaul).

Sczarni

No flurry has in several instances been stated to just be a monk version of two weapon fighting.

I've found very little compelling reasons that one should have a restriction on natural attacks being mixed in while the other does not.

Quote:
At the time, Jason felt his intent was clear. The blog preview for PFRPG monks shows flurry-as-TWF was his intent.

source


Meh, what that seems to suggest is that monks are almost incapable of using two-weapon fighting with unarmed strikes UNLESS they are using flurry of blows to do it.

I find that to be a strange restriction honestly, but then again, I don't write the rules.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Flurry should not be discussed here. It has it's own thread, and no relevance here.

An unarmed strike is not a natural attack.

A natural attack is not an unarmed strike.

The mechanics of both are quite different.

Sczarni

It's actually pretty germain to the subject, but I already stated that it's not the focus here.

While the mechanics are different, it's clear that they should be the same, since the intent was that they function the same.

Shadow Lodge Dedicated Voter 2014

Duskblade wrote:
However, what Sean doesn't account for (and what the rules for combining natural attacks and unarmed strikes specifically allow)

Can you quote these rules? I'm getting to the point of saying they don't exist.

Quote:
is that if you can also add other attacks to your claw/claw/bite sequence.

You can, but you usually wind up giving up one attack in order to do so.

Shadow Lodge Dedicated Voter 2014

blackbloodtroll wrote:

There is no difference between how natural attacks interact with manufactured weapons, and how they interact with unarmed strikes.

The rules are one and the same.

Citation?


Pathfinder SRD wrote:
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.

Here is the relevant link.

And here is more proof.

Pathfinder SRD wrote:
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). Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their available natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack’s original type.

And just in case you are wondering, an unarmed strike counts as a 'simple weapon'.

In both quotes, the restriction clearly applies to the 'limb' (in other words, you cannot use the same 'limb' to make an unarmed strike and a natural attack...your unarmed strike MUST come from a different limb if you plan to combine them together).

Therefore, can a character make 2 'hoof' attacks and then kick? Nope.

Can he make two claw attacks (with his hands), and then punch? Nope.

Can a character make a 'gore attack' and then headbutt? Nope.

Those are the restrictions, because all of the above examples use the same limbs.

Shadow Lodge Dedicated Voter 2014

The first quote does it. I don't see any problems with 4 attacks but don't buy that you can go to 5 by getting the benefits of two weapon fighting without two weapon fighting.


Sweet...so, I suppose this takes us back to the argument of how my 'feral mutagen' + vestigial arm alchemist can make his natural attacks + his dagger attacks.

If I remember correctly, we used the example of +6/+1 for BAB.

So his attack sequence would look like this...

Claw/Claw/Bite (from his natural attacks)

+

dagger attack/dagger attack (from his +6/+1 BAB)

making it a total of 5 attacks (which is the maximum amount that he is allowed to make given his natural attacks + BAB progression)

:)

Shadow Lodge Dedicated Voter 2014

No, because your two limbed version couldn't dagger dagger claw claw bite then your three limbed version can't either, otherwise you've gotten an extra attack out of the arm.


perhaps, but remember that we are talking about an 'extra' attack remember.

If you allow this sequence:

Claw/Claw/bite/unarmed strike/unarmed strike (from a BAB of +6/+1 for the unarmed strikes of course)

Then we can agree that the alchemist can make 5 attacks. Thus, it would stand to reason that the alchemist can then perform this attack sequence instead:

Claw/claw/bite/dagger/dagger (again, this is '5' attacks...no 'extra attack' has been made)


Duskblade wrote:

perhaps, but remember that we are talking about an 'extra' attack remember.

If you allow this sequence:

Claw/Claw/bite/unarmed strike/unarmed strike (from a BAB of +6/+1 for the unarmed strikes of course)

Then we can agree that the alchemist can make 5 attacks. Thus, it would stand to reason that the alchemist can then perform this attack sequence instead:

Claw/claw/bite/dagger/dagger (again, this is '5' attacks...no 'extra attack' has been made)

Yes, extra attacks have absolutely been taken. Your attacks are dagger/dagger. Adding natural attacks at all are extra.


*scratches head*

Um...5 attacks in one sequence...5 attacks in the other...that strikes me as 'equal' attacks...not extra.

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16 , Star Voter 2014

mplindustries wrote:
Duskblade wrote:

perhaps, but remember that we are talking about an 'extra' attack remember.

If you allow this sequence:

Claw/Claw/bite/unarmed strike/unarmed strike (from a BAB of +6/+1 for the unarmed strikes of course)

Then we can agree that the alchemist can make 5 attacks. Thus, it would stand to reason that the alchemist can then perform this attack sequence instead:

Claw/claw/bite/dagger/dagger (again, this is '5' attacks...no 'extra attack' has been made)

Yes, extra attacks have absolutely been taken. Your attacks are dagger/dagger. Adding natural attacks at all are extra.

That's just incorrect. "extra" doesn't mean "more than your BAB would give you on its own". "Extra" has to mean "an attack that you couldn't take without having the vestigial arm". Natural attacks aren't "extra", they're part of a normal full attack action.


Duskblade wrote:

*scratches head*

Um...5 attacks in one sequence...5 attacks in the other...that strikes me as 'equal' attacks...not extra.

This is a treacherous stance to take.

For example, if the 5 attack character were a monk, he could spend a ki point to make an extra attack, bringing it up to 6. Do you suppose then, that a tentacle or vestigial arm could always be added to the 5 attacks, because 6 is your actual maximum?

If you had Medusa's Wrath, would your maximum suddenly jump to 8, so you could actually make dagger/dagger/claw/claw/bite/vestigial arm/tentacle/unarmed?

Do you count temporary boosts to the number of attacks when you decide what is "extra?"

Silver Crusade RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16 , Star Voter 2014

mplindustries wrote:
Duskblade wrote:

*scratches head*

Um...5 attacks in one sequence...5 attacks in the other...that strikes me as 'equal' attacks...not extra.

This is a treacherous stance to take.

For example, if the 5 attack character were a monk, he could spend a ki point to make an extra attack, bringing it up to 6. Do you suppose then, that a tentacle or vestigial arm could always be added to the 5 attacks, because 6 is your actual maximum?

If you had Medusa's Wrath, would your maximum suddenly jump to 8, so you could actually make dagger/dagger/claw/claw/bite/vestigial arm/tentacle/unarmed?

Do you count temporary boosts to the number of attacks when you decide what is "extra?"

1. If the monk is willing to spend the ki point to get another attack, it could absolutely be with a tentacle, assuming he had Feral Combat Training.

2. With Medusa's Wrath, if the conditions are met (These bonus attacks must be made against a dazed, flat-footed, paralyzed, staggered, stunned, or unconscious foe) then you could totally use a tentacle for one of those attacks, yes.

3. When you say "temporary boosts", do you mean things like haste and such? In such cases, your max number of attacks is boosted while under the effects of haste, not any other time. Your maximum number of attacks CURRENTLY is what we're talking about.

Seriously, this is NOT that difficult to comprehend.


I would consider an 'extra' attack to be any attack that exceeds your BAB progression of attacks (this of course excludes natural attacks entirely because they do not use BAB progress at all).

In your monk example, you are using ki to gain an 'extra attack' (which, as I said, is an attack that uses your BAB progression...but due to your ability...you are able to exceed the 'normal' number of attacks you can make).

The same example applies to two-weapon fighting, flurry, and haste: all of them give you 'extra attacks' because they basically increase the number of attacks you can make when using your BAB progression.

Again, natural attacks don't use your BAB progression, so I would never consider them 'extra' attacks anyway (by the definition of 'in-game' mechanics anyway).

In my vestigial arm example (with the 'dagger/dagger' attacks), I am not using the arm to gain an 'extra' attack. I am allowed to make 2 attacks with my BAB progression, and so I make them (using the vestigial arm of course).

My other two hands can be used to make claw attacks, while my face makes the bite attack (I don't consider these extra attacks, but even if I did, that still doesn't change the fact that my max number of attacks is 5...therefore, so long as I don't attempt to make a '6th' attack somehow...I am not violating any rules by using vestigial arm in this manner).


On another note, your ability to use things like 'haste' or your 'ki' ability is what grants you the ability to make the 'extra attack'. These abilities specifically allow you to make an attack beyond your normal limit. As such, if I were to add 'haste' to my vestigial arm attacks with the dagger, then yes, I could achieve '3' attacks with my vestigial arm dagger (but only because the 'haste' spell allows me to do this)


BigNorseWolf wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

There is no difference between how natural attacks interact with manufactured weapons, and how they interact with unarmed strikes.

The rules are one and the same.

Citation?

In addition to the actual rules listed, SKR said in his tentacle post (which has already been re-iterated to you more than once):

"And yes, the rules say that if you're using a manufactured weapon or unarmed strikes, you CAN use them in conjunction with natural attacks, "so long as a different limb is used for each attack.""

Seriously, we get that you don't think it should work together. But that's not how the rules were written, and until FAQed, that's how they work, if you are following the rules to the letter. I'm not sure why you are acting like this wasn't explicitly spelled out for you before.

Unarmed Strike functions the exact same as any other weapon when used with TWF and/or natural attacks. End of story.

(As, SKR said, there appears to be SOME RAI about the max amount of attacks a PC is supposed to have. We don't know what that formula is at any given level, nor is it represented in the rules anywhere).

Sczarni

If you want to know what the formula is for the max attacks at any given level, look no further than the max attack table for the eidolon. It matches pretty much what most characters can do at every level attack wise.

I'd take it to be the guidelines for general PC number of attacks, barring special abilities such as ki and medusa etc. I'm very sure they were aware of how natural attacks as written could let you just keep finding more and more natural attacks to add to a pile (specifically for eidolons) and wanted to keep it within their framework of attacks per level.

I'm also pretty sure that when they wrote flurry rules that they intended them to not bypass this framework (hence natural attack restrictions) and that they hadn't considered the possibility when two weapon fighting was written that people would be able to add much more.

Likewise the intent with vestigal arm was clearly to keep within the framework and that's why it just provides an option for attacks, without ever adding attacks.

And regardless of how you word things, if you find yourself with a extra attack solely because you added that limb... you can bet you're going against RAI, if not RAW


lantzkev wrote:

If you want to know what the formula is for the max attacks at any given level, look no further than the max attack table for the eidolon. It matches pretty much what most characters can do at every level attack wise.

I'd take it to be the guidelines for general PC number of attacks, barring special abilities such as ki and medusa etc. I'm very sure they were aware of how natural attacks as written could let you just keep finding more and more natural attacks to add to a pile (specifically for eidolons) and wanted to keep it within their framework of attacks per level.

I'm also pretty sure that when they wrote flurry rules that they intended them to not bypass this framework (hence natural attack restrictions) and that they hadn't considered the possibility when two weapon fighting was written that people would be able to add much more.

Likewise the intent with vestigal arm was clearly to keep within the framework and that's why it just provides an option for attacks, without ever adding attacks.

And regardless of how you word things, if you find yourself with a extra attack solely because you added that limb... you can bet you're going against RAI, if not RAW

I, for one, won't feel bad if I didn't spend the time reverse engineering the summoner class to try and guess what the max attack intent is.

Who knows if that limit is what the designers intended others characters to have? Eidolon is 1 part of an entire class. It could easily be argued that max attacks for that were capped lower because the Summoner is still a full caster.

RAI and guesswork is a poor replacement for RAW.

Sczarni

or you could stop and realize that it mirrors the most attacks characters can have outside of natural attacks with two weapon fighting and high BAB for the most part.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Modules Subscriber

You could also realize the table given for a niche class ability doesn't govern the entirety of combat abilities for every other class. There is absolutely nothing in RAW to even hint at that table being the reference point for anything other than the eidolon, a very potent customizable class ability.

Sczarni

Did I ever say it was raw? Did I stutter? =P

Quote:
We don't know what that formula is at any given level, nor is it represented in the rules anywhere

I gave the closest thing to it in answer to it. You find something that doesn't appear as dead on as that!

You can debate if there is a formulae, but there's very clearly in nearly every monster entry a clear limit of number of attacks at certain levels, and it's fairly uniform, (ie follows that list pretty closely) and NPCs likewise follow it, and likewise except for the natural attack freak PCs, again, follow closely.


I'm not going to 'stop' and guess at anything. I'm going to continue to play the game as written, and point out to anyone that tries to claim otherwise. This isn't the house-rules forum.

If the designers want to fix it, they can. Until that time, we have no hard RAW rule about limiting character attacks, nor is using the Eidolon an acceptable benchmark. It's all guesswork, and should be treated as such.

Sczarni

You're ignoring the point of the conversation, this wasn't ever to say "this is a hard limit" when it's clear it's not.

This was to say this is the closest thing to an apparent formula or guide for attacks per level.

You said it's not represented anywhere in the rules, and I say it actually is there in the eidolon, and as a survey of npcs and monsters.

If you're unwilling to stop and think about it, you shouldn't really suggest that it's not represented in the rules anywhere, when it is if you're willing to look and think about it.

Look at the Demon Balor, 7 attacks, guess what the eidolon has as his max, 7.

If we look at the blue dragon at cr 13, we see it doesn't match up quite with the max attacks of eidolon 6 (vs 5 max on eidolon) When you look at all the entries for the most part you find them all following the eidolons max attack progression fairly neatly.

If you want to say it's not represented, sure it's not spelled out in graphic detail, but it's clear there's a guideline somewhere and it's not far from the eidolons.


Wow...if we use this eidolon guide as the standard...I guess that means I can add claws to my feet now. :P

Its also important to note that the 'max attacks' section really only applies to natural weapons (and if such is the case, I can promise you that even with all the tricks I know, obtaining 7 natural attacks is somewhat problematic...but then again, if we are strictly using the eidolon as the base...then I suppose claws on feet is now perfectly legal).

If we actually look at 'max attacks' for the eidolon...their BAB caps at +15 (meaning they can also make 3 attacks...or 6 with TWF)

So, at the end of the day, the 'max attacks' for an eidolon ends up being 13.

I think the main issue, lantzkev, is that you are making a 'big assumption' that the eidolon somehow acts as the 'baseline' for this stuff when no rule has ever supported such a claim. Furthermore, there is no reason to eve 'assume' that the eidolon is the baseline since many creatures in the bestiary (as you have already pointed out) don't follow this so-called 'guideline' to the letter. That being said, there is no reason to think that your assumption is correct.

Star Voter 2013

Don't forget on eidolon max attacks they can easily have more than 2 arms to make weapon attacks with

Sczarni

the point is that that

Quote:
there appears to be SOME RAI about the max amount of attacks a PC is supposed to have. We don't know what that formula is at any given level, nor is it represented in the rules anywhere

I'm just saying the eidolon seems a pretty good idea of what the intent was for max attacks at given levels.

Obtaining 7 natural attacks is not hard at all for eidolons, or beyond. Although it's certainly a hard hitting evolution pool thing.

There's little reason you can't add claws to your feat, if you have another set to balance yourself with really, otherwise combat will be interesting. (and there's the no wearing boots etc)


Again, the issue is that there is no 'clear' baseline. Now, I'm not saying that you can't use the eidolon as a 'baseline', but keep in mind that if you do decide to go that route, you would need to make a 'house rule' to support it (since there is nothing in the rules that follows such a guideline).

Sczarni

My own personal rule if I were to make one would be you can't have more attacks than two weapon fighting + BaB + 1 natural attack.

I'd let someone mix and replace natural attacks all they want within that max attack frame work, but I'd never allow the attacks to exceed that. (not including things like haste, class abilities etc)

Ie you could make a 18 armed whatever, and you'd never get 16+ attacks out of it.

Star Voter 2013

Well the rules already cover that multiple arms mean more weapon attacks. And that any number of natural attacks may be made as secondary as long as the corresponding limbs are not already in use.


lantzkev wrote:

My own personal rule if I were to make one would be you can't have more attacks than two weapon fighting + BaB + 1 natural attack.

I'd let someone mix and replace natural attacks all they want within that max attack frame work, but I'd never allow the attacks to exceed that. (not including things like haste, class abilities etc)

Ie you could make a 18 armed whatever, and you'd never get 16+ attacks out of it.

I suppose you're taking into account things like extra attacks from 'ki', flurry, rapid shot, and haste.

You also have to keep in my that your formula is completely unfair in regards to casters (like the witch, wizard, or sorcerer) who all suffer from a low BAB throughout the majority of their career...but who all have the ability to gain multiple attacks (such as natural attacks) through various means.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

Okay, just to be clear, you do not need special feats to two-weapon fight, or make unarmed strikes.

You need not have fists, or even need arms to make unarmed strikes, even if you are not a Monk, or lack the Improved Unarmed Strike feat.

Finally, BAB has absolutely no bearing on the number of natural attacks you can make.


lantzkev wrote:
the point is that that
Quote:
there appears to be SOME RAI about the max amount of attacks a PC is supposed to have. We don't know what that formula is at any given level, nor is it represented in the rules anywhere

I'm just saying the eidolon seems a pretty good idea of what the intent was for max attacks at given levels.

Obtaining 7 natural attacks is not hard at all for eidolons, or beyond. Although it's certainly a hard hitting evolution pool thing.

There's little reason you can't add claws to your feat, if you have another set to balance yourself with really, otherwise combat will be interesting. (and there's the no wearing boots etc)

*shrug* Doesn't really matter which way you view it, you are still just throwing around guesswork. Yes, you could reverse engineer monsters and use Eidolons as a benchmark. That still doesn't mean it is an accurate account of what the actual limit is. We've got races that can start out with 3 natural attacks, and enter into classes that grants more. There are exceptions to many rules in PF. Eidolons, for example, are an EXCEPTION to natural attack rules.

Anyways, I disagree that the examples you posted are acceptable as a baseline. The only thing I view as an acceptable cap is a Dev ruling in and clearly explaining what the limits are (SKR did not do that, except stating there was some RAI, but not stating what it was exactly). Taking bits and pieces from different parts of the game from writers and developers and throwing them together to come to a conclusion is an amusing exercise, but falls way short of what I will accept as a rule.

51 to 99 of 99 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Combining Natural Attacks With Unarmed Strikes All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.