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

PaizoCon 2014!

Natural Weapons: Melee weapons or not?


Rules Questions

51 to 86 of 86 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

There is no Masterwork version of unarmed strikes or natural weapons.

This means Masterwork Transformation fails, as there it cannot be used to create something that does not exist.

To be enchanted, a weapon must be masterwork.

So, now we can be happy that it does not work, and there is no reason to declare Natural Weapons as not being melee weapons to stop it.

I'm not quite buying this BBT. I don't see why natural claws or fangs could not be replaced by artificial ones. That happens in the real world, why can't it happen in a fantasy world?

Read Masterwork Transformation.

Note: It says You convert a non-masterwork item into its masterwork equivalent, and If the target object has no masterwork equivalent, the spell has no effect.

Unarmed Strikes and Natural Weapons have no masterwork equivalent.

By RAW, the spell fails.

You convince your DM to houserule, then good for you.

Sounds like fun.


blackbloodtroll wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:

There is no Masterwork version of unarmed strikes or natural weapons.

This means Masterwork Transformation fails, as there it cannot be used to create something that does not exist.

To be enchanted, a weapon must be masterwork.

So, now we can be happy that it does not work, and there is no reason to declare Natural Weapons as not being melee weapons to stop it.

I'm not quite buying this BBT. I don't see why natural claws or fangs could not be replaced by artificial ones. That happens in the real world, why can't it happen in a fantasy world?

Read Masterwork Transformation.

Note: It says You convert a non-masterwork item into its masterwork equivalent, and If the target object has no masterwork equivalent, the spell has no effect.

Unarmed Strikes and Natural Weapons have no masterwork equivalent.

By RAW, the spell fails.

You convince your DM to houserule, then good for you.

Sounds like fun.

Once you replace claws or fangs with artificial replacements, why aren't they just "weapons" BBT? And if they are made, they can be masterwork.

Heh, normally I'm the one accused of being against "teh awesome". It's sort of interesting to be on the other side for once. :)


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

Once you replace claws or fangs with artificial replacements, why aren't they just "weapons" BBT? And if they are made, they can be masterwork.

Heh, normally I'm the one accused of being against "teh awesome". It's sort of interesting to be on the other side for once. :)

Replace is the operative word. Once you remove the claw, and slap on a claw-shaped metal blade, it is no longer a claw, ergo it is no longer a natural weapon.

So no, you cannot enchant an actual natural weapon (one that grows on the creature's hand). You can enchant a hand-claw-blade-thingy, though (with which the creature would have no proficiency)


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber

There are things like Kobold Tail Attachments and Catfolk Clawblades already.

Those replace natural attacks.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Cheapy wrote:

Serpent, here is a member of the design team saying they are.

There are very few non-melee natural attacks and those ones are obviously not melee weapons.

If they show up in the melee portion of an NPC's statblock, they're melee weapons. Simple as that :)

Yep I read SKR's quote. He didn't say "natural attack = melee weapon", but yeah, he strongly implies that the feat also works with natural attacks. But as I pointed out, there are several passages in the core rules where natural attacks and melee weapons are treated as separate, mutually exclusive categories. SKR certainly is a respected member of the design team, but the very same design team also OKed all those instances where natural attacks clearly are not treated as melee weapons. SKR's reply is unofficial errata/clarification until it becomes official. The SRD quotes, on the other hand, are official rules text. See my point? Why ignore something a designer has written in the core rules in favor of something another designer says in an off-hand remark? For all I know, he could simply mean that the feat description should read "melee weapons and natural attacks". Until it's official, we only have a slightly ambiguous quote that contradicts stuff in the official rules.


Cheapy wrote:

Serpent, here is a member of the design team saying they are.

There are very few non-melee natural attacks and those ones are obviously not melee weapons.

If they show up in the melee portion of an NPC's statblock, they're melee weapons. Simple as that :)

I apologize, but I'm not convinced natural weapons are melee weapons.

My reason is, the designer said if they meant manufactured weapons instead of melee weapons in the crane feat, they would've put manufactured weapons. If only he would've addressed natural weapons. It was so close... Simply state, "Yes this feat works against natural weapons, because they are considered melee weapons." But no...

Simply put; can anyone find any official rule that says, "natural weapons" are "melee weapons"? (Not "melee attacks", but "melee weapons".)

Serpent's post where he collected a lot of rules where it makes a difference between natural weapons and melee weapons is just too hard to ignore.

* Sorry if this feels like beating a dead horse. I'm sure someone is going to say, "We'll agree to disagree", any time now. :-/


Adamantine Dragon wrote:
blackbloodtroll wrote:
Adamantine Dragon wrote:

So, natural "melee" weapons are then legal targets for any weapon enchantment?

So I could enchant my tiger's bite attack with the "flaming" enchantment?

It is called the Amulet of Mighty Fists.

They are still not manufactured weapons.

Where does it say that enchantments can only be placed on "manufactured weapons?" I just did a search on the entire section of weapon enchantments and the word "manufactured" never appears. Not once.

Oh, you might have missed it. It's carefully hidden. In the header. "Magic Item Creation."

And the following text. Only 115 times according to my chrome's search function.

Natural weapons are not items and thus Magic Item creation rules don't apply to them. Well, a case might be made for imbuing animated object's natural weapons at least, but not natural weapons of living or undead creatures.

Implanted replacement for natural weapons would be fair game once someone would develop the process of safe and efficient implantation that would not cripple the recipient. D&D had Graft Flesh an similar feats while Pathfinder has Fleshwarping (which could see some more development). BTW: I would like to see more on Fleshwarping in the future.

Enchantment:
For the sake of Zon Kuthon, if you argue game mechanics terminology don't make blatant errors. In D&D 3rd+/Pathfinder enchantment is school of mind-affecting spells and has very little to do with magic items, except for those who produce enchantment effects or are intelligent.

Cheliax

Pathfinder Modules Subscriber
GM Jeff wrote:
Cheapy wrote:

Serpent, here is a member of the design team saying they are.

There are very few non-melee natural attacks and those ones are obviously not melee weapons.

If they show up in the melee portion of an NPC's statblock, they're melee weapons. Simple as that :)

I apologize, but I'm not convinced natural weapons are melee weapons.

My reason is, the designer said if they meant manufactured weapons instead of melee weapons in the crane feat, they would've put manufactured weapons. If only he would've addressed natural weapons. It was so close... Simply state, "Yes this feat works against natural weapons, because they are considered melee weapons." But no...

Simply put; can anyone find any official rule that says, "natural weapons" are "melee weapons"? (Not "melee attacks", but "melee weapons".)

Serpent's post where he collected a lot of rules where it makes a difference between natural weapons and melee weapons is just too hard to ignore.

* Sorry if this feels like beating a dead horse. I'm sure someone is going to say, "We'll agree to disagree", any time now. :-/

Okay it says it here.

weapon finesse wrote:


Weapon Finesse (Combat)

You are trained in using your agility in melee combat, as opposed to brute strength.

Benefit: With a light weapon, elven curve blade, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls.

Special: Natural weapons are considered light weapons.

I'm really not understanding where this argument is coming from. We have direct rules quotes stating natural attacks are weapons and we have specific magic items giving those attacks all the magical benefits that manufactured weapons do.

What exactly is the point of the 5 open threads asking about it?


Sorry Mathwei. That doesn't say natural weapons are melee weapons. There is a difference between light weapons and melee weapons.


Mathwei ap Niall wrote:


What exactly is the point of the 5 open threads asking about it?

Because some people like this:

GM Jeff wrote:
Sorry Mathwei. That doesn't say natural weapons are melee weapons. There is a difference between light weapons and melee weapons.

Need things spelled out directly for them. I wouldn't mind if someone came in and just said "Yes, melee attacks are melee weapons." either.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
PRD wrote:
Melee and Ranged Weapons: Melee weapons are used for making melee attacks...(non-essential text removed)
PRD wrote:

Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

“Armed” Unarmed Attacks:(non-essential text removed)… a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).

PRD wrote:
Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks...(non-essential text removed)

Settled via RAW quotes. Attacking with a natural weapon in melee combat is considered to be armed with a melee weapon. Period.

Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Cheapy, you are aware, I assume, that cockfighting trainers "improve" their rooster's talons with metal blades. I would argue that doing so with the appropriate degree of skill is turning a "natural weapon" into a "masterwork" weapon.

Your argument, sir, would be wrong. If you cover a rooster’s talons with metal blades, those blades could be masterwork and enchanted, but not the rooster’s natural weapons (the talons themselves). If you cut off the rooster’s talons and REPLACE them with metal talons, you have taken away his natural attack much like declawing a cat and affixed an improvised weapon to him instead.

Note that even hotgluing extra talons onto the “heel” (popular in cockfighting) is affixing an artificial weapon where there was none before.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Wanted to separate this one because it's my RAI interpretation, not actually RAW:

Possible Monkeywrench:
PRD wrote:
Natural Attacks: 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. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and Multiattack can reduce these penalties.

This paragraph separates the terms "natural weapons", "melee weapons", and "unarmed strikes" for the purposes of clarification of limb use, NOT for the purpose of defining the inclusive terms.

What I see this paragraph saying is that you cannot claw someone with the same hand you have a longsword in, kick someone with the same foot you have a boot knife attached to, or elbow someone with armor spikes using the same arm you clawed him with.

So, with both posts, it's like any other definition in the books, following the same format as spell-like abilities not being spells. Plenty of seperate RAW references strung together to prove the point instead of one sentence stating "Natural attacks are (or are not) melee weapons." This is where the DM is supposed to do his homework and take the seperate RAW terms I have posted above and make the call.

The RAW states that they are armed unarmed attacks, treated like attacking with a melee weapon, but other RAW states they are not items therefore disqualified from masterwork spells, enchantments, etc...


Adamantine Dragon wrote:


Cheapy, you are aware, I assume, that cockfighting trainers "improve" their rooster's talons with metal blades. I would argue that doing so with the appropriate degree of skill is turning a "natural weapon" into a "masterwork" weapon.

My point here is to show that pushing the rules so that there is no distinction between "melee weapon" and "natural melee weapon" has consequences.

Besides, I think it would be friggin awesome for my tiger to have +2 adamantium flaming teeth.

And isn't the game all about the awesomeness?

That's not making the rooster's claws masterwork, that's equipping the rooster with spurs. there is a HUGE distinction between making masterwork claws, and equipping something on the claws. If i put a sword in your hand, is your hand masterwork? No, so lets not get ridiculous here.

The issue here is that people seem to be latching onto the game definition of "melee weapons" and a logical definition of "melee weapons"

when we look at the AoMF we need to look at what it is both RAW trying to do and Logically trying to do.

Amulet of Mighty fists:
This amulet grants an enhancement bonus of +1 to +5 on attack and damage rolls with unarmed attacks and natural weapons.

Alternatively, this amulet can grant melee weapon special abilities, so long as they can be applied to unarmed attacks. See Table: Melee Weapon Special Abilities for a list of abilities. Special abilities count as additional bonuses for determining the market value of the item, but do not modify attack or damage bonuses. An amulet of mighty fists cannot have a modified bonus (enhancement bonus plus special ability bonus equivalents) higher than +5. An amulet of mighty fists does not need to have a +1 enhancement bonus to grant a melee weapon special ability.

Unarmed Strike:
An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. Therefore, you can use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to attack rolls with an unarmed strike. Unarmed strikes do not count as natural weapons (see Combat). The damage from an unarmed strike is considered weapon damage for the purposes of effects that give you a bonus on weapon damage rolls.

It's a very small stretch to look at the bolded section of the unarmed strike and recognize that the unarmed strike is intended to be a weapon of sorts. It is a melee weapon when you are talking about methods of doing damage. It is not a melee weapon when you are talking about adding the throwing enhancement on an AoMF. because it cannot be thrown from your body, Or transformative, because your hands don't fit the same category as other melee weapons. It just functions as a melee weapon for some purposes IE doing damage. Therefor, if you are applying a weapon enhancement that "can be applied to unarmed attacks" you need to look at the ability, and determine "does this make sense to apply to an unarmed attack?" If the enhancement applies damage, then YES it does apply.

If the enhancement could kill the wielder, in the case of throwing, then NO it does not apply. In a 'few' grey areas, such as transformative, you need to read the description of the transformative enhancement. It states that you turn the weapon into another weapon. well, that would mean your hand / arm would turn into another weapon, but you no longer have a hand to wield the weapon because, your hand is the weapon... so if you don't have hands to wield the weapon, you cannot use the weapon. Thus, IMO Transformative should not work on an AoMF.

Now onto this rediculous notion of being able to put adamantine teeth into your tigers mouth and then enchant them... No... just NO...

Masterwork Weapons:
A masterwork weapon is a finely crafted version of a normal weapon. Wielding it provides a +1 enhancement bonus on attack rolls. You can't add the masterwork quality to a weapon after it is created; it must be crafted as a masterwork weapon (see the Craft skill). The masterwork quality adds 300 gp to the cost of a normal weapon (or 6 gp to the cost of a single unit of ammunition). Adding the masterwork quality to a double weapon costs twice the normal increase (+600 gp).

You must make an item masterwork upon the items creation, you cannot add masterwork to the weapon at a later date. The Tiger already has a bite weapon, therefor you cannot add masterwork to the bite.

the teeth themselves are not the weapon, therefore you would not be able to enchant the adamantine teeth. the actual bite itself is the weapon. That's the jaw, the muscles in the head, and the teeth. so you'd need to make ALL of that adamantine, or at least create the whole thing as one item, THEN enchant it. I think your tiger would have a problem if you cut off it's head, so that you could remove it's jaw / muscles so that you could create masterwork variations of them. But how would you do that? what makes a jaw masterwork? you can't exactly improve it's to weightedness, you can't improve it's speed, so what do you change to make it masterwork?

Once you've figured that out, then you need to put your cat back together, and hope it's not upset that you killed it just so that you could muddle around with it's head, thinking you can do better than evolution.

So unless you can make your tiger Masterwork... lets end this discussion now. before PETA gets on here and makes a terrible flash game about masterwork tigers.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

*stops tour bus, turns on microphone*

If you look to your left, you'll see a healthy specimen of stubbornnus I'mrighticus. Often mistaken for an actual rules debate, you can tell the difference because in this type of thread, people continue to insist that they're right even after being explicitly contradicted by the people who wrote the rules. In an actual rules debate, the discussion would have ended at that point.

*turns off microphone and resumes driving*


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Brb, creating MasterworkTigers dot tumblr dot com.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:

*stops tour bus, turns on microphone*

If you look to your left, you'll see a healthy specimen of stubbornnus I'mrighticus. Often mistaken for an actual rules debate, you can tell the difference because in this type of thread, people continue to insist that they're right even after being explicitly contradicted by the people who wrote the rules. In an actual rules debate, the discussion would have ended at that point.

*turns off microphone and resumes driving*

The internal goal appears to be the discovery of who is, and who is not, a doody head.


Roberta Yang wrote:
Brb, creating MasterworkTigers dot tumblr dot com.

I think you just won 1000 internets


LOL, I just wanted to see what it was like being on the "but it's teh awesome dude!" side of the argument for once.

Ah well, I suppose the same effect can be achieved with an enchanted amulet of mighty fists, so I'll accept the wisdom of the messageboard and give up on my pursuit of adamantine, +1 flaming fangs...

But you gotta admit the awesome.


Actually masterwork transformation may fail even if you allow masterwork fists.

The problem is that the first line restricts targeting further.

PRD wrote:
You convert a non-masterwork item into its masterwork equivalent.

The question is whether fists are items. It would be very unusual for item to be used of a part of a person or living animal and its use here could be taken as exclusionary.

Item is another undefined term, but in the intelligent item rules it is used in a fashion that is contradictory with the creature/character rules if creatures are items.

Item and Object appear to be intended as synonymous keywords and refer to everything that is not a character or creature or an integral part of a character or creature.

But Paizo didn't actually define their most important keywords. I'm not sure why considering the rules lawyering that has pretty much always typified D&D.


Adamantine Dragon wrote:

LOL, I just wanted to see what it was like being on the "but it's teh awesome dude!" side of the argument for once.

Ah well, I suppose the same effect can be achieved with an enchanted amulet of mighty fists, so I'll accept the wisdom of the messageboard and give up on my pursuit of adamantine, +1 flaming fangs...

But you gotta admit the awesome.

Wait 'till Numeria book will give us Craft Implant and Implant Device feats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:

*stops tour bus, turns on microphone*

If you look to your left, you'll see a healthy specimen of stubbornnus I'mrighticus. Often mistaken for an actual rules debate, you can tell the difference because in this type of thread, people continue to insist that they're right even after being explicitly contradicted by the people who wrote the rules. In an actual rules debate, the discussion would have ended at that point.

*turns off microphone and resumes driving*

First of all, slightly funny, but not helping. Kind of disrespectful. There are people geniunely confused about this topic looking for help. Now a lot of them may not participate for fear of being made fun of.

Second, we're only on page 2 of this. I've seen many topics with pages well into the double digits that certain people have been involved in that should've ended sooner.

Third, I have not seen anything that anyone has posted or quoted that "explicitly" proves or states what the OP wanted to know; are natural weapons considered melee weapons?

I can only answer for myself, but I'm trying to contribute to a topic I find interesting. I'm not trying to be unswayed by everyone else, insisting to be right, I'm looking for a convincing argument that proves the answer. In my eyes, I just haven't seen it yet...


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GM Jeff wrote:

Third, I have not seen anything that anyone has posted or quoted that "explicitly" proves or states what the OP wanted to know; are natural weapons considered melee weapons?

I can only answer for myself, but I'm trying to contribute to a topic I find interesting. I'm not trying to be unswayed by everyone else, insisting to be right, I'm looking for a convincing argument that proves the answer. In my eyes, I just haven't seen it yet...

Neither am I "insisting to be right". All I offered was what the rules state. As far as what the OP's question is, I also answered that explicitly:

Natural weapons are not, in and of themselves, melee weapons. There is no exact sentence that says this, and if that's the only thing that is going to convince you, I suggest you put an FAQ in for it to be errata'd in. But for those that do not need the exact sentence in their faces, please consider the below:

For all combat rules, they are treated the same as light melee weapons (RAW references in my earlier post, and the posts of other people, plus direct developer quotes).

For purposes of Masterwork Transformation, Item Creation Feats, and enchanting, they are not treated as items and do not qualify (RAW references in earlier posts).

This question has been answered, but some people, as referenced above, seem to want to continue the debate regardless. Hence the sarcasm. Continuing the debate when the RAW and developer input has been clearly referenced is ALSO not helping.

If exact quotes of Rules as Written and developer insight on Rules as Intended aren't enough for you, NOTHING short of a reprint of the book with the sentence you want to see is going to convince you.


Hmmm are natural weapons considered being armed? Is the definition of being armed just being able to threaten with it? Catch off guard reared up the other night

Unarmed opponents are flat-footed against any attacks you make with an improvised melee weapon.

one of my players doesn't wield a weapon as he is a synth summoner with claws.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Glutton wrote:

Hmmm are natural weapons considered being armed? Is the definition of being armed just being able to threaten with it? Catch off guard reared up the other night

Unarmed opponents are flat-footed against any attacks you make with an improvised melee weapon.

one of my players doesn't wield a weapon as he is a synth summoner with claws.

Please refer to my earlier post. It answers that question.


Yes, if you have natural attacks you are armed. (but I have seem funny business with a catfolk and retractable claw blades...

Speaking of insanity...
My homebrew game has a quite insane vivisectionist/internal chemist BBEG with max ranks in knowledge: nature, Craft: Alchemy and Craft Wondrous Item..... (Adamantium skeleton, anyone?)

Of course if anything goes wrong, you might end up with the body of a snake and gills... (He has "spare parts" laying around)


Barry Armstrong wrote:
PRD wrote:
Melee and Ranged Weapons: Melee weapons are used for making melee attacks...(non-essential text removed)
PRD wrote:

Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:

“Armed” Unarmed Attacks:(non-essential text removed)… a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).

PRD wrote:
Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks...(non-essential text removed)
Settled via RAW quotes. Attacking with a natural weapon in melee combat is considered to be armed with a melee weapon.

Yes, I've read this part in the book many times and I feel you have misinterpreted RAW, specifically your quote, the bolded part.

I would say, "Attacking with a natural weapon is a melee attack that is considered to be armed."


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
GM Jeff wrote:

Yes, I've read this part in the book many times and I feel you have misinterpreted RAW, specifically your quote, the bolded part.

I would say, "Attacking with a natural weapon is a melee attack that is considered to be armed."

I believe it is you who have misinterpreted my interpretation. I notice you specifically left out the "in combat" part, which is key.

Let me rephrase, and perhaps you will agree. I am not even sure why you are bickering with me, as I am agreeing with your original statement where you said "Natural weapons are not melee weapons".

I am simply specifying that they are treated as such under combat rules.

In combat, if you wield a natural weapon, you are considered armed and your attacks will use the same rules a melee weapon would.

Better? Specific enough for you?


Oh God no! That's even worse. Stop it.

Qadira

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Barry Armstrong wrote:
In combat, if you wield a natural weapon, you are considered armed and your attacks will use the same rules a melee weapon would.

Player: I disarm your Bite attack!

GM: You can't do that!
Player: You can disarm any melee weapon, and natural weapons are melee weapons.
GM: Erm... Nuh-uh!


While we're on that topic:

Sundering Natural Attacks/Unarmed Strikes. Y/N?


Or worse:

"I sunder your face!"
"Sorry, my teeth are adamantium."..
"Ack!"

But, no, natural attacks/natural weapons cannot be treated as weapons. How do you disarm a monk's fist? Or sunder a bite?
just, no. this is insanity.


GM Jeff wrote:


Third, I have not seen anything that anyone has posted or quoted that "explicitly" proves or states what the OP wanted to know; are natural weapons considered melee weapons?

I can only answer for myself, but I'm trying to contribute to a topic I find interesting. I'm not trying to be unswayed by everyone else, insisting to be right, I'm looking for a convincing argument that proves the answer. In my eyes, I just haven't seen it yet...

I think this pretty well settles it.

James Jacobs wrote:
It works against all melee weapon attacks, including natural weapons and unarmed strikes


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cheapy wrote:
Which of course happens roughly a million times more often the corresponding deflect arrows scenario, even before you take into consideration the "many low damaging attacks" paradigm that ranged weapons are based on. Rogue Eidolon has some wonderful systematic play testing of the feat using as standard and environment as possible. Very insightful, although of course its defenders try to place the blame elsewhere.

Yeah, Iakhovas actually also has Deflect Arrows, but it's rarely useful, unlike Crane. Once I get a few more playtests under my belt, I may necro that thread of mine, but with 10 PFS characters and usually GMing, I just haven't gotten to play him often, and the last few games I played with him we had a phenomenal and large group that could have handled the scenario without any two characters being there (so not as many chances for him to solo stuff), though he has picked up a crane disciple who followed in his footsteps, so with those two PCs you have an absolute defense on a 10-foot-wide corridor and a real b*+&@ of a time for bad guys if the GM doesn't metagame--"That first front-liner has some kind of auto-deflect ability. Quick let's go after the other one then!" only to find both had Crane.

Iak's adventures in the Temple of Empyreal Enlightenment are nothing short of hilarious, however--I should recount them at some point. It was Iakhovas's sole time of not playing up (since this was Gencon and I had just GMed that scenario to a TPK and the average party level was quite low for 4-5), but it was still an excellent example of Crane at work, with some morals to the story based on what each other character did (hint: the greatsword fighter who rushed in past the chokepoint Iakhovas was holding despite Iak's protest was immediately dropped and then nearly died). It would have been a certain TPK without Iak, with the group not even reaching the end boss.


YES!!!! Natural weapons ARE melee weapons. They do damage in melee. Unless someone is going to tell me natural bypass melee based damage reduction, I seriously don't consider it anything else. HOWEVER natural weapons are not MANUFACTURED weapons and thereby not being acceptible for the masterwork transformation spell. It must be on an item that was crafted (How else do you make a masterwork weapon?).

Not everything should need to be spelled out to that level. Also expecting the rules to state if condition A$B are met then yes this still a melee weapon is a bit much. Can I say after getting crit'ed on, "I don' t take damage because the rules don't say I take damage while spinning in a circle and patting my head"? I can say it, it just doesn't make it accurate in any way shape or form :-)

Cheliax

Pathfinder Modules Subscriber

You know why I love the RPG superstars event so much? When they clarify things for the contestants it answers so many questions we've been waiting for answers for.

From the entry for Gozreh's Thunderer here.

SKR wrote:
Thorns: You should say "creatures striking with manufactured weapons" rather than "creatures striking with melee weapons," because natural attacks and unarmed strikes are melee weapons, and you're actually wanting to exclude manufactured weapon attacks from being affected by this ability.

Natural attacks and unarmed strikes are officially melee weapons and valid for anything that calls out needing melee weapons to use.

Add that to the weapon finesse statement stating that natural weapons are light weapons as well and it should end any arguments about whether you can use them with Spell combat/spell strike.

Finally.


Well, we've got it from both JJ and SKR now.

Neat. =)

51 to 86 of 86 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / Rules Questions / Natural Weapons: Melee weapons or not? 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.