| 9 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hey everyone,
A PFS player in our lodge is wondering whether there is any official documentation as to whether a natural attack is a light or one-handed weapon. He would like to use his character's bite attack with the Duelist class. It's clearly a finessable piercing weapon, but the exact wording in the class description calls for the weapon to be light or one-handed. Has anyone seen any reference to the handedness of natural attacks (other than counting as light for Weapon Finesse purposes)? In a home-game, any GM would probably allow this, but in PFS we need to play by the Rules as Written without a dev clarification (or Mark or Mike). There's plenty of time to find out the answer, since the character is only level 2 at this point.
Cheers,
RE
Natural weapons are considered light weapons.
Thanks for the link, but again, as I said "Other than them counting as light for weapon finesse purposes." That's just a special line from Weapon Finesse. They react differently with, for instance, how much of your strength bonus or Power Attack bonus applies.
Why do you need anything else? There it is, in writing. They are light weapons.
If anything, that line implies that they are not light weapons. Remember, the game is designed under the idea that specific trumps general. Putting that line in the special line for Weapon Finesse (and nowhere else) implies that there is a general rule that is being trumped here for the purposes of Weapon Finesse (or else the line is unnecessary--the designers realized that natural weapons are not a light weapon and thus that they needed to add that Special clause to allow them to be finessed).
The Weapon Finesse's Special clause is not the place that such a decision can be specified for anything other than the Weapon Finesse feat. It doesn't have the scope to do so. In the same way that the Prone Shooter feat (the old broken one that did nothing) did not have the scope to retroactively institute a penalty for shooting from prone if you don't have the feat.
---------------------------------------------
That said, I would like this thread to include anything else that people can find, if it exists (I couldn't find it). I'm already aware of the Weapon Finesse clause, though thanks for finding it. Let's not burden this thread with a debate about the above point, though I'm happy to discuss it with you in another thread or via PMs.
I think you will at least agree that even if you don't agree with me on the above logic, it is a reasonable and supportable argument that another PFS GM might make (just as I agree that the opposite side is a reasonable possibility as well), and that without something further, neither side gives a player any real assurance that they can convince the GM to make the call in the way they expect. The player in question doesn't want to play the character to 7th level only to have the ability be inconsistent as to whether he can use it. He's fine with either answer, and he will build differently depending on the answer he gets.
If the answer is that there is no other place where it is specified, then I'm fine with that, and I'll make another thread in the PFS forums asking for a ruling from Mike.
|
There is nowhere that I can find that defines natural attacks as NOT light weapons, which AFAIK is the intent, and Weapon Finesse declares that they ARE light weapons. In the absence of any other source of ruling, one must use what they have.
Note that weapon finesse does not say they are "considered light weapons for the purposes of finesse". It says that they are "considered light weapons." Full stop. No qualifications. One might try to imply that it intends it to mean for-weapon-finesse-only, but that's not what it says and there is no general rule to fall back onto, so you're kind-of stuck.
Normally speaking natural weapons do not have a use for the light/one-handed/two-handed designation, instead being classified as Primary/Secondary, which might explain the lack of explicit definition in the combat chapter of core.
TL;DR - You won't find any documentation because it's not normally necessary for natural weapons to specify that designation. That said, it has been presumed they are light weapons, a fact that the weapon finesse feat seems to show. If this isn't good enough for PFS, then the player gets to shelve their concept.
|
|
Well according to this link the strength bonus will vary.
Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks). If you possess only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage rolls made with that attack.
(emphasis mine)
I could not find anything else specifically stating if it's one-handed or light (other than what's listed in finesse).
Normally speaking natural weapons do not have a use for the light/one-handed/two-handed designation, instead being classified as Primary/Secondary, which might explain the lack of explicit definition in the combat chapter of core.
Indeed--this has led some to posit that they are not light, nor one-handed, nor two-handed, but their own category instead, considered as light for the purposes of Weapon Finesse. I didn't mention this above, but despite my defense of the opposite argument above to GenericVillain, at my tables, they would count as light. However, I'm going to need more than that to assure the player, as we haven't found anything here that could convince a GM who took the other stance (it couldn't change mine if I held the other stance).
Thanks to everyone for taking a look!
|
|
The SRD describes a natural attack as an attack made without a weapon. Since the duelist ability requires a weapon (light or one handed) I don't think it is possible to combine that with a natural attack.
|
|
The SRD describes a natural attack as an attack made without a weapon. Since the duelist ability requires a weapon (light or one handed) I don't think it is possible to combine that with a natural attack.
And yet, you can take Weapon Focus for it, Inspire Courage boosts it, etc, and those only affect "weapons".
Natural weapons are weapons. They are not manufactured weapons, but they are weapons. Sometimes a rule forgets to specify that it means "manufactured weapon" rather than "weapon".
(This comes up every once in a while and the result is "yes, they are weapons".)
The SRD describes a natural attack as an attack made without a weapon. Since the duelist ability requires a weapon (light or one handed) I don't think it is possible to combine that with a natural attack.And yet, you can take Weapon Focus for it, Inspire Courage boosts it, etc, and those only affect "weapons".
Natural weapons are weapons. They are not manufactured weapons, but they are weapons. Sometimes a rule forgets to specify that it means "manufactured weapon" rather than "weapon".
(This comes up every once in a while and the result is "yes, they are weapons".)
Yuppers. Everyone involved agrees that they are weapons. Just looking to sort out the handedness issues.
|
|
Minor note: The SRD is not a legel reference for Pathfinder Society.
From the Core Rulebook (and PRD):
Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal)...If you possess only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage rolls made with that attack.
From what I am reading, I do not see a problem with a player using a natural weapon with any of the duelist abilities as long as the weapon is piercing.
|
|
The SRD describes a natural attack as an attack made without a weapon. Since the duelist ability requires a weapon (light or one handed) I don't think it is possible to combine that with a natural attack.And yet, you can take Weapon Focus for it, Inspire Courage boosts it, etc, and those only affect "weapons".
Natural weapons are weapons. They are not manufactured weapons, but they are weapons. Sometimes a rule forgets to specify that it means "manufactured weapon" rather than "weapon".
(This comes up every once in a while and the result is "yes, they are weapons".)
I stand corrected. Personally, I would consider natural weapons be their own category of weapons separate from 1h or light unless someone could show me otherwise.
|
|
I stand corrected. Personally, I would consider natural weapons be their own category of weapons separate from 1h or light unless someone could show me otherwise.The SRD describes a natural attack as an attack made without a weapon. Since the duelist ability requires a weapon (light or one handed) I don't think it is possible to combine that with a natural attack.And yet, you can take Weapon Focus for it, Inspire Courage boosts it, etc, and those only affect "weapons".
Natural weapons are weapons. They are not manufactured weapons, but they are weapons. Sometimes a rule forgets to specify that it means "manufactured weapon" rather than "weapon".
(This comes up every once in a while and the result is "yes, they are weapons".)
Personally, I would prefer if natural weapons didn't get their own special progressions and all weapons could live with the same functionality in some kind Utopian harmony. Sadly, monster writers want their CR4 critters to have a 3-attack full-round without having a BAB of 6+ and several feats. This results in rules confusion, not to mention the silliness that strapping a claw to your hand works differently than having a claw naturally with respect to attacks.
In the meantime, I just treat natural weapons as light weapons.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So we have the answer, from the same player who asked me this question. Natural weapons are not light weapons but are instead their own category of weapons, separate from light, one-handed, and two-handed. The proof is in the claw blades:
Benefit: The blades grant the wearer a +1 enhancement bonus on claw attack rolls with that hand and change the weapon type from a natural weapon to a light slashing weapon. Catfolk with the cat's claws racial trait are proficient with this weapon. The claw blades can be enhanced like a masterwork weapon for the normal costs. The listed cost of the item is for one set of five claws for one hand.
This post really has 0 FAQs? Weird.
@ Rogue Eidolon: I wouldn't exactly call that definitive proof that they weren't light weapons in the first place. I'd say the main benefit of that change from the claw blades is that by making them not count as natural attacks, they can be used to perform iterative attacks (which would normally be reserved for manufactured weapons).
This does seem like it might be nice to have FAQ'd.
|
|
I don't think the rules are clear in providing an answer. My personal opinion is that natural weapons are neither light, one-handed, nor two-handed. This statistic about weapons has to do with the effort of use.
The general rule-of-thumb for organized play is that if a player is looking to use a rule in a manner that is grey, he should be willing to accept rulings from GMs that are conservative or have back up plans for what to do when rulings don't go in the way that he would hope. Even if most of the GMs in his area would rule in his favor, the downside in hoping for grey rulings is that 1) the player goes to a convention expecting the same rulings and finds that with a wider GM pool, he finds people that disagree and this then leads to disappointment, contention, or other bad feelings about the situation, 2) he relies on favorable rulings and then thinks his character is being nerfed and/or unplayable after investing feats and/or equipment based on the presumption that it will be favorable, and 3) an official ruling comes down that now puts him decidedly on the wrong side of the grey area fence, with similar results. Even if he only plays in a small group with like-minded GMs from character start through to retirement, or expects to, he risks a new GM entering the GM pool, or others see the example without understanding the potential downside, and then THEY go on to play in a wider population and then get the bad news, with all the bad feelings that go along with it.
Expect table variance.
|
Howie I'm not sure how you can come to the statement. If it's not two handed it's one handed, or follows the one handed rules.
Generally speaking though natural attacks use some part of a body to attack with, there's not any that can even BE two handed... it's against the nature of a natural attack.
for anything that cares, they are light weapons.
For anything that cares, they are weapons that cannot be disarmed.
Beyond these points, what is there that these distinctions could matter for?
The rules are pretty clear how natural attacks work in the game, so what's the point you're unclear on that actually matters to the game?
|
|
fighters for weapon training have natural attack group, which includes unarmed strikes which are (light manufactured weapons)
the table for natural attacks tell us what type they are B, S, or P...
Claws are certainly one handed but they aren't piercing, so you're left with sting... the bite, I'd say is reaching for it. Even though it's probably a light weapon, it's not something I'd say a duelist can use.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lantzkev,
I think you're questioning my statement, "I don't think the rules are clear in providing an answer." How I come to this statement is that the rules on weapon effort (Light, 1H, 2H) come from the equipment section. They describe the effort needed for a weapon to be wielded. Wielded, as a term, has kind of taken on a life of its own; I don't follow the boards extensively these days, so may be missing some illuminating statements from developers. Most of what I have seen and recall about the term have to do with how the term then interacts with holding a weapon in order to activate additional rules sources. However, there is nothing that I see in the equipment section description of effort, nor the universal monster rules on natural weapons, nor the combat section, nor the FAQs on these rules sources, that makes a statement about whether the effort classifications apply to natural weapons, and if so, what that classification for natural weapons is. No statements about tends to indicate that the rules are not particularly clear about the topic.
As has been pointed out in this thread, there is a statement in the Weapon Finesse section that natural weapons are light weapons. This appears under the Special: section. The special section has a description at the beginning of the Feats chapter. It reads, "Special: Additional unusual facts about the feat." (emphasis added). I read this as limiting the statement to the scope of the feat. I'm sure there are examples where the special section has stated something in the form of a reminder, given that humans are creatures prone to err, such that the role of the Special: description isn't always followed to the letter. In such cases, the rule itself is elsewhere. Here, it doesn't appear somewhere else.
The logic of your deduction that a natural weapon must at least follow the one-handed weapon rules is flawed. It includes a number of unstated premises. It assumes that all weapons (including natural attacks) must have an effort category; as it stands, all manufactured melee weapons must have an effort category, but ranged weapons do not, nor is there a definitive statement in the rules that natural attacks do. It also assumes that the subset of weapon effort that is Not-Two-Handed must entirely consist of Is-One-Handed; as it stands, the universe is actually, at a minimum, Is-One-Handed, Is-Light, and (possibly) Undefined or Not Applicable.
So, is a natural attack a light weapon for Weapon Finesse? Yes. Is it a light weapon altogether? Unclear because the rules are silent.
The point of distinction that matters to the game is directly related to OPs question. Does a bite have a light weapon category? If not, does it have a one handed weapon category? Add to this, a light or one handed weapon will do a bonus to damage of 1x Str Mod, whereas a natural weapon that is the only natural weapon will do 1.5x Str Mod. When these types of little benefits pop up, optimization tends to then crystalize into the opinion that builds that make use of these little benefits are the only good way to go. That lack of variety, in my mind, is detrimental to the game.
Sorry for being long-winded, but you asked. :)
Note: It's 3:30am here, and I'm headed to bed. Additionally, I tend to only stop in on the forums about 1/week these days. So, if you want to discuss further here or in private, you'll get a more timely response either sending me email to either continue the conversation or to let me know that you'd like me to reply here in forum. My email address is in my profile.
Thanks, and good gaming!
Greetings, fellow travellers.
I've pondered this questions in the past, too, and just remembered it. Not sure this is valid since it involves some backward deduction, but here we go; quotes taken from the PRD Combat section:
“Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character's or creature's unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed (see natural attacks).
Which says: attacks with natural physical weapons count as being armed and are Unarmed Attacks.
Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of bludgeoning damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character's unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of bludgeoning damage, while a Large character's unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of bludgeoning damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on).
Emphasis mine.
Here, it changes from Unarmed Attacks to Unarmed Strikes but both quotes are under the same subsection Unarmed Attacks, thus I'd say that a strike is the same as an attack.
Could one deduce from these quotes, that attacks with natural physical weapons count as ("Armed") Unarmed Attacks which count as light weapons?
Rulesmongers: Charge!
Ruyan.
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
@RuyanVe - I noticed the same passages when I tried researching this. My overall assessment is that the rules don't seem to define (at least, not for certain) whether natural attacks are considered "light". But the passages you cite seem to suggest that they should be treated as such, so that's probably how I'd run it.
Also, there's this:
A swallowed creature can try to cut its way free with any light slashing or piercing weapon
Can a swallowed creature try to get out using its natural weapons? Only if they're considered "light", apparently.
Thanks design team friends! I think the player went ahead and made a different character, but I will let him know.