Umm the monk isn't the only person who can kick. Unarmed strike covers kicks just fine even if your a fighter.
Once again not rehashing this again after this.
It's not that I want everyone limited like the monk. However I like things to make sense so if the class built around fighting unarmed cant do it then maybe there is a precedent set on how it should be handled. That being said bbt if using the unarmed fighting class as a base line is a bad idea then why is making assumptions of power based off nothing fighting better than a fighter would also be a bad choice.
Hell, they can two weapon fight with two handed weapons!
Nobody can do that anymore.
Lets leave that in its own thread.
Well, at least I don't have to bump this one.
I like the idea that the monk gets to unarmed strike with any part of their body. Everybody else, it's slappers only!
The monk does not define how everyone else attacks. The monk simply has special rules for HIS attack. What I was saying in that post is that currently, the Monk is the only one that can truly take advantage of how the rules are written, because of their specific class abilities.
I like the idea that the monk gets to unarmed strike with any part of their body. Everybody else, it's slappers only!
I do, too. It makes sense thematically. Unless you have OTHER specific training, like the brawler fighters and the unarmed barbarians.
And, no, this is not a "Monk thing now". The FAQ question I posted is not geared towards monks, it's geared towards anyone that chooses to weave natural and unarmed attacks.
The way the rules sit right now, the Monk is simply the pinnacle of being able to use this. Hence why the natural attack munchkins dip 2 levels in it and go with MoMS archetypes.
If a natural attack PC (like a tengu) could use their natural attacks, and unarmed attacks, and twf for an additional unarmed attack, all at -2 and the natural attacks as secondary attacks with an additional -5, you might not actually hit anything!
Of course, while this all means loads of attacks, even with some pretty scary penalties, you'd not be able to flurry while using all those natural attacks, so you'd have to choose, flurry + twf or natural attacks +twf.
Actually you choose TWF + natural or just flurry. You can't combine TWF with flurry.
Actually you choose TWF + natural or just flurry. You can't combine TWF with flurry.
Of course, you're right. Mea culpa. So that makes flurry even less attractive for this combination. You'd never flurry, what would be the point?
Can a maneuver master's flurry of maneuvers work with natural weapons?
I faqued. But i'm not so sure on why the hell i've done it. I feel that with each faq this game dies a little inside.
If a natural attack PC (like a tengu) could use their natural attacks, and unarmed attacks, and twf for an additional unarmed attack, all at -2 and the natural attacks as secondary attacks with an additional -5, you might not actually hit anything!
Of course, while this all means loads of attacks, even with some pretty scary penalties, you'd not be able to flurry while using all those natural attacks, so you'd have to choose, flurry + twf or natural attacks +twf.
TWF does not give you an extra attack, it simply lowers the penalty of using both attacks that any level 1 PC is given access to.
Also, if you are a Tengu Monk who is weaving unarmed and natural attacks, I would recommend both TWF and Multiattack. That way every attack you have access to (minus the one iterative) is at -2.
A level 1 Tengu Monk with Claw/Claw/Bite/Kick/Kick who had both TWF and Multiattack would have an attack pattern of -2/-2/-2/-2/-7.
Where is the -7 at the end coming from?
From my fat fingers. That should read all -2's for a monk fighting unarmed (since they don't have "offhand" unarmed attacks).
I must be misunderstanding your wording, SCPRedMage.
The way I read your post, it seems to suggest that unarmed attacks can only be off-hand (or iterative) and never primary. That's simply not true and not RAW anywhere. Did I misread you?
On your second point, for the purposes of actually attacking, EVERYTHING is "treated as a manufactured weapon". Meaning when you break it down that far, no matter which method you attack with, you roll 1d20, add in bonuses and penalties, and roll damage if you hit, multiply if you crit.
The question is, when you get natural attacks, do you also get your full compliment of other attacks, whether they be manufactured or unarmed?
Every PC gets 1 attack per round, or 2 if they take the penalties. Some races/classes/archetypes/feats give you natural attacks. Do those stack with your two possible attacks, giving you a larger full attack sequence? Or do they overlap, giving you only the larger number of attacks?
RAW says yes, but many people seem to interpret it as RAI saying no. To be fair, the Devs say RAI is, in fact, no.
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.
I interpret that as saying both RAW and RAI is for you to defer to Natural Attack rules when combining the two attack mechanics (since it mentions different limb use).
So, again, my Tengu Monk at level 1 should be able to use Claw/Claw/Bite/Unarmed (Kick)/Unarmed (Kick). Since he is "combining natural weapons with attacks made with unarmed strikes", and is "using a different limb for each attack". (Left Arm, Right Arm = claws, Head = bite, Left foot, right foot = kick). That's literally the entire sentence, recrafted, minus the melee weapon part. But that's not good enough for some to qualify as RAW legal. Somehow.
Hey all!
A few months ago (ok, more like almost a year ago), there was a question asked about tentacles. Like anything involving tentacles, things soon took a turn for the weird.
Weird in this case meaning trying to use unarmed strike and natural attacks together. (The standards for weird have dropped lately.)
The question then became: How do natural attacks an unarmed attacks interact for purposes of number of attacks per round?
We see Sean here trying to explain how this works.
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."
The intent of that was to allow you wield a 1H weapon and make a secondary claw attack with your other hand, or to let you wield a 1H weapon and make a secondary bite attack with your mouth, or to let you wield a 2H weapon and make a secondary bite attack with your mouth.
The intent was to prevent you from making a full attack sequence with your natural attacks and a bunch of unarmed strikes by specifically defining your undefined unarmed strikes as conveniently different limbs than your natural attacks. Which is exactly what you're trying to do.
(Emphasis his)
There are more posts in there going over it, but that's the main one.
I think this would be a fine candidate for a new FAQ entry, as it seems to rely on an understanding most of us don't have, similar to the THF / TWF issue that just came up.
So, most wonderful of people, please hit the FAQ button here so that perhaps we can finally lay this one to rest.
Cheers!
THREAD NECRO!!! The forum says that this question was answered in a FAQ. When the hell did that happen? I don't see anything in the current faq about this.
Another RAW vs RAI thread?
Pretty sure this post has relevance to this topic.
This thread was in response to that post. That post is not an official FAQ or errata. It's SKR's opinion and it's not even a clear one.
Is he saying that if you use unarmed strikes and TWF then you shouldn't be able to use claw or slam attacks? Is he saying that using UA's or UA's with TWF means you can't use natural attacks at all? Does that mean that you can use all of both if you makes UA's without TWF? Does it mean that every UA you make (1 normally and 2 with TWF) takes up an arm even if it doesn't use one?
The last one makes the most sense (and, with sadness in my heart, I'll probably use it), but it's still not very clearly spelled out. Also, the thread says a FAQ answered it. Dunno where on Golarion it is, but this isn't it.
|
I don't see any FAQ that precludes using UAS in conjunction with natural attacks. Is there one?
As an example; let's say I have a PFS character that is a 10th level Ranger with the Natural Weapon combat style. He is half-Orc with Toothy alt. racial trait. He selects Multi-attack as his 10th level combat feat. His full attack sequence is Bite/Claw/Claw made at full BAB (+10/+10/+10). He gets Full STR mod to damage on all attacks.
At level 11 he takes a level in a Unarmed Fighter, gaining UAS & Dragon style as bonus feats. As his 11th level feat he selects Two-Weapon Fighting.
His new full attack sequence is Bite/Claw/Claw/UAS/UAS/UAS/UAS. The majority of attacks are made at full BAB-2, on account of Multiattack & TWF, then iteratives. so they are made as follows;
Bite/Claw/Claw +9/+9/+9 (now get .5x STR mod)
UAS/UAS/UAS/UAS +9/+9/+4/-1 (1st gets 1.5x STR, 2nd gets .5 STR for being offhand, and the iteratives all get 1x STR on account of being made with primary hand).
Is there a FAQ that prohibits such a build?
Pretty sure this post has relevance to this topic.
Interesting, Sean wrote:
The intent was to prevent you from making a full attack sequence with your natural attacks and a bunch of unarmed strikes by specifically defining your undefined unarmed strikes as conveniently different limbs than your natural attacks. Which is exactly what you're trying to do.So, over a year ago, the point Sean was making here (along with some other text I did not copy) is that RAI you can never get more attacks a round than the amount of attacks you could have gotten through the TWF chain.
Until the RAI become RAW, however, people will rightfully play the RAW.
Now try reconciling that with how the Vestigial Arm FAQ played out, because the ability for a character to make two weapon/UAS attacks and two natural attacks prior to getting vestigial arms is what sets the limit for that character's ability to apparently be able to make four claw attacks after getting vestigial arms.
Now try reconciling that with how the Vestigial Arm FAQ played out, because the ability for a character to make two weapon/UAS attacks and two natural attacks prior to getting vestigial arms is what sets the limit for that character's ability to apparently be able to make four claw attacks after getting vestigial arms.Pretty sure this post has relevance to this topic.
Interesting, Sean wrote:
The intent was to prevent you from making a full attack sequence with your natural attacks and a bunch of unarmed strikes by specifically defining your undefined unarmed strikes as conveniently different limbs than your natural attacks. Which is exactly what you're trying to do.So, over a year ago, the point Sean was making here (along with some other text I did not copy) is that RAI you can never get more attacks a round than the amount of attacks you could have gotten through the TWF chain.
Until the RAI become RAW, however, people will rightfully play the RAW.
That's how I read it when they said it. Since every character can make two unarmed attacks plus there natural attacks, the VA faq seemed silly. It didn't stop ANYONE from using all their claws even those on VA's.
|
And to answer "why it's so good", imagine if you will my Monk/Tengu Lore Warden / Manuever Master.
Can't have Multi-attack or would (PFS).
Attack 1-5 was Claw/Claw/Bite Manuever. All 3 natural attacks became trips, because that was how I rolled. I didn't bother unarmed striking because I wanted my naturals to be at full BAB.
Once I got around 7 it was safe to go two-weapon style. Then my attack routine became Claw -5/Claw -5/Bite -5/Unarmed -2 / Unarmed -2 / Unarmed -7 / Unarmed -7 / Manuever. Which may sound horrible, until you realize my attack bonuses (especially for manuevers) were actually quite good, and if I got a trip off it would provoke 2 AOOs at full attack bonus.
On my best days (surrounded by tripable opponents), I get 17 attacks per round.
It gets pretty silly, and I think enough have seen my build (or similar, I am Polly for those who play online) to want to see the stackings go down.
Of course, adding the natural attacks in is the only thing Tengus have going for them over, say the Aasimars that run rampant in PFS. I've never actually played with another Tengu at a table (though if fairness, have run for one at Dragoncon).
Feats, in case you're curious:
Improved Trip, Greater Trip, Vicious Stomp, Improved Grapple, Weapon Finessee, Agile Manuevers, Blindfighting, Combat Reflexes, Two Weapon Fighting, Improved Two-Weapon. Attack is +20 for d8+11, claws/bite are +15 for d3+7, Grapple is +28, Trip is +31, Rest are +24... with +4 added to one per turn a la manuever master. He flies his magic carpet into battle because every melee should have a magic carpet by level 9... no excuses :).
But in answer, it is legal currently, the only question is whether or not it is the way the designers inteded.
I forget where I saw it, but someone presented the interpretation that, since Unarmed Strike was ruled to be an "abstracted" form of weapon that utilizes your entire body, and the rules state that you cannot make a natural attack with a weapon that is being wielded with the same body part that the natural weapon is located on, making Unarmed Strikes takes up your "everything" so you can't make natural attacks at all in conjunction with Unarmed Strikes (barring Feral Combat Training which treats a natural weapon as an Unarmed Strike and you make iterative attacks with it).
So, when they say, "Answered in FAQ", it may not be referring to a specific answer to this question in particular, but stating that the answer has already been provided in a related context.
So I wear 2 blade boots... It comes out the same. the FAQ didn't stop anyone from using their VA claws.
So I wear 2 blade boots... It comes out the same. the FAQ didn't stop anyone from using their VA claws.I forget where I saw it, but someone presented the interpretation that, since Unarmed Strike was ruled to be an "abstracted" form of weapon that utilizes your entire body, and the rules state that you cannot make a natural attack with a weapon that is being wielded with the same body part that the natural weapon is located on, making Unarmed Strikes takes up your "everything" so you can't make natural attacks at all in conjunction with Unarmed Strikes (barring Feral Combat Training which treats a natural weapon as an Unarmed Strike and you make iterative attacks with it).
So, when they say, "Answered in FAQ", it may not be referring to a specific answer to this question in particular, but stating that the answer has already been provided in a related context.
The point I was making was that SKR made a pretty lengthy post about how unarmed strikes and natural claw attacks weren't meant to be mixed, and doing so essentially would be cheesing.
Then SKR writes the FAQ for Vestigial Arms which, initially, seems to imply that you cannot make four claw attacks, but then later clarifies it to, apparently, mean you can make four claw attacks because characters can ordinarily make unarmed strikes right alongside natural claw attacks. And in emphasizing that literally all that matters is the number of attacks, he pretty strongly implied that there shouldn't be a problem with making four dagger attacks too (when I'm pretty sure not a single person would have thought that should be allowable).
The two thoughts are basically irreconcilable. That's all I was pointing out.
The two thoughts are basically irreconcilable. That's all I was pointing out.
Cool. My reply was only commenting on the FAQ for Vestigial Arms. I can't see how you get the "Answered in FAQ" marker without referring to an FAQ entry. Hence my ignoring the unofficial talk SKR had on his thought on "how unarmed strikes and natural claw attacks weren't meant to be mixed". I didn't see the need to reconcile them.
Couldn't find a VA FAQ so is it yes 4 claws or no 4 claws?
So no using 4 claws or 2 swords and 2 claws I take it
So no using 4 claws or 2 swords and 2 claws I take it4 claws, no. 2 claws and two swords, yes.
Until he clarified it by explaining what extra attacks means; ie, extra attacks are attacks OVER those you could normally make without those limbs. In the case of the FAQ, the examples are those of a low-level alchemist who uses two-weapon fighting ONLY (Or ONLY using claws). Hence, the example is that of only having 2 attacks. The example is correct taking that into account. However...
When pressed, he agreed that weapon attacks + natural attacks counted as normal attacks. So all you need is to add up 'normal' attacks to 4, and you get those 4 claw attacks using VA and normal limbs. The next logical step is that EVERY character has 2 weapon attacks (unarmed with 2 weapon fighting); a point he forgot or ignored in the FAQ. Taking that into account, there is NO limit on anyone using those claws on VA's an long as they don't take their 2 weapon attacks in the round.
|
So no using 4 claws or 2 swords and 2 claws I take it4 claws, no. 2 claws and two swords, yes.Until he clarified it by explaining what extra attacks means; ie, extra attacks are attacks OVER those you could normally make without those limbs. In the case of the FAQ, the examples are those of a low-level alchemist who uses two-weapon fighting ONLY (Or ONLY using claws). Hence, the example is that of only having 2 attacks. The example is correct taking that into account. However...
When pressed, he agreed that weapon attacks + natural attacks counted as normal attacks. So all you need is to add up 'normal' attacks to 4, and you get those 4 claw attacks using VA and normal limbs. The next logical step is that EVERY character has 2 weapon attacks (unarmed with 2 weapon fighting); a point he forgot or ignored in the FAQ. Taking that into account, there is NO limit on anyone using those claws on VA's an long as they don't take their 2 weapon attacks in the round.
Yeah, there is that as well.