|
One would want an animal to take Improved Unarmed Strike so that it could be a better grappler. Specificially:
Improved Unarmed Strike ==> Improved Grapple ==> Greater Grapple.
So what about the wolf (or other animals that trip?)
You going to allow grabbing animals to become better grapplers because there is no specific language that disallows IUS, but not allow tripping animals to become better trippers because there is specific language that disallows tripping?
Access to Improved Grapple and Greater Grapple are not reasons, in and of themselves, to allow IUS for grabbing animals. Because if this were a valid answer alone, then Wolves should be given an allowance to take Improved Trip and Greater Trip without needing Combat Expertise or an Intelligence of 13.
Just use 5 wishes to give the wolf a +5 inherent ability bonus to int and a +6 int headband and it can take the feat just fine.
But by rule (except in situations of developer or GM fiat), bonus feats still need to have prerequisites met.Can you quote that rule? I can't find it.
Its inherent in how feats work.
If a brand new monster is being crafted by a GM or a Developer, they are certainly able to just give the base creature a bonus feat that they would not otherwise qualify for.
So I'm not sure what your questioning in my statement.
|
|
What game balance/cheese issues happen if the feat is allowed. ACs get their first ability increase when they've already purchased 2 of their 8 total feats. This leaves them five potential slots to chain together for cheese.
What then is the devastating effect from these 5 feats that I'm not seeing? Please bear in mind that I have not studied the feats closely enough to say I'm an expert. Do they get like 3 extra attacks or their DPR doubles or something?
At a glance I see style feats, some of which they can't qualify for, that then offer a slightly higher AC, some resistances or perhaps AoOs.
Chain together the math so I can clearly understand how access to the IUS-opened feats makes the AC an unstoppable killing machine.
IUS + Dragon Style
I've seen plenty of small sized cavaliers completely destroy encounters, but part of the balancing factor of cavaliers often dishing out well over 100 points of damage in one charge attack, is the fact that they can't always charge due to terrain or blocking allies.
With Dragon Style, the mount can charge over difficult terrain and through allies spaces.
Then just take Ride By Attack and Wheeling Charge as the cavalier, and you have a combo that essentially means most BBEG combats are over as soon as the Cavalier gets to go.
|
The point being, every unarmed strike a creature makes is inherently considered a natural attack.An animal is not physically capable of doing an unarmed strikeI don't even know how to respond to a statement like this.
Improved unarmed strike allows one to make a lethal or non lethal attack.
In the real world, animals can be trained to do non lethal attacks.
So, by your own logic, animals MUST be able to take improved unarmed strike. They are physically capable (as shown by real world examples), they have the INT, they can buy the feat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The entire point of taking IUS is usually to get to things the animals CAN do: charge lithely over obstacles, squeeze people harder, or dodge blows with perfect timing.
Octopus monk.
|
|
The point being, every unarmed strike a creature makes is inherently considered a natural attack.An animal is not physically capable of doing an unarmed strikeI don't even know how to respond to a statement like this.
thank you for getting it. Animals have natural attacks.
Personally, I don't want Paizo to provide an answer. I don't think it is unreasonable for each GM to decide how it should work for their game. It's too much of a can of worms for Paizo to answer anyway, what feats are legal and what feats are not.
You all can keep debating, or giving your opinion like it's truth, or whatever. Have fun. :)
|
It's kinda important though, for the sake of PFS... Honestly, in my opinion, it complicates the game by adding another restriction, and it limits players. It doesn't break the game, and if people say it does in the case of the cavalier, beast rider barbarian, ranger, etc... well... I have a bomb with the following painted on it:
//MARTIALS CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS!!!//
:)
|
|
The point being, every unarmed strike a creature makes is inherently considered a natural attack.An animal is not physically capable of doing an unarmed strikeI don't even know how to respond to a statement like this.Improved unarmed strike allows one to make a lethal or non lethal attack.
In the real world, animals can be trained to do non lethal attacks.
So, by your own logic, animals MUST be able to take improved unarmed strike. They are physically capable (as shown by real world examples), they have the INT, they can buy the feat.
Animals do lethal damage all by themselves already.
They need to be taught a trick to do non lethal damage.
IUS is not that trick. IUS allows someone who normally does non lethal damage to do lethal instead and not take the AoO.
And there is no trick currently written into the game that allows your animal to be commanded to do non lethal. You can push them to do so though.
|
|
It's kinda important though, for the sake of PFS... Honestly, in my opinion, it complicates the game by adding another restriction, and it limits players. It doesn't break the game, and if people say it does in the case of the cavalier, beast rider barbarian, ranger, etc... well... I have a bomb with the following painted on it:
//MARTIALS CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS!!!//
:)
In over 250 PFS scenarios (1250 hours or so) and 14 years of 3.0/3.5/Pathfinder, I have seen more martial builds break a game, than I have seen spellcasters.
|
|
Twas a joke :P
It's easier to break martial classes, since they have more feats (aka ways to specialize) and abilities. Spells are great, but easily kept under control, with not as many ways to break them.
Though, without anyone breaking the game, martials are generally out performed by casters later in levels. So... that's way the all famous complaint is around :).
|
|
The rules do not say that humans are physically capable of breathing.
All Human PCs die upon creation.
Why? Humans are too powerful in PFS, and I need to pull about false ideas, mock others, and demand a ridiculous rules change.
If you don't have something constructive to add please stop participating.
|
The point being, every unarmed strike a creature makes is inherently considered a natural attack.An animal is not physically capable of doing an unarmed strikeI don't even know how to respond to a statement like this.Improved unarmed strike allows one to make a lethal or non lethal attack.
In the real world, animals can be trained to do non lethal attacks.
So, by your own logic, animals MUST be able to take improved unarmed strike. They are physically capable (as shown by real world examples), they have the INT, they can buy the feat.
Animals do lethal damage all by themselves already.
They need to be taught a trick to do non lethal damage.
IUS is not that trick. IUS allows someone who normally does non lethal damage to do lethal instead and not take the AoO.
That's not the only thing IUS does, though. Another large part of it is that the user can now deal nonlethal damage without either taking a serious attack penalty or provoking. Can you not think of a single reason for someone to take the feat for that option?
That's not the only thing IUS does, though. Another large part of it is that the user can now deal nonlethal damage without either taking a serious attack penalty or provoking. Can you not think of a single reason for someone to take the feat for that option?
too broke to afford a sap?
|
If you don't have something constructive to add please stop participating.The rules do not say that humans are physically capable of breathing.
All Human PCs die upon creation.
Why? Humans are too powerful in PFS, and I need to pull about false ideas, mock others, and demand a ridiculous rules change.
You have decided to alter the phrase "physical capable" to a sort of morphing meaning, and then noted that if a creature is not explicitly listed as being "physical capable" of doing something, then they cannot do it.
I have shown how such a stance appears to me, in it's level of lacking common sense. Perhaps overdone, but you get the point.
By the way, do you believe that the rules for which creatures can make unarmed strikes, change from 3.5, to Pathfinder?
There are a lot of ways for a mount to ignore difficult terrain. Flight, Nimble Moves/Acrobatic Steps, and other powers/skills/abilities. If a cavalier wanted to charge they could spend the money on a wondrous item, give their mount the relevant feats or take levels in the necessary classes to ensorcell their animals themselves. Would it be more acceptable if the cavalier simply chose a less optimal way of getting around the restrictions of the Charge action?
|
|
That isn't the question.
The question is, do animals have the anatomy to mechanically make use of IUS.
I say no.
The game rules, mechanically define unarmed strikes by animals as natural attacks. As such, teaching an animal to hit with its head or fist would become a slam attack. Not an unarmed attack.
IUS does not grant a slam attack and both in real life and in game mechanics terms, an animal needs to have been taught a trick to make non lethal attacks. And in some cases may need to be pushed.
The game mechanics just do not support an animal learning IUS.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not familiar with the rule that says creatures with natural attacks aren't able to make unarmed strikes. Is this limited to animals or does it apply to everybody?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game rules, mechanically define unarmed strikes by animals as natural attacks.
Citation needed.
I just went back and re-read the rules for Unarmed Attacks and the rules for Natural Attacks. Not only does neither ruleset say what you claim, but the rules for natural attacks explicitly state that a creature can use both natural attacks and unarmed strikes in their attack routine.
So unless you can find it somewhere, then your statement that "the game rules mechanically define unarmed strikes by animals as natural attacks" is false, and in turn every conclusion which uses that statement as a premise is invalid.
EDIT:
Also, regarding this:
There is no game rule definition of "physically capable of"
It's well-established (though I'm sure I can dig up designer statements if you don't believe me) that where there's no game rule definition of something, they designers intend it to be read as plain English.
And we want to interpret the rules as they were intended, yes?
So what's the plain-English meaning of "physically capable"?
|
|
Animals do lethal damage all by themselves already.They need to be taught a trick to do non lethal damage.
No, they take the feat that currently exists in the game that allows them to do unarmed damage. You can't use a trick to replace a feat.
You have nothing left to stand on.
RAW, they can take the feat if they are physically capable of taking it. Nothing about mental states in RAW. They are physically capable.
The game has lots of races capable of using unarmed strikes AND natural attacks so the one doesn't preclude the other.
Real world, animals can be trained to do non lethal unarmed strikes.
|
|
The game rules, mechanically define unarmed strikes by animals as natural attacks.Citation needed.
I just went back and re-read the rules for Unarmed Attacks and the rules for Natural Attacks. Not only does neither ruleset say what you claim, but the rules for natural attacks explicitly state that a creature can use both natural attacks and unarmed strikes in their attack routine.
So unless you can find it somewhere, then your statement that "the game rules mechanically define unarmed strikes by animals as natural attacks" is false, and in turn every conclusion which uses that statement as a premise is invalid.
EDIT:
Also, regarding this:
There is no game rule definition of "physically capable of"It's well-established (though I'm sure I can dig up designer statements if you don't believe me) that where there's no game rule definition of something, they designers intend it to be read as plain English.
And we want to interpret the rules as they were intended, yes?
So what's the plain-English meaning of "physically capable"?
Go back up thread.
The citation you seek is there. Its from the Bestiary.
As for the "physically capable" being interpreted as plain English, it means its up to GM interpretation to determine what determines physically capable.
|
|
Animals do lethal damage all by themselves already.They need to be taught a trick to do non lethal damage.
No, they take the feat that currently exists in the game that allows them to do unarmed damage. You can't use a trick to replace a feat.
You have nothing left to stand on.
RAW, they can take the feat if they are physically capable of taking it. Nothing about mental states in RAW. They are physically capable.
The game has lots of races capable of using unarmed strikes AND natural attacks so the one doesn't preclude the other.
Real world, animals can be trained to do non lethal unarmed strikes.
Your arguments keep on assuming that animals make unarmed attacks.
Give me a rules citation where that is true that directly refutes the citation above from the bestiary that says that unarmed strikes from creatures are considered some form of natural attack.
This is essentially already a creature version of IUS.
You also keep using the reverse if what IUS actually does to justify why animals should be able to take it to do non lethal damage.
While I will entertain the possibility I may be wrong here, thus asking for an FAQ, your arguments really are doing nothing to debunk mine. You are using reverse logic which in game mechanics does not work.
I'd like to know which creatures this prohibition on Unarmed Strikes applies to. Is it just animals or is it all monster types?
|
|
The only ones that matter for players is animals and vermin and possibly some plants, elementals, and magical beasts for the purposes of animal companions.
All these creature types pretty much have the same restrictions, only because tge game rules allow them to attack lethally as though armed without provoking an AoO. Essentially turning an unarmed attack into a natural attack.
If a creature's natural attack form is unarmed for non lethal, that is where IUS comes into play. The thing that mucks up the clean division is other humanoid creatures that have natural attacks. The main difference is the level of sapience.
GMs and Developers can pretty much do whatever they want with their monsters.
The key point is, that the closed fist or headbutt not otherwise defined by natural attack type is defined as a slam and already does lethal damage without provoking.
So are you saying a Minotaur (for instance - not a humanoid) can't make an unarmed strike because it has a gore attack? Or are you saying Minotaurs could because they are already smart enough?
Why can't elementals use unarmed strikes? As long as they take roughly humanoid form, the rules say they are proficient with all simple weapons. Unarmed Strikes are listed as a simple weapon.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Go back up thread.
The citation you seek is there. Its from the Bestiary.
I can't seem to find it. I tried searching each page for "bestiary", but couldn't get anything. And of course searching for "unarmed strike" doesn't help in this thread. :/
I did try searching the Bestiary in the PRD, though, since you said that's where the rule is. But I can't seem to find such a rule there, either. I also looked in the CRB rules on unarmed strikes and natural weapons, and still couldn't find any restriction that an animal (or whatever) with a natural attack couldn't use an unarmed strike.
In fact, I found rules talking about a single creature using both unarmed strikes and natural attacks together.
So where in the world is this rule about one creature not being able to use both? I can't find it anywhere.
|
|
Go back up thread.
The citation you seek is there. Its from the Bestiary.
I can't seem to find it. I tried searching each page for "bestiary", but couldn't get anything. And of course searching for "unarmed strike" doesn't help in this thread. :/
I did try searching the Bestiary in the PRD, though, since you said that's where the rule is. But I can't seem to find such a rule there, either. I also looked in the CRB rules on unarmed strikes and natural weapons, and still couldn't find any restriction that an animal (or whatever) with a natural attack couldn't use an unarmed strike.
In fact, I found rules talking about a single creature using both unarmed strikes and natural attacks together.
So where in the world is this rule about one creature not being able to use both? I can't find it anywhere.
I never said there was a rule that said an animal couldn't use an unarmed strike.
The Bestiary defines creatures that are unarmed as having an unarmed strike called a natural attack.
I'm using that wording to indicate that unarmed strikes that creatures have, are considered natural attacks, not unarmed strikes.
|
|
Some fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders do not possess natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses, and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands. See Table: Natural Attacks by Size for typical damage values for natural attacks by creature size.
Sorry, I thought the quote was on this board, but it was on a private message board. I have quoted the relevant info and given a link.
The fact that animals are not listed as a creature type that can make unarmed strikes is quite telling.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Some fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders do not possess natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses, and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands. See Table: Natural Attacks by Size for typical damage values for natural attacks by creature size.Sorry, I thought the quote was on this board, but it was on a private message board. I have quoted the relevant info and given a link.
The fact that animals are not listed as a creature type that can make unarmed strikes is quite telling.
Not really it isn't. Because if you take your argument to heart, monstrous humanoids that have natural attacks ought not be able to make unarmed strikes, either. I don't really think it's reasonable to think that a minotaur can't punch someone in the face just because it has horns. And I don't think the fact that a minotaur has horns means that its attempt to punch someone in the face should be converted into a slam attack.
Wait, the quote provided re: natural attacks doesn't say creatures w/them ONLY get natural attacks, nor does it clearly define all such creatures' unarmed attacks as ONLY natural attacks. Instead it says some creatures have natural attacks, then goes on to say such creatures might use weapon attacks in conjunction with natural attacks as a full-round action.
It would seem to me that there are 3 types of attacks: unarmed, natural and weapon. With these three being ill defined but seemingly separate, and 2 of them being options for the "creatures" indicated under the natural attacks section quoted, couldn't it be possible for the third category to be a possibility?
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some fey, humanoids, monstrous humanoids, and outsiders do not possess natural attacks. These creatures can make unarmed strikes, but treat them as weapons for the purpose of determining attack bonuses, and they must use the two-weapon fighting rules when making attacks with both hands. See Table: Natural Attacks by Size for typical damage values for natural attacks by creature size.Sorry, I thought the quote was on this board, but it was on a private message board. I have quoted the relevant info and given a link.
The fact that animals are not listed as a creature type that can make unarmed strikes is quite telling.
You've taken a rule stating that monsters without natural weapons can still hit people, and tried to twist it into meaning that those are the only types of creatures that can make unarmed strikes.
|
|
I feel sorry for catfolk monks, who apparently cannot use unarmed strikes if they decided to have claws too. Or goblins with big teeth. Or changlings, kitsune, tengu monks, who automatically have natural attacks without any adjustment.
It is interesting to note that Toads don't have any natural attacks, are they automatically excluded from learning any kind of martial self defense?
|
|
Of course you guys can twist the words to mean whatever you want.
But the language doesn't say that sapient creatures can't take class levels or learn certain feats.
It is also a precedent that 0 HD creatures that advance by class level don't conform to the typical Universal Monster Rules in many cases.
However, it does specifically leave animals off the list of creatures that get unarmed attacks.
That isn't what I said now is it?
Please represent what I'm saying correctly.
Sorry, I'm a little slow here too and obviously not really intelligent either. Please re-state for me, in small words, what EXACTLY you feel the portion you quoted means, because for a lot of us either we don't understand or we're not in agreement.
|
RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For reference, here are some of the words that were said regarding what that rule means:
And:
So you said (twice) that the rule in question from the Bestiary means that if an animal were to make an unarmed strike, it would be a "slam" natural weapon instead.
I don't see the functional difference between "an animal's unarmed strike is a slam, not an unarmed strike" and "animals can't make unarmed strikes". Therefore, I don't understand how exactly I misrepresented you.
And in any case, neither statement is a legitimate conclusion to be drawn from the rule you cited.
For reference, here are some of the words that were said regarding what that rule means:
And:
So you said (twice) that the rule in question from the Bestiary means that if an animal were to make an unarmed strike, it would be a "slam" natural weapon instead.
I don't see the functional difference between "an animal's unarmed strike is a slam, not an unarmed strike" and "animals can't make unarmed strikes". Therefore, I don't understand how exactly I misrepresented you.
And in any case, neither statement is a legitimate conclusion to be drawn from the rule you cited.
Umm...yeah, what he said. Man, did EVERYONE else on these boards graduate valedictorian besides me? J-town: well said and thanks for the clarification here.
So what I'm still wondering is how we go from a quote that some creatures having Natural Attacks and those attacks being primary or secondary to ALL unarmed attacks being made by type: Animal being strictly defined as Natural Attacks. It doesn't actually say that in the rule. What it does say is that some types of creatures that don't have natural attacks may make unarmed strikes and treat these attacks like weapons using a feat to attack with both strikes at once.