Claws and slams and swords, oh my!


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Multiattack has no effect on nonsecondary natural attacks.
I'm not sure what argument this evidence is intended to support. Could you please clarify what you are getting at, here? I might agree with you.

I believe what is being said is that if all you have are primary attacks, the multiattack feat won't do anything for you because there are no penalties to reduce.


Krodjin Yesterday, 03:33 PM
“@ScottWillhelm: you don't get double penalties. It used to be when you combined manufactured weapons (or UAS) with Natural Attacks, the weapons took TWF penalties. That was errata'd sometime after the 4th printing of the CRB.”

Thanks for the update. You your are saying the sort of character build I am proposing is even easier to achieve than I thought: That is good news.

Krodjin Yesterday, 03:33 PM
“However, what you get is -5 penalty to all of your natural attacks and they only do .5 STR mid to damage. So from a DPR perspective it's probably not worth combining them unless you have ways to mitigate penalties to both attack & damage.”

So even though the penalty is not as severe as I supposed, you still agree with me that it is ill-advised, but not illegal, to try to combine Multiattack with 2 Weapon Fighting to get a 2nd Unarmed Strike in with the Full Attack Action.

Krodjin Yesterday, 03:33 PM
“Oh, and I think the rest of the world interprets 2 claws or 8 tentacles as two or eight natural attacks, respectively.”

“If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type…. Format: bite +5 (1d6+1), 2 claws +5 (1d4+2), 4 tentacles +0 (1d4+1); Location: Melee and Ranged.” -- http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/universal-monster-rules #TOC-Natural-Attacks

This is the source of my reasoning behind seeing 2 claws or 8 tentacles as 1 Natural Attack, each. According to the Universal Monster Rules, I am right and the rest of the world is wrong. The World is on your side, but the Universe is on mine. I stomp on this planet! I will walk all over this world! This world lives under my heels!

A Tiefling with the Claws Trait gets to make 2 claw attacks with no penalty. If the rest of the world were correct, then 1 claw would be the primary attack, and the other claw would be a secondary attack and suffer a -5. But it's not that way. That means that 2 claws is 1 Natural Attack, not 2.

But, looking at the Bestiary, I see Octopi have what I would call 2 Natural Attacks and they tend to all have Multiattack, even though I think they shouldn't qualify. So the rest of the world has a point.

But

Fiendish Warhorses get 2 Hoof and 1 Bite attack at no penalty even though they don't even have Multiattack. That means that the Bestiary doesn't follow the rules. https://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/bestiary/monster-listings/anima ls/horse/horse-war-fiendish

So the preponderance of evidence points to the Univers[al Monster Rules] being right and the rest of the world being wrong. But you have a point.


HangarFlying wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Multiattack has no effect on nonsecondary natural attacks.
I'm not sure what argument this evidence is intended to support. Could you please clarify what you are getting at, here? I might agree with you.
I believe what is being said is that if all you have are primary attacks, the multiattack feat won't do anything for you because there are no penalties to reduce.

Yes, but I'm not sure what is meant in context of this post as a response to the one I made before this one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Multiattack has no effect on nonsecondary natural attacks.
I'm not sure what argument this evidence is intended to support. Could you please clarify what you are getting at, here? I might agree with you.

I was responding to this quotation, which is generally incorrect.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
I don't think so. 2 Claws is 1 natural attack. 1 slam is 1 natural attack. An Octopus has 1 Natural Attack of 8 Tentacles. The Froghemoth has 1 tongue, 1 bite, and 4 Tentacles, for a total of 3 Natural Attacks. Octopi do not have Multiattack and take no penalty. The Froghemoth, has Multiattack, and if it didn't, 2 of those attacks, probably its bite and tongue, would take a -5. Refer to the Bestiary and Universal Monster Rules to confirm what I'm saying, but I think that is the grammar of natural attacks.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:

“If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type…. Format: bite +5 (1d6+1), 2 claws +5 (1d4+2), 4 tentacles +0 (1d4+1); Location: Melee and Ranged.” -- http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/universal-monster-rules #TOC-Natural-Attacks

This is the source of my reasoning behind seeing 2 claws or 8 tentacles as 1 Natural Attack, each. According to the Universal Monster Rules, I am right and the rest of the world is wrong. The World is on your side, but the Universe is on mine. I stomp on this planet! I will walk all over this world! This world lives under my heels!

A Tiefling with the Claws Trait gets to make 2 claw attacks with no penalty. If the rest of the world were correct, then 1 claw would be the primary attack, and the other claw would be a secondary attack and suffer a -5. But it's not that way. That means that 2 claws is 1 Natural Attack, not 2.

But, looking at the Bestiary, I see Octopi have what I would call 2 Natural Attacks and they tend to all have Multiattack, even though I think they shouldn't qualify. So the rest of the world has a point.

But

Fiendish Warhorses get 2 Hoof and 1 Bite attack at no penalty even though they don't even have Multiattack. That means that the Bestiary doesn't follow the rules. https://sites.google.com/site/pathfinderogc/bestiary/monster-listings/anima ls/horse/horse-war-fiendish

So the preponderance of evidence points to the Univers[al Monster Rules] being right and the rest of the world being wrong. But you have a point.

Having two claw attacks doesn't mean one is primary and one is secondary. Having a bite and claw attacks doesn't mean a bite or the claw is primary and the other is secondary. That is a rule from 3.5 that was changed for Pathfinder. Natural Weapons in PF are determined to be primary or secondary purely by type of attack. So claws are always primary. Bites are always primary. Claws and bites together are both always primary. Tentacles are always secondary (unless that's the only attack the creature has, then the attack is primary).

Of course, if any of these attacks (whether primary or secondary) is used in conjunction with a manufactured weapon or an unarmed strike, it is always treated as secondary regardless of type.

So the Froghemoth's bite attack would never take a -5 penalty, even if it did not have Multiattack. A bite is a primary attack. However, tongues and tentacles are secondary attacks. As statted, the Froghemoth's tongue and tentacle attacks are 2 less than its bite, which is where you see Multiattack's impact; without the feat, they would all be at 5 less.

Similarly, Octopuses actually do have Multiattack, as well they should. If they didn't, their tentacles would be at an additional -3 to hit. Since they have a bite attack, their tentacles will all attack as secondary weapons. What is required by Multiattack is that a creature have "three natural attacks" not "three types of natural attacks". An attack and an attack type are two distinct things. Even the section you quoted to support your position specifically mentions not "attacks" but "attack types".

PRD wrote:
If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type.

As you can see, it is the type of attack that matters (for the purpose of determining when a secondary attack becomes a primary), even if there are multiple instances of attacks of the same type. But Multiattack's requirement is worded not in the regard to the type of attack, but rather the sheer number of attacks. So two claws and a bite is more than enough to qualify you for Multiattack (though it only helps you if you plan on combining those natural attacks with a manufactured weapon or UAS).

Regarding the War Horse, you are incorrect but I believe the reason for that may be because you are relying on incorrect data. So far as I am aware, the Fiendish War Horse does not appear in the Bestiary (though I don't have a physical copy in front of me, so I could be wrong). You linked to the pfsrd, but the creature you linked to was actually created by a user. And, it appears to have been created incorrectly.

Hooves are secondary attacks. So they should be at +0, rather than the same +5 that the bite is at. You can see this on the nonfiendish entry for a heavy horse.


fretgod99 wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Multiattack has no effect on nonsecondary natural attacks.
I'm not sure what argument this evidence is intended to support. Could you please clarify what you are getting at, here? I might agree with you.

I was responding to this quotation, which is generally incorrect.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
I don't think so. 2 Claws is 1 natural attack. 1 slam is 1 natural attack. An Octopus has 1 Natural Attack of 8 Tentacles. The Froghemoth has 1 tongue, 1 bite, and 4 Tentacles, for a total of 3 Natural Attacks. Octopi do not have Multiattack and take no penalty. The Froghemoth, has Multiattack, and if it didn't, 2 of those attacks, probably its bite and tongue, would take a -5. Refer to the Bestiary and Universal Monster Rules to confirm what I'm saying, but I think that is the grammar of natural attacks.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:

“If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type…. Format: bite +5 (1d6+1), 2 claws +5 (1d4+2), 4 tentacles +0 (1d4+1); Location: Melee and Ranged.” -- http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/universal-monster-rules #TOC-Natural-Attacks

This is the source of my reasoning behind seeing 2 claws or 8 tentacles as 1 Natural Attack, each. According to the Universal Monster Rules, I am right and the rest of the world is wrong. The World is on your side, but the Universe is on mine. I stomp on this planet! I will walk all over this world! This world lives under my heels!

A Tiefling with the Claws Trait gets to make 2 claw attacks with no penalty. If the rest of the world were correct, then 1 claw would be the primary attack, and the other claw would be a secondary attack and suffer a -5. But it's not that way. That means that 2 claws is 1 Natural Attack, not 2.

But, looking at the Bestiary, I see Octopi have what I would call 2 Natural Attacks and they tend to all have Multiattack, even though I think

...

So you're saying that the suggestion for a possible direction to take a build in is actually easier and more effective than I thought.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
So you're saying that the suggestion for a possible direction to take a build in is actually easier and more effective than I thought.

If your build is to allow a clawed monk to use FCT to make claw attacks with its feet, no. You cannot do that.

Also, a Monk's UAS is not a natural weapon. So you cannot use it to qualify for Multiattack.

PRD wrote:
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

Notice the limiting language: "for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve ... natural weapons". It's not a natural weapon; it's just treated as a legal target for something like Magic Fang.

Additionally, you cannot add an UAS to an attack routine if you're attacking with a Two-Handed Weapon. There was a FAQ on this very issue. You can either fight with a TH weapon or you may TWF. But you cannot do both.

If there's something else I'm missing, please provide the build you're talking about. I wasn't exactly sure what all you were getting at.


You are mistaken: "effect" is not a game term. It is an English Language word that can apply to almost anything.

And I never said anything about making claw attacks with your feet.


In before metaphorica--dammit.


Claxon wrote:

It is not clear if slam is attached to any specific part of the body or not. I believe that for humanoids it is akin to a two-handed overhand chop.

Using the greatsword would definitely prevent using claws, and vice versa. They certainly can't be combined.

Basically, if you make a natural attack with a part of your body it can't be used to make weapon attacks or vice versa.

Hi claxon. I've never heard or seen it as a two handed attack. I thought it was one handed, so some critters can mix it with a wand or a shield in the off hand if they have these capacities.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:

You are mistaken: "effect" is not a game term. It is an English Language word that can apply to almost anything.

And I never said anything about making claw attacks with your feet.

If I don't cut my toenails, I can definitely make claw attacks with my feet. :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:

You are mistaken: "effect" is not a game term. It is an English Language word that can apply to almost anything.

And I never said anything about making claw attacks with your feet.

If I don't cut my toenails, I can definitely make claw attacks with my feet. :P

No, those are talons. Or a rake. Which is why no one wants to be the little spoon with you.

Sczarni

Hi Scott. The way you quote posts is difficult to read. I will do my best to reply using the forums quote mechanism - sorry if I presumed you were saying something you weren't; it's probably because your method of quoting posts is difficult to read. :) If I put words in your mouth I am truly sorry. My mistake.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Krodjin Yesterday, 03:33 PM

“@ScottWillhelm: you don't get double penalties. It used to be when you combined manufactured weapons (or UAS) with Natural Attacks, the weapons took TWF penalties. That was errata'd sometime after the 4th printing of the CRB.”

Thanks for the update. You your are saying the sort of character build I am proposing is even easier to achieve than I thought: That is good news.

It's great news actually. I own a 4th printing CRB and the language that Manufactured weapons suffer TWF penalties when made in concert with Natural Attacks is present in my CRB - but it's been errata'd out of the official Paizo Reference Document.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Krodjin Yesterday, 03:33 PM

“However, what you get is -5 penalty to all of your natural attacks and they only do .5 STR mid to damage. So from a DPR perspective it's probably not worth combining them unless you have ways to mitigate penalties to both attack & damage.”

So even though the penalty is not as severe as I supposed, you still agree with me that it is ill-advised, but not illegal, to try to combine Multiattack with 2 Weapon Fighting to get a 2nd Unarmed Strike in with the Full Attack Action.

Yes and no. Yes, I agree it is perfectly Legal as per RAW. But No, I don't know for sure that it is ill advised. I can't say for certain until I actually do the Math. There could be unique builds where it makes sense... Like if you had a way to add extra damage to all of your attacks it could still be worth it from a purely mathematical sense.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Krodjin Yesterday, 03:33 PM

“Oh, and I think the rest of the world interprets 2 claws or 8 tentacles as two or eight natural attacks, respectively.”

“If a creature has only one type of attack, but has multiple attacks per round, that attack is treated as a primary attack, regardless of its type…. Format: bite +5 (1d6+1), 2 claws +5 (1d4+2), 4 tentacles +0 (1d4+1); Location: Melee and Ranged.” -- http://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/rules-for-monsters/universal-monster-rules #TOC-Natural-Attacks

This is the source of my reasoning behind seeing 2 claws or 8 tentacles as 1 Natural Attack, each. According to the Universal Monster Rules, I am right and the rest of the world is wrong. The World is on your side, but the Universe is on mine. I stomp on this planet! I will walk all over this world! This world lives under my heels!

That's not how I read the rule you quoted - or the entire Natural Attacks section... I see it as: 2 Claws are 2 (two) attacks of a single type (Claw). 8 tentacles would be 8 (eight) attacks of a single type (tentacle).

Scarab Sages

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I read all of this and my life was not in any way improved. I think I've been reading discussions on what limbs a vampire can use to make a slam attack for something like 10 years now, starting on the WotC boards.

The sensible solution if you are the DM is just make a ruling and stick with it, or avoid the situation entirely. Getting bogged down in this debate helps no one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Belabras wrote:

I read all of this and my life was not in any way improved. I think I've been reading discussions on what limbs a vampire can use to make a slam attack for something like 10 years now, starting on the WotC boards.

The sensible solution if you are the DM is just make a ruling and stick with it, or avoid the situation entirely. Getting bogged down in this debate helps no one.

It's important to remember that it's all just a game. And it is not insignificant that the OP was not talking about a PFS campaign, and he only needs the DM's ruling.

But PFS players read these posts, too. And PFS DMs are obliged to follow the rules as written. But it is still incumbent upon the PFS players to make sure their builds are tight with the rules in advance. I can work around any ruling, positive or negative, in planning my character, but finding out at your table that the Sipping Jacket that was crucial to your character build and that you have been using at PFS tables for more than a month is illegal the way you have been using it is devastating. So I am fastidious about vetting my characters with local DMs and public forums like this well in advance so I can have my arguments here and not at the table and not disrupt game play.


lemeres wrote:
DM Under The Bridge wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:

You are mistaken: "effect" is not a game term. It is an English Language word that can apply to almost anything.

And I never said anything about making claw attacks with your feet.

If I don't cut my toenails, I can definitely make claw attacks with my feet. :P
No, those are talons. Or a rake. Which is why no one wants to be the little spoon with you.

Or why some people wear their socks in bed.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:

You are mistaken: "effect" is not a game term. It is an English Language word that can apply to almost anything.

And I never said anything about making claw attacks with your feet.

I'm really not mistaken, though. A monk's unarmed strike isn't a natural weapon. It doesn't qualify you for taking Multiattack. It is a valid target for things that typically only target natural weapons. A feat requirement is not a thing that typically targets natural weapons.

And you essentially did try to argue in favor of making claw attacks with your feet. You're trying to apply the "You can make UAS, even with your arms full" language to claw attacks via FCT. You can't attack with your hands if your arms are otherwise occupied. Making UAS while having occupied arms works because UAS aren't necessarily tied to your hands. Even though your hands are otherwise occupied, you can still make an UAS by using a different part of your body. You are trying to apply this same benefit to claw attacks. Ergo, you are trying to make claw attacks with different parts of your body. Hence, "you cannot make claw attacks with your feat", whether you are a Monk with FCT or not.


Multiattack has an effect enhancing Natural Attacks, and Monk Unarmed Strikes count as Natural Attacks for effects that enhance Natural Attacks. For the purposes of Multiattack, Monk Natural Attacks DO count as Natural Attacks, and therefore DO count as prerequisites for the Multiattack Feat.

I have adequately backed this with evidence. You haven't. Bring forth the evidence or admit that I'm right.

According to you, this is a minor point, anyway. According to you, you can make any and all of the numerous Natural Attacks I was talking about anyway without recourse to the Multiattack Feat. According to you, 2 claws and a slam count at 3 attacks instead of 2 and that qualifies the OP for Multiattack, even though he doesn't need it. Unless he decides to also use Unarmed Strikes, which also count as manufactured weapons, and would turn the rest of the natural attacks into secondary attacks and would all suffer the -5.

And, since this is for a homespun campaign, anyway, it's up to the DM, not you or me.


"And you essentially did try to argue in favor of making claw attacks with your feet. You're trying to apply the "You can make UAS, even with your arms full" language to claw attacks via FCT. You can't attack with your hands if your arms are otherwise occupied. Making UAS while having occupied arms works because UAS aren't necessarily tied to your hands. Even though your hands are otherwise occupied, you can still make an UAS by using a different part of your body. You are trying to apply this same benefit to claw attacks. Ergo, you are trying to make claw attacks with different parts of your body. Hence, "you cannot make claw attacks with your feat", whether you are a Monk with FCT or not."--fretgod99 38 minutes ago

Stop strawmanning me. The Claw attacks are made with the claws on your hands, the bite attacks are made with one of your mouths, the tentacle attacks are made with your tentacles, the Talon attacks are made with your feet, and the Unarmed Strikes are made with whatever. Feral Combat Training is not being used for this at all.


Uh, if your hands are full, you cannot make claw attacks. If your hands are full, you cannot punch. Fortunately UAS are not limited to punching, so you can still UAS if your hands are full. Claws are not so fluid. Claws can only be made with the hands attached to said claws. If your hands are full, you cannot make claw attacks with those hands.

In a previous post, you argued that via FCT, you can make claw attacks when your hands are full, due to the UAS language. That is what I am addressing.


I'm not sure how you've proven that the prerequisite for a feat is an effect. A prereq is not an effect. The effect of a feat is what the feat does, not how you qualify for it. The effect of Multiattack is to reduce the penalties of secondary natural weapons. It says nothing about what weapons are counted to qualify for the feat. Moreover, an UAS does not in any way benefit from MA because it's not a secondary natural weapon. It's not even a primary natural weapon. It does not allow you to qualify for feats with natural weapon prerequisites because it is not actually a natural weapon and qualifying for a feat is not an effect applicable to natural weapons.

So no, I don't have to admit you're correct because I do not believe that you are. If you were, Monks without actual natural weapons could qualify for feral combat training as well as improved natural attack, among other feats.


WyldDawn wrote:

Hello, everyone! I'm currently designing a dastardly Vampire to strike the fear of undeath into all.

However, I've some questions about Natural Attacks and Manufactured weapons and how they all combine, as I keep seeing conflicting opinions.

A vampire gains a slam attack. If our Vampire also owned a greatsword, and also had access to the Claws ability of the Sorcerer Abyssal bloodline, how do they all interact?

If he has his Sword sheathed, does he gain (Slam + Claw + Claw), or must he choose between (Slam + Claw) and (Claw + Claw)?

If he's wielding his Greatsword, he clearly loses both claws, but does he also lose his slam?

I keep seeing references both to slams requiring a limb, but also to several creatures using a "body slam".

Thanks for your time!

You could (Slam + claw + claw) or if you held your weapon in one hand you could (Slam + claw). The rulling is quite simple, a slam is a primary natural attack, getting claws (ONLY 2 as per described by the sorcerer bloodline ability)will give you 2 more primary natural attacks. There is no limit to the number of natural attack you can perform in a full attack action but most monster are balanced with that in mind. Look at the summoner Eidolon limit of attacks per round for instance. If somehow your vamp would be able to have horns and actually gain a gore attack he could (Slam, Claw, Claw, gore).

For the greatsword + slam case since mechanically a slam is a primary natural attack. However it would be treated as a secondary attack and would carry a -5 penalty on attack rolls with said slam attack.

Natural attacks are really their own things, you should go read the entry in the universal monster rule in the bestiary it's a great refresher.

For your vamo


fretgod99 wrote:

Uh, if your hands are full, you cannot make claw attacks. If your hands are full, you cannot punch. Fortunately UAS are not limited to punching, so you can still UAS if your hands are full. Claws are not so fluid. Claws can only be made with the hands attached to said claws. If your hands are full, you cannot make claw attacks with those hands.

In a previous post, you argued that via FCT, you can make claw attacks when your hands are full, due to the UAS language. That is what I am addressing.

I have already conceded this point to Claxon. Since the description of Unarmed Strikes specifically stated that Monks could make Unarmed Strikes with their hands full, it really looked like a Monk ability to me. But Claxon pointed out that in the description of Unarmed Strikes also includes things like kicking and headbutting, which means that everyone can make unarmed strikes with their hands full, and that means that it is not a Monk Ability and that it is not augmenting an Unarmed Strike.

So not only are you strawmanning me, you are also necroing an old argument, and for the 2nd time, I'd like you to please stop.


fretgod99 wrote:

I'm not sure how you've proven that the prerequisite for a feat is an effect. A prereq is not an effect. The effect of a feat is what the feat does, not how you qualify for it. The effect of Multiattack is to reduce the penalties of secondary natural weapons. It says nothing about what weapons are counted to qualify for the feat. Moreover, an UAS does not in any way benefit from MA because it's not a secondary natural weapon. It's not even a primary natural weapon. It does not allow you to qualify for feats with natural weapon prerequisites because it is not actually a natural weapon and qualifying for a feat is not an effect applicable to natural weapons.

So no, I don't have to admit you're correct because I do not believe that you are. If you were, Monks without actual natural weapons could qualify for feral combat training as well as improved natural attack, among other feats.

I don't know how you could be made more sure.

Monk Unarmed Strikes count as both natural and manufactured weapons for effects that enhance natural or weapon attacks.

Do you contest that? If you do, bring forth the evidence. I still await evidence.

Multiattack has an effect that enhances natural attacks. The fact that it does not enhance ALL natural attacks is immaterial, because Monk Unarmed Strikes count as a natural attack for effects that enhance natural attacks, not only for effects that enhance ALL natural attacks.

Do you contest that? Bring forth the evidence. I still await the evidence.

If you contest neither of those things, then it logically follows that you believe Monk Unarmed Strikes count as Natural Attacks with respect to Multiattack, and that you agree with me.

Abandon or embrace evidence. Abandon or embrace logic. Or find evidence of your own.

Claxon found evidence, and I found and volunteered evidence to support his argument, an FAQ that said that Feral Combat Training allowed you to treat your natural attack as if it were a Monk Weapon, and then I pointed out that you can't use a Monk Weapon in the same hand and same round as you use a shield (or greatsword).

But the Animated Corpse of his argument with me will not fight me for you. I rebuke it.


Monk unarmed strikes count as natural weapons for certain spells and effects, but don't count as natural weapons across the board.

Consider for a moment the end to the description of flurry of blows:

Quote:
A monk with natural weapons cannot use such weapons as part of a flurry of blows, nor can he make natural attacks in addition to his flurry of blows attacks.

Following the logic that "monk UAS are natural weapons under all circumstances", monks would never get to use their unarmed attacks in a flurry unless they took Feral Combat Training. This was clearly not the intention of the writers. Also, why would there be a caveat specifically for "monks with natural weapons" if the monk UAS already counted as one?

Additionally, consider this Rules of the Game article from 3.5:

Quote:
A feat that requires natural weaponry as a prerequisite, such as Multiattack, doesn't work with unarmed strikes. Likewise, having a natural weapon is not a substitute for the Improved Unarmed Strike feat. For example, you don't meet the Improved Unarmed Strike prerequisite for the Deflect Arrows feat if you just have a natural weapon.

Bear in mind the description of the monk's unarmed strike ability is unchanged from 3.5. Unless you have some text which changes or updates this interpretation in Pathfinder (developer's comments, errata, new text), everything defaults to the 3.5 interpretation.

That being said, I'll point out that if the only point of contention is multiattack, the feat only requires that you have three or more natural attacks - the source doesn't matter. Ergo, you'd qualify for multiattack as soon as you put on any of those magical items that gave you additional natural attacks. (Of course, you'd lose the ability to benefit from the feat if your gear got sundered or negated, but you'd get it back as soon as the items in question were restored or replaced.)


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

Uh, if your hands are full, you cannot make claw attacks. If your hands are full, you cannot punch. Fortunately UAS are not limited to punching, so you can still UAS if your hands are full. Claws are not so fluid. Claws can only be made with the hands attached to said claws. If your hands are full, you cannot make claw attacks with those hands.

In a previous post, you argued that via FCT, you can make claw attacks when your hands are full, due to the UAS language. That is what I am addressing.

I have already conceded this point to Claxon. Since the description of Unarmed Strikes specifically stated that Monks could make Unarmed Strikes with their hands full, it really looked like a Monk ability to me. But Claxon pointed out that in the description of Unarmed Strikes also includes things like kicking and headbutting, which means that everyone can make unarmed strikes with their hands full, and that means that it is not a Monk Ability and that it is not augmenting an Unarmed Strike.

So not only are you strawmanning me, you are also necroing an old argument, and for the 2nd time, I'd like you to please stop.

My apologies for necroing an old argument. In my defense, the way you quoted things most of the last page was really difficult to read. And it isn't a strawman if it was a point you actually made. Regardless, moving on ...


Scott Wilhelm wrote:

I don't know how you could be made more sure.

Monk Unarmed Strikes count as both natural and manufactured weapons for effects that enhance natural or weapon attacks.

Do you contest that? If you do, bring forth the evidence. I still await evidence.

Why would I disagree with that? I've mentioned that a number of times in my posts.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Multiattack has an effect that enhances natural attacks. The fact that it does not enhance ALL natural attacks is immaterial, because Monk Unarmed Strikes count as a natural attack for effects that enhance natural attacks, not only for effects that enhance ALL natural attacks.

Do you contest that? Bring forth the evidence. I still await the evidence.

Why would I disagree with that? I've, again, mentioned a number of times in my posts. The issue isn't with whether the benefit of Multiattack would apply to a Monk's UAS: it undoubtedly would, even though it provides absolutely no benefit to UAS. The issue is whether a Monk's UAS can be used to qualify a character to even take Multiattack in the first place. So no, I don't disagree with this because it isn't the problem I'm addressing.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

If you contest neither of those things, then it logically follows that you believe Monk Unarmed Strikes count as Natural Attacks with respect to Multiattack, and that you agree with me.

Abandon or embrace evidence. Abandon or embrace logic. Or find evidence of your own.

And this is where you go off the rails. It does not logically follow that if a Monk's UAS is treated as a natural weapon for the purposes of spells and effects that function on natural weapons, that a Monk's UAS is therefore considered to be a natural weapon for any and all purposes (specifically, with satisfying the prerequisites of taking the feat in the first place). Being a natural weapon to qualify for a prerequisite of a feat and benefiting from the effect provided by the feat are two completely different things.

You haven't provided evidence of anything. You've demonstrated that you're reading rules out of contexts. Prerequisites are not effects. Prove that a prerequisite for a feat is an effect and you'd have a leg to stand on that a Monk's UAS benefits from the mere fact that a feat that has a natural weapon requirement simply exists. An effect is what the feat does; a prerequisite is what you need to satisfy to be able to choose the feat. You're presuming that because a Monk's UAS is a valid target of the former, it necessarily counts for the latter. This is incorrect.

Do you honestly believe that a standard human Monk should be able to qualify for Improved Natural Attack? Because that is what you are arguing. If a Monk's UAS is a natural weapon for prerequisite purposes, then it certainly qualifies them for INA. If it doesn't work for INA (and it shouldn't, because the idea is preposterous and wholly unsupported by the rules), then it doesn't work for Multiattack, either.

Liberty's Edge

If, and I mean this is a big if—and by that I mean, no it doesn't actually work this way, but I'm using it to help make a point even though it doesn't actually work this way—UAS qualified for Multiattack, it would only be one of the three required attacks.

But UAS (monk or otherwise) doesn't qualify for Multiattack because UAS is considered a manufactured weapon. The Monk is unique because the Monks's UAS is able to be modified by spells and equipment that also affect natural weapons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I haven't quite kept up enough to remember if this is still relevant (or if it has been brought up), but I think I found an example that helps to answer the slam question.

In Carrion Crown's Ashes of Dawn, there are several vampires stated out. Here is the stat block of one wielding a longsword: link

The attack block is as such

offense wrote:

+1 longsword +16/+16/+11 (1d8+9/19–20) or slam +14/+14 (1d4+8 plus energy drain)

So that seems to indicated that you can't use your arms for other things if you use a slam.

Of course, that doesn't mean that slam attacks are still not generally mysterious (since a lot of creatures have a slam attack per arm, as I cited early on).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Don't forget the tanuki. He makes attacks with both ends of a two-handed quarterstaff plus he gets a slam attack with some other part of his body:

tanuki offense wrote:

mwk quarterstaff +7 (1d6+2), mwk quarterstaff +7 (1d6+1), slam +2 (1d6+1)

It looks like the unspoken developer assumption is that a vampire makes slam attacks with his arms, thus making them unavailable for other arm/hand driven attacks. However, the tanuki will slam you with his prodigious scrotum.


Very cool lakeside. Yeah. I remember back in 3.5 and a certain duel with a vampire. Guy got disarmed of his magic sword, sucks for him, but then he started brutally pulling out the slams with the level drain. There was a reason he didn't wear gauntlets.

On monks and unarmed strike, they don't have to actually use their arms but there are some restrictions.


fretgod99 wrote:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:

I don't know how you could be made more sure.

Monk Unarmed Strikes count as both natural and manufactured weapons for effects that enhance natural or weapon attacks.

Do you contest that? If you do, bring forth the evidence. I still await evidence.

Why would I disagree with that? I've mentioned that a number of times in my posts.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Multiattack has an effect that enhances natural attacks. The fact that it does not enhance ALL natural attacks is immaterial, because Monk Unarmed Strikes count as a natural attack for effects that enhance natural attacks, not only for effects that enhance ALL natural attacks.

Do you contest that? Bring forth the evidence. I still await the evidence.

Why would I disagree with that? I've, again, mentioned a number of times in my posts. The issue isn't with whether the benefit of Multiattack would apply to a Monk's UAS: it undoubtedly would, even though it provides absolutely no benefit to UAS. The issue is whether a Monk's UAS can be used to qualify a character to even take Multiattack in the first place. So no, I don't disagree with this because it isn't the problem I'm addressing.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

If you contest neither of those things, then it logically follows that you believe Monk Unarmed Strikes count as Natural Attacks with respect to Multiattack, and that you agree with me.

Abandon or embrace evidence. Abandon or embrace logic. Or find evidence of your own.

And this is where you go off the rails. It does not logically follow that if a Monk's UAS is treated as a natural weapon for the purposes of spells and effects that function on natural weapons, that a Monk's UAS is therefore considered to be a natural weapon for any and all purposes (specifically, with satisfying the prerequisites of taking the feat in the first place). Being a natural weapon to qualify for a prerequisite of a feat and benefiting from the effect provided by the feat are two completely different...

So you have decided to abandon logic.


lemeres wrote:

I haven't quite kept up enough to remember if this is still relevant (or if it has been brought up), but I think I found an example that helps to answer the slam question.

In Carrion Crown's Ashes of Dawn, there are several vampires stated out. Here is the stat block of one wielding a longsword: link

The attack block is as such

offense wrote:

+1 longsword +16/+16/+11 (1d8+9/19–20) or slam +14/+14 (1d4+8 plus energy drain)

So that seems to indicated that you can't use your arms for other things if you use a slam.

Of course, that doesn't mean that slam attacks are still not generally mysterious (since a lot of creatures have a slam attack per arm, as I cited early on).

It's not completely irrelevant. It's mostly irrelevant. We're not talking about combining manufactured weapons with natural attacks. It's about combining natural attacks and the Multiattack Feat.

Since we the feats we were talking about were claws, bites, tentacles, horns, and fretgod even mentioned talons, slams, and Monk Unarmed Strikes, Multiattack isn't even required, since insofar as they are natural attacks, they are all primary natural attacks, and Multiattack doesn't even apply.

Since Monk Natural Attacks also count as Manufactured weapons, you could argue that combining a Monk US into the Natural Full Attack Action would adversely affect the attack routine the same way a sword attack would, so Multiattack MIGHT be necessary.

I am putting forth that since MUS count as natural attacks, they qualify as a prerequisite for Multiattack. This is also a very minor point, since prevailing opinion on this thread is that even 2 claws and a Slam counts as 3 natural attacks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
So you have decided to abandon logic.

What is this? I don't even ...

I'm going to try to be patient and walk through this because it appears you don't understand how the problem is set up, which explain why you don't see your error.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
We're not talking about combining manufactured weapons with natural attacks. It's about combining natural attacks and the Multiattack Feat.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
I am putting forth that since MUS count as natural attacks, they qualify as a prerequisite for Multiattack.

This, right here, is your mistake. This is where you are making your error. And because of this, you're misconstruing how the rules function.

There is a fundamental and very important difference between the following two things:
1. X is a member of the class of Y.
2. X is treated as a member of the class Y for the purpose of Z.

Unarmed Strikes, whether a Monk's or otherwise, are not natural weapons. Period. End of discussion. Full stop. Unarmed Strikes have always been and will always be manufactured weapons. The Monk's rules entry does not say that a Monk's Unarmed Strikes "are natural weapons". What the entry says is:

Monk wrote:
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as ... a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve ... natural weapons.

Bolding for emphasis.

You are taking this entry, which unequivocally says "treated as [for a specific purpose]" and then claiming that it means "are now [for all purposes]".

The rules tell us what limited purposes for which the Monk's Unarmed Strikes count as natural weapons, only as the target or beneficiary of effects or spells that enhance or improve natural weapons.

This same idea crops up all over the rules. Various abilities or items are "treated as" members of a separate class, but they're not actually full-fledged members of that class, entitled to all rights, privileges, and responsibilities thereof.

For instance, the Tengu has an alternate racial trait available:

Tengu wrote:
Claw Attack: Tengus with this racial trait have learned to use their claws as natural weapons. They gain two claw attacks as primary natural attacks that deal 1d3 points of damage, and are treated as having the Improved Unarmed Strike feat for the purpose of qualifying for other feats.

You must understand the difference between "treated as [for a specific purpose]" and "actually are [for all purposes]" in order to have a solid understanding of the rules of the game. The Tengu with Claw Attack does not actually have Improved Unarmed Strike. So while such a Tengu may choose to select, for instance, Improved Grapple, said Tengu would still provoke an attack of opportunity from an opponent if that Tengu had its hands full and tried to kick an adjacent target. The only purpose for which the Tengu is treated as having the IUS feat is to qualify for feats. Avoiding AoO from US is not something for which having IUS is a prerequisite; it is a benefit of the IUS feat, which the Tengu does not actually have.

The same thing is at play for a Monk's US. It is treated as a natural weapon, but only when it would benefit from a spell or an effect. You are correct that the benefit of Multiattack would (potentially) interplay with a Monk's US. But a prerequisite is not "a spell or effect". And a prerequisite certainly doesn't improve or enhance anything.

If you insist upon this interpretation that a Monk's US actually is a natural weapon, then please tell me what kind of natural weapon it is. Is it primary or secondary? Where in the rules do you find that answer?

Moreover, if a Monk has no other natural weapons, why doesn't that Monk's US deal 1.5 STR damage each and every time it hits?

Also, if a Monk mixes a kick or punch in with a strike from a quarterstaff or some other weapon, why doesn't the kick or punch suffer from a -5 to hit and only do half STR?

Additionally, why do Monks get iteratives with their US? Natural weapons do not benefit from iteratives; they strike at either full BAB or BAB -5.

Finally, to address this:

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Since Monk Natural Attacks also count as Manufactured weapons, you could argue that combining a Monk US into the Natural Full Attack Action would adversely affect the attack routine the same way a sword attack would, so Multiattack MIGHT be necessary.

There's no argument about it. That is exactly what happens. If you add an US into a natural attack routine, all the natural attacks are treated as secondary. This happens because US are manufactured weapons and not actually natural attacks, whether the creature is a Monk or not.

So again,

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
So you have decided to abandon logic.

What is this? I don't even ...


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
This is also a very minor point, since prevailing opinion on this thread is that even 2 claws and a Slam counts as 3 natural attacks.

Just a quick note to provide evidence that it's not just the prevailing opinion in this thread, but how the rules are intended to function. As was mentioned above, there is a difference between natural attacks and natural attack type. If something is calling for a number of natural attacks, it is asking for the aggregate number of attacks, whether of the same type or not. It will specify when it is requesting the type of attack (as it does when treating a secondary natural weapons as a primary natural weapon if it is the only type of natural weapon the creature has).

But here are some Bestiary entries for creatures all of which have three or more natural attacks, but fewer than three natural attack types and these creatures have Multiattack (not listed as a bonus feat, because that could lead to a whole different set of justifications).

Shaggy Demodand
Lizardfolk
Moonflower
Handmaiden Devil
Viper Vine
Cerebric Fungus
Athach
Scylla
Dust Digger
Piscodaemon
Quickwood

That should hopefully be more than enough to demonstrate the point. I didn't feel like going through everything, nor is it necessary.


So I do like the evidence. I am convinced that 2 claws and 1 slam count as 3 natural attacks instead of 2.


But if a bite, a slam, a claw, and a tentacle all count as primary natural attacks, then why do these creatures even have Multiattack?


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
But if a bite, a slam, a claw, and a tentacle all count as primary natural attacks, then why do these creatures even have Multiattack?

A tentacle is a secondary natural weapon. So creatures with tentacles, roots, etc. have MA so they have reduced penalties with those attacks. A tentacle would only be treated as a primary natural weapon if "tentacle" is the only attack type the creature had available.

Creatures with Bite + 2x Claw or Bite + 2x Slam or whatever typically have MA in the event that the creature might also make use of a weapon. Remember, when combined with a manufactured weapon, all natural attacks become secondary (meaning BAB-5 and half STR). The MA feat reduces the attack penalty for all secondary natural weapons from -5 to -2 (though they still only get half STR), even those natural weapons that are only treated as being secondary because they are being combined with manufactured weapons. This is typically borne out in their Bestiary entries.

If you look at the melee line for the Lizardfolk, there are two options: morningstar +2 & bite +0, or claw & bite both at +2 (though oddly this entry doesn't mention both claws, usually it notes the multiple claws, roots, tentacles, etc.). Without MA, the first attack option would be morningstar +2 & bite -3.

Similarly, the Athach can attack with two claws and a bite, all at +19, or it can attack with a heavy mace at +19/+14 and a bite at +17 (and conceivably with another claw at +17). Without the MA feat, its bite (and possible claw) would be at +14 instead of +17. The Athach also has another special claw attack option which is handled differently but isn't really relevant here (check out the Swift Claw entry - it's a pretty powerful little bonus).


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
We're not talking about combining manufactured weapons with natural attacks. It's about combining natural attacks and the Multiattack Feat.
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
“I am putting forth that since MUS count as natural attacks, they qualify as a prerequisite for Multiattack.

Fretgod wrote: “This, right here, is your mistake. This is where you are making your error. And because of this, you're misconstruing how the rules function."

Well, this is our point of contention. I assert that it is your mistake. You haven't convinced me that I am in error yet.

“You are taking this entry, which unequivocally says "treated as [for a specific purpose]" and then claiming that it means "are now [for all purposes].”

No I am not, at least not yet. We are arguing about 1 purpose, not every purpose. I’d count this as strawmanning, btw.

Fretgod wrote: “There is a fundamental and very important difference between the following two things:
1. X is a member of the class of Y.
2. X is treated as a member of the class Y for the purpose of Z.”
Unarmed Strikes, whether a Monk's or otherwise, are not natural weapons.”

I agree that there is a difference between one thing being the same as another from one thing being treated as another sometimes. I further agree with you that Monk Unarmed Strikes are not Natural Weapons, but are treated as Natural Weapons sometimes.

“Unarmed Strikes have always been and will always be manufactured weapons.”

No, they are not.

“A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.”

In exactly the same way that a Monk’s Unarmed Strike is not a Natural Weapon, but may be treated as one sometimes, so is a MUS not a manufactured weapon, but may be treated as one sometimes. Our point of contention has to do with which times.

“The Monk's rules entry does not say that a Monk's Unarmed Strikes "are natural weapons". What the entry says is:
Monk wrote:
A monk's unarmed strike is treated as ... a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve ... natural weapons.”

This quotation is a misrepresentation of the truth in a material matter to your last post. I believe this is a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth. If you have other information to prove that Unarmed Strikes are natural weapons I will examine it.

Shame on you.

"The rules tell us what limited purposes for which the Monk's Unarmed Strikes count as natural weapons, only as the target or beneficiary of effects or spells that enhance or improve natural weapons."

Here is an effect. Using a manufactured weapon in conjunction with natural attacks in a Full Attack Action imposes causes the natural attacks to be treated as secondary natural attacks and secondary natural attacks take a -5. But using just another natural attack in conjunction with other natural attacks doesn’t. So treating the Monk Unarmed Strike as a Natural Attack certainly has the effect of improving and enhancing the other Natural Attacks.

Here is another effect. Taking the Multiattack feat has the effect of reducing secondary natural attack penalties from -5 to -2. That’s an effect that enhances and improves natural attacks. And because of Multiattack has this effect, it follows logically that Monk Unarmed Strikes count as Natural Attacks vis a vis the Multiattack Feat.

It doesn't say beneficiary.

Now you may argue that the benefit applying to MUS does not necessarily mean that the Prerequisites apply, too, and that is an interesting argument. But it is really poor game design and poor logic if the Multiattack Feat description has no logical integrity even within itself.

“Monk's US. But a prerequisite is not "a spell or effect". And a prerequisite certainly doesn't improve or enhance anything.”

Ah, you do.

But being able to use the feat is, and that is what allowing it as a prerequisite does. Furthermore, it doesn't say that the MUS must be the beneficiary of that effect. It says "treated as... for the purposes of..."

“If you insist upon this interpretation that a Monk's US actually is a natural weapon,”

I didn’t, but if I did

“then please tell me what kind of natural weapon it is. Is it primary or secondary? Where in the rules do you find that answer?”

Primary. There is a list of secondary natural attacks, and monk unarmed strikes isn’t on it. And since it doesn’t specify that it is secondary in the description of Monk Unarmed Strikes, that would make it primary.

“Moreover, if a Monk has no other natural weapons, why doesn't that Monk's US deal 1.5 STR damage each and every time it hits?”

Good question. It specifies in the description of Monk Unarmed Strikes, “A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.”--http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/monk.html#_monk

It doesn’t say 1.5. It says 1.

“Also, if a Monk mixes a kick or punch in with a strike from a quarterstaff or some other weapon, why doesn't the kick or punch suffer from a -5 to hit and only do half STR?”

Because a Monk’s Unarmed Strikes may also count as Manufactured Weapons for effects that enhance or improve, and it specifies that Monk Unarmed Strikes enjoy their full Strength bonus. It doesn’t say 0.5. It says 1.

“Additionally, why do Monks get iteratives with their US? Natural weapons do not benefit from iteratives; they strike at either full BAB or BAB -5.”

There are 2 ways Monks get US iteratives. 1 way is with Flurry of Blows, which is a different special ability. The other is that while MUS may be treated as Natural Weapons for improving and enhancing effects, they are still not Natural Weapons and do not suffer the no-iterative restriction.

“Finally, to address this:
Scott Wilhelm wrote:
‘Since Monk Natural Attacks also count as Manufactured weapons, you could argue that combining a Monk US into the Natural Full Attack Action would adversely affect the attack routine the same way a sword attack would, so Multiattack MIGHT be necessary.’
There's no argument about it. That is exactly what happens. If you add an US into a natural attack routine, all the natural attacks are treated as secondary. This happens because US are manufactured weapons and not actually natural attacks, whether the creature is a Monk or not.”

But suffering a -5 on your attack rolls is certainly an effect that enhances the Natural Attack, and so the relief of that penalty both an enhancement and an improvement. Monk Unarmed Strikes may be treated as a Natural Attack for this effect, too.

Huh, okay, now we are arguing about 2 purposes. That is more than 1 purpose, but it is still way less than all purposes.

“Period. End of discussion. Full stop.”

You could end the discussion right now by admitting I’m right


If you were right, I'd happily admit it. I honestly cannot fathom how one does not understand that a prerequisite is not an effect.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
We're not talking about combining manufactured weapons with natural attacks. It's about combining natural attacks and the Multiattack Feat.

But Unarmed Strikes aren't natural weapons, so ...

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
You are taking this entry, which unequivocally says "treated as [for a specific purpose]" and then claiming that it means "are now [for all purposes].
No I am not, at least not yet. We are arguing about 1 purpose, not every purpose. I’d count this as strawmanning, btw.

I'm not sure you know what a Strawman is. This is the second time you've accused me of presenting a Strawman when I'm responding to words you literally said. You said that Unarmed Strikes were natural weapons in a previous post. If you were sloppily wording your reply, I can understand that, but it's not on me. If you said it, it's not a Strawman.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Unarmed Strikes have always been and will always be manufactured weapons.”
No, they are not.

They're not natural weapons. And they appear on the manufactured weapons table in the Equipment chapter. And creatures which don't have natural weapons may still make Unarmed Strikes. But whatever floats your boat.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:

The Monk's rules entry does not say that a Monk's Unarmed Strikes "are natural weapons". What the entry says is:

Monk wrote:


A monk's unarmed strike is treated as ... a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve ... natural weapons.

This quotation is a misrepresentation of the truth in a material matter to your last post. I believe this is a deliberate misrepresentation of the truth. If you have other information to prove that Unarmed Strikes are natural weapons I will examine it.

Shame on you.

Wat. Seriously, I have no idea what you're talking about. I literally just quoted the rules entry from the PRD. The quote demonstrates that US are not natural weapons, but are treated as such for a very limited purpose.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
The rules tell us what limited purposes for which the Monk's Unarmed Strikes count as natural weapons, only as the target or beneficiary of effects or spells that enhance or improve natural weapons.
Here is an effect. Using a manufactured weapon in conjunction with natural attacks in a Full Attack Action imposes causes the natural attacks to be treated as secondary natural attacks and secondary natural attacks take a -5. But using just another natural attack in conjunction with other natural attacks doesn’t. So treating the Monk Unarmed Strike as a Natural Attack certainly has the effect of improving and enhancing the other Natural Attacks.

But it would be enhancing other natural attacks. The Monk's US entry doesn't say that it should be treated as a natural weapon when it would be an improvement or an enhancement for other natural weapons. It says the US itself needs to be improved or enhanced.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Here is another effect. Taking the Multiattack feat has the effect of reducing secondary natural attack penalties from -5 to -2. That’s an effect that enhances and improves natural attacks. And because of Multiattack has this effect, it follows logically that Monk Unarmed Strikes count as Natural Attacks vis a vis the Multiattack Feat.

Right. I've said this very thing myself. The benefit of the MA feat would apply to US. Because it is an effect enhancing natural weapons. Of course, any such benefit is pointless on US because that benefit doesn't actually do anything for the US. But yes, that benefit does apply.

However, this has nothing to do with satisfying the prerequisites of the Multiattack feat. The question isn't whether the "benefit" section of the MA feat applies to US. The question is whether US can be used to count as a natural weapon for the purpose of qualifying for the MA feat. You've presented nothing to support that claim. Because it's preposterous.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Now you may argue that the benefit applying to MUS does not necessarily mean that the Prerequisites apply, too, and that is an interesting argument. But it is really poor game design and poor logic if the Multiattack Feat description has no logical integrity even within itself.

Did you ignore the whole Tengu point I made? This very thing happens all the time. You count as something for one reason, but not for another. You even agreed with the point above. Now you're calling it bad game design.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
But being able to use the feat is, and that is what allowing it as a prerequisite does. Furthermore, it doesn't say that the MUS must be the beneficiary of that effect. It says "treated as... for the purposes of..."

Prerequisite for Multiattack: You must have three natural weapons. This is not an effect. It is a static requirement. Do you have three natural weapons, yes or no? You've already stated that US are not natural weapons. Therefore, you check no. That's it. Go no further.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
then please tell me what kind of natural weapon it is. Is it primary or secondary? Where in the rules do you find that answer?
Primary. There is a list of secondary natural attacks, and monk unarmed strikes isn’t on it. And since it doesn’t specify that it is secondary in the description of Monk Unarmed Strikes, that would make it primary.

I don't see "Unarmed Strike" anywhere on this table, or any other, for that matter, whether listed as "primary" or "secondary". That's probably because it's not a natural attack.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
Moreover, if a Monk has no other natural weapons, why doesn't that Monk's US deal 1.5 STR damage each and every time it hits?

Good question. It specifies in the description of Monk Unarmed Strikes, “A monk may thus apply his full Strength bonus on damage rolls for all his unarmed strikes.”--http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/classes/monk.html#_monk

It doesn’t say 1.5. It says 1.

Except the whole 1.5 STR rule is something that "improves" or "enhances" natural weapons. So, per your argument, it ought to apply.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
fretgod99 wrote:
There's no argument about it. That is exactly what happens. If you add an US into a natural attack routine, all the natural attacks are treated as secondary. This happens because US are manufactured weapons and not actually natural attacks, whether the creature is a Monk or not.
But suffering a -5 on your attack rolls is certainly an effect that enhances the Natural Attack, and so the relief of that penalty both an enhancement and an improvement. Monk Unarmed Strikes may be treated as a Natural Attack for this effect, too.

I don't think you understand the ultimate point. I'm not saying that the benefit of the MA feat cannot apply when you're using US. I'm saying that you cannot use US one of the required three natural weapons when qualifying for the Multiattack feat. That's it. There is no impact of the benefit the feat provides. I honestly don't know why it's being discussed. Whatever the benefit is does not matter. It would technically apply, even though it doesn't do anything for the US. That the benefit applies to the US does not mean that the existence of the US counts to qualify for the feat. That is my only point of contention.

Your point requires that a standard human Monk would be able to qualify for and take the Improved Natural Attack feat. If that is the case, why does nobody ever do this?

Sczarni

To summarize: Scott is wrong. Fret dog is correct.

/thread.


Krodjin,

reread the posts. I think you should back off.


Krodjin wrote:

To summarize: Scott is wrong. Fret dog is correct.

/thread.

To summarize, my evidence is real. Fretgod's is falsified. I win, he loses.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Krodjin wrote:

To summarize: Scott is wrong. Fret dog is correct.

/thread.

To summarize, my evidence is real. Fretgod's is falsified. I win, he loses.

Literally nothing in this post is true.


Okay, Fretgod, this is what I think a straw man is.

"straw man, noun: straw man; plural noun: straw men; noun: strawman; plural noun: strawmen:

1) a person compared to a straw image; a sham.

2) a sham argument set up to be defeated."

This is what I am calling your strawman version of my argument.

"You are taking this entry, which unequivocally says "treated as [for a specific purpose]" and then claiming that it means "are now [for all purposes]".

This is the argument I really posted.

"I am putting forth that since MUS count as natural attacks, they qualify as a prerequisite for Multiattack."

I am only saying that there is a Monk special ability that lets Monks treat their unarmed strikes as natural attacks, and that that ability lets Monks use their unarmed strikes as prerequisites for the Multiattack Feat.

A prerequisite for Multiattack is only 1 purpose, it is not all purposes. I do not think that is the only purpose that that Monk special ability can be applied to, but I do think it can be applied to this purpose.

To say that I am arguing that Monk Unarmed Strikes are natural attacks for all purposes is misattributing an argument to me, and that fits the 2nd definition of a straw man. It is not as outrageous a misattribution as the one you did before. but it counts.


Scott Wilhelm wrote:
"I am putting forth that since MUS count as natural attacks, they qualify as a prerequisite for Multiattack."

You realize that your claim there isn't "MUS count as natural weapons for some limited purposes". Your claim is, literally, "MUS count as natural attacks. Because of that, they qualify as a prerequisite for Multiattack."

The important part: "MUS count as natural attacks". Not, "MUS count as natural attacks for a limited purpose of ...".

Hence,

fretgod99 wrote:
If you were sloppily wording your reply, I can understand that, but it's not on me. If you said it, it's not a Strawman.

You inartfully worded your position. That is certainly fine; we've all done it. No big deal. However, they really are the words that came out of your post, so I have no way of knowing that, at the time, this isn't what you meant. Ergo, I'm not falsely attributing anything to you. Thus, once again, not a Strawman.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

I am only saying that there is a Monk special ability that lets Monks treat their unarmed strikes as natural attacks (fretgod insert: only for the limited purpose of being the recipient of a spell or effect which improves or enhances natural weapons), and that that ability lets Monks use their unarmed strikes as prerequisites for the Multiattack Feat.

A prerequisite for Multiattack is only 1 purpose, it is not all purposes. I do not think that is the only purpose that that Monk special ability can be applied to, but I do think it can be applied to this purpose.

To say that I am arguing that Monk Unarmed Strikes are natural attacks for all purposes is misattributing an argument to me, and that fits the 2nd definition of a straw man. It is not as outrageous a misattribution as the one you did before. but it counts.

What other "misattribution" did I make? Are you referring to me stating that you claimed you could make claw attacks with your feet if your arms were full? You also called that a Strawman.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Monks have the ability to use their unarmed strikes even with their hands full. If the ability to make unarmed strikes with your hands full is NOT an effect of taking the Improved Unarmed Strike Feat by taking a level in Monk instead of some other way, then that means that everyone can make unarmed strikes with their hands full, and you don't even need to take FCT achieve this non-effect.

Does it augment?

"aug·ment, /ôgˈment/: make (something) greater by adding to it; increase." --https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=augment

His claw attacks will be made greater by adding this ability to it. That fits the definition of augment. Of course, if it did NOT augment the vampire claws, if it had no effect, you would never bother to argue against it, I think.

I have now proven, according to the laws of the Paizo universe and the language that those laws are written in, that

1) the ability to make Unarmed Strikes with your hands full is an effect, and

2) it augments what it is added to.

So it is an effect that augments an unarmed strike, and therefore, it can be applied via Feral Combat Training.

This particular instance of applying this feat would be analogous to a Wizard being able to cast spells with somatic components even while using a 2 handed weapon like a quarterstaff, and there's nothing wrong with that.

There it is. That is your post absolutely 100% literally saying the thing you just accused me of Strawmanning.

I don't know how many times I can say this, but I shall try one more time. If you actually make the claim, it's not a Strawman.

That being said, I recognized that you subsequently backed off the claim and apologized for necroing the old issue. But if you're going to accuse me of dishonesty in a debate, I'm going to take you to task. You are out of your league here. You need to stop. I've not Strawmanned you a single time. Both instances you've claimed are due to poor communication on your part. You've also claimed I intentionally misrepresented the truth somehow, which I'm still trying to pinpoint because the thing you apparently called me out for was me literally just quoting the CRB. So I am at a loss.

And let's not forget this little barb of yours:

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
Krodjin wrote:

To summarize: Scott is wrong. Fret dog is correct.

/thread.

To summarize, my evidence is real. Fretgod's is falsified. I win, he loses.

Two things: 1. Which evidence have I "falsified"? Last time I checked, I actually linked to the relevant rules sources. Are you claiming that I rewrote the code to the PRD so I could win this little argument? Where exactly have I presented inaccurate or "falsified" information?

2. What "evidence" have you presented? I've repeatedly asked you one simple question that you can't legitimately answer: How is a prerequisite for a feat a "spell or effect which enhances or improves natural weapons"? You keep glossing over that point. "Well, the effect of the feat applies to MUS, therefore a MUS also should count to satisfy the prerequisite". That's not evidence. That's a claim. You actually have to support those if you want to win a debate. You have not done that. (Oh, and before you go and accuse me of Strawmanning you again on this little point, you made that claim in this post.)

You, yourself, even provided us with a definition of "effect" earlier in this thread.

Scott Wilhelm wrote:
ef·fect, /iˈfekt/: a change that is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.

Please explain to me how a prerequisite meets your definition of effect. How is a prerequisite enhancing or improving a natural weapon? How is a prerequisite a change of anything? Prerequisites don't cause change. They simply are. But, please answer the question. I tire of asking, only for you to respond by making up some nonsense about Strawmen and misattributions.

You really should just cut your losses. I doubt you will at this point. I wouldn't have bothered replying, except you keep calling me out for dishonesty.

Liberty's Edge

*lawyered*

Liberty's Edge

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Okay, Fretgod, this is what I think a straw man is.

"straw man, noun: straw man; plural noun: straw men; noun: strawman; plural noun: strawmen:

1) a person compared to a straw image; a sham.

2) a sham argument set up to be defeated."

It might actually help if you understood what arguing the straw man actually is before you falsely accuse someone of doing it. [EDIT: There is a link in there...it might be hard to see.]

Just because you don't like the Shamrock's rebuttal to various points that you yourself brought up doesn't mean that he's arguing the straw man.

Sczarni

Scott Wilhelm wrote:

Krodjin,

reread the posts. I think you should back off.

Look. I'm sorry if I offended you. I just happen to interpret the rules (in this instance) in a manner similar to fretdog's.

Not only do I agree more with his position, You have this way of quoting threads that is not easy to read. I presume you are posting from your phone or other mobile device.

Using the features for quoting posts or the rules that is available on these forums would help you present your points in a manner that is easier to read & follow.


Krodjin wrote:

To summarize: Scott is wrong. Fret dog is correct.

/thread.

Krodjin, I owe you an explanation.

“Unarmed Strikes have always been and will always be manufactured weapons.”

This is an important point is Fretgod’s argument, and a quote of his own words.

“A monk's unarmed strike is treated as ... a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve ... natural weapons.”

This is a quotation from his post to support his argument.

This is the quote + what he omitted.

“’A monk's unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.’”

This is a significant omission about a significant point in his argument.

The reason why is that this passage describes a Monk class ability that makes their unarmed strikes special: as much natural as manufactured weapons vis a vis enhancing or improving effects. And that weakens his argument, so he edited it out.

This is misrepresenting the truth, an it’s not okay.

Meanwhile he is still strawmanning me, and I am losing patience.

51 to 100 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Claws and slams and swords, oh my! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.