Unarmed Natural Attacks


Rules Questions

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

Hello all, I have a player who took this and this. He's a lizardfolk so he's wondering if the claw and bite damage is added to unarmed damage or what happens otherwise. He has no other weapons.


His natural attacks are their own attacks, independent from unarmed strikes. He can either make a Bite attack and two claw attacks with his full round action, or he can forgo the Claws to use his unarmed strikes, including both feats.

In the latter instance, he can still use his Bite, but he adds only half of his Strength modifier to damage and the attack is made with a -5 penalty.


kestral287 wrote:

His natural attacks are their own attacks, independent from unarmed strikes. He can either make a Bite attack and two claw attacks with his full round action, or he can forgo the Claws to use his unarmed strikes, including both feats.

In the latter instance, he can still use his Bite, but he adds only half of his Strength modifier to damage and the attack is made with a -5 penalty.

Well... no, that's not true at all, actually.

Unarmed Strikes are your entire body, and while you can't use them in conjunction with a Two-Handed Weapon for the purposes of Two-Weapon Fighting (unless you're a Monk, because such maneuvers are too complex for those untrained in Flurrying tactics), you can indeed go:

+5 Unarmed/ +0 Claw / +0 Claw / +0 Bite (assuming he has a BAB of +5)

as a Full Attack Action.

A Full Attack Action with both Natural and Manufactured/Unarmed Attacks are made as normal, but you can't apply Natural Attacks to your BAB Iteration; instead, when they're made as part of a Full Attack with weapons, you make them at your Full BAB-5, and only once each.

That means if you have a +15 BAB, you can't go +15 Claw / +10 Claw / +5 Claw; instead, you can go +15 Unarmed / +10 Unarmed / +5 Unarmed, OR +15 Claw / +15 Claw (because you have 2 Claw Attacks), OR you can go +15 Unarmed / +10 Unarmed / +10 Claw / +10 Claw / +5 Unarmed.

If you THEN get nuts and have the Two-Weapon Fighting tree, weird nonsense happens, because the -2 only applies to your Iterative attacks, which ends up with a Full Attack Action that looks like:

+13 Unarmed (Mainhand) / +13 Unarmed (Offhand) /+10 Claw / +10 Claw / +10 Bite / +8 Unarmed (Mainhand) / +8 Unarmed (Offhand) / +3 Unarmed (Mainhand) / +3 Unarmed (Offhand)

You CANNOT, however, go:

+5 Greatsword / +0 Claw / +0 Claw / +0 Bite

Because your Claws are already being used to hold your weapon.

Unarmed can be fluffified to be a Punch, Kick, Elbow, Headbutt, etc., so you're not limited simply to your hands, meaning your Claws are able to be used in tandem with your Unarmed Strikes.

You also CAN actually make an Unarmed Attack while your hands are full (but only as a normal iterative Attack, like "+6 Greatsword / +1 Unarmed"), because of that same "your whole body is your Unarmed Attack" rule.


chbgraphicarts wrote:

Well... no, that's not true.

Unarmed can be fluffified to be a Punch, Kick, Elbow, Headbutt, etc., so you CAN actually make an Unarmed Attack while your hands are full (but only as a normal iterative Attack, like "+6 Greatsword / +1 Unarmed")

Can you cite the rule on that? Such as I'm aware it's only legal for Monks to strike with body parts other than the hands-- it's a Monk special ability to be able to make an unarmed strike with their hands full.


kestral287 wrote:
chbgraphicarts wrote:

Well... no, that's not true.

Unarmed can be fluffified to be a Punch, Kick, Elbow, Headbutt, etc., so you CAN actually make an Unarmed Attack while your hands are full (but only as a normal iterative Attack, like "+6 Greatsword / +1 Unarmed")

Can you cite the rule on that? Such as I'm aware it's only legal for Monks to strike with body parts other than the hands-- it's a Monk special ability to be able to make an unarmed strike with their hands full.

This is a basic rule that's been stated again and again and again to death:

CRB FAQ wrote:
Therefore, a creature's unarmed strike is its entire body, and a magic fang (or similar spell) cast on a creature's unarmed strike affects all unarmed strikes the creature makes.

Unarmed Strikes aren't just punches - they're any part of your body you choose to beat the other guy with.


Which doesn't cover the hands-full part. Such as I know that's a Monk-only trick (maybe Brawler too? I've never looked honestly).

And if it doesn't work with full hands, it hits the limbs-are-in-use issue and won't work with claws.


kestral287 wrote:

Which doesn't cover the hands-full part. Such as I know that's a Monk-only trick (maybe Brawler too? I've never looked honestly).

And if it doesn't work with full hands, it hits the limbs-are-in-use issue and won't work with claws.

You're allowed to switch weapons between Attack Iterations, including deciding to let one hand go in order to make an Attack.

To wit, you are Allowed to go:

Swing +6 with Greatsword, Free Action let go with one hand, Free Action Quick Draw Longsword, Swing +1 Longsword - assuming your BAB is +6, obviously.

You only need one hand to HOLD a Two-Handed Weapon, but you need two hands to WIELD one.

Dig through the forums - there was a discussion on this very matter, and the ruling was that you can indeed let go of a two-handed weapon with one hands as a Free Action between proper attack iterations, the same way you are allowed to wield a Longsword in one hand and a Warhammer in the other, and make an attack with each that's not a Two-Weapon Fighting Full Attack Action (i.e. +6 Longsword / +1 Warhammer)

---

2 Claws just means you can't make an Attack with your Hands for an Unarmed Attack; you're still allowed to Kick, and you can, as well, make a Two-Handed attack at your highest BAB, an Unarmed Attack at your BAB-5 (when your BAB hits +6), and another Two-Handed Attack at BAB-10 (when your BAB hits +11)


Right. Sure.

At that point you no longer have a full hand, so you can freely punch, kick, headbutt, whatever, even if you're not a Monk.

But there's no such mechanism available to a Claw/Claw/Unarmed Strike routine. You can't switch your Claw attack to another hand. And since to my knowledge all non-Monks need a free hand to use unarmed strikes, they can't use both Claws in the same round as an unarmed strike.


kestral287 wrote:

Right. Sure.

At that point you no longer have a full hand, so you can freely punch, kick, headbutt, whatever, even if you're not a Monk.

But there's no such mechanism available to a Claw/Claw/Unarmed Strike routine. You can't switch your Claw attack to another hand. And since to my knowledge all non-Monks need a free hand to use unarmed strikes, they can't use both Claws in the same round as an unarmed strike.

Unarmed Strikes are NOT just your Hands; they can be Kicks as well, which is why creatures without arms (like Griffons) are actually allowed to take Improved Unarmed Strike.

The FAQ I quoted even says your Unarmed Strikes aren't just your hands - they're your ENTIRE BODY.

You knowledge is wrong - it has been stated in the FAQ and demonstrated all over these forums that, yes, Unarmed Strikes are completely "no-hands required"

You can have a character who is not a Monk who only ever Kicks, and it's perfectly legal.

Grand Lodge

The note in the Monk entry is just a reminder.

It is not an exception, to any rule, or restriction.

It is the same mistake, that has been made, for years. Every time, they are shown the error of their ways.

Much like the odd idea, that you cannot kick, at all, without being a Monk, or having the Improved Unarmed Strike feat(anyone can), or that only Rogues can use the Disable Device skill to disarm traps(anyone can, Rogues can just do magical traps too).


blackbloodtroll wrote:
or that only Rogues can use the Disable Device skill to disarm traps(anyone can, Rogues can just do magical traps too).

To be fair, it would have made the Rogue much more desirable as a class Pre-Unchained if the Rogue alone WAS the only thing that was naturally able to disarm any traps at all.


magispitt wrote:
Hello all, I have a player who took this and this. He's a lizardfolk so he's wondering if the claw and bite damage is added to unarmed damage or what happens otherwise. He has no other weapons.

The character in question can make an unarmed strike and all of his natural attacks in the same fullround attack. But when combining natural attacks with other attacks all the natural ones become secondary meaning they get -5 to hit and only get 1/2 strength bonus to damage.

Improved off-hand tactics states that normal two-weapon fighting rules apply meaning the main hand gets -6 and the offhand -10 unless you have the two-weapon fighting feat.
And as both a claw and the off-hand tactics explicitly use the same limb you can only use one of them.

So your options are:
1) Only natural attacks: bite, claw, claw at full BAB and full strength bonus to damage
2) Unarmed strike at full BAB + bite, claw, claw at -5 and half strength bonus to damage
3a) Without TWF - Unarmed strike at -6 + Offhand maneuver at -10 + bite, claw, claw at -5 (1/2 strength)
3b) With TWF - Unarmed strike at -2 + off-hand maneuver at -2 + bite, claw, claw at -5 (1/2 str)

DL;DR Improved offhand tactics doesn't mix well with claw attacks.


blackbloodtroll wrote:

The note in the Monk entry is just a reminder.

It is not an exception, to any rule, or restriction.

It is the same mistake, that has been made, for years. Every time, they are shown the error of their ways.

Much like the odd idea, that you cannot kick, at all, without being a Monk, or having the Improved Unarmed Strike feat(anyone can), or that only Rogues can use the Disable Device skill to disarm traps(anyone can, Rogues can just do magical traps too).

Then show me the error of my ways with a rules quote that allows Bite/Claw/Claw/Unarmed Strike for a non-Monk?

I mean, it's all well and good for you to say that. But it means nothing. chbgraphicarts is at least trying, though it seems last night we were talking crossways to each other. You're just blowing smoke.

chbgraphicarts wrote:
You knowledge is wrong - it has been stated in the FAQ and demonstrated all over these forums that, yes, Unarmed Strikes are completely "no-hands required"

Excellent! Source that please?

You have an FAQ that says "you don't have to pick one fist for Magic Fang, you can pick your whole body". Cool. I'm down for that. That's not really what I'm talking about. We have a specific rule that states that only Monks can make unarmed strikes with their hands occupied.

Whether an Investigator (or other non-Monk) who left his hands empty decides to make punches or kicks is immaterial. He's legal. My point is that in a game of "the rules say what you can do, not what you can't", the rules only say one class can kick with its hands full.

I skimmed the rest of the Core FAQs for anything related to Unarmed Strikes that might prove your point; the only other FAQs are related to other things like Flurry. So I assume that the FAQ that this is "stated" in is the Magic Fang FAQ, which tells me that the Investigator can kick if he wants but really doesn't say anything else.


Kestrel - where, in the rules, did you find ANYTHING that indicated an unarmed attack was a punch in the first place?

If I have a boot blade, I can kick attack when my hands are full if I am not a monk.
If I do the same thing without the boot blade it is an unarmed attack.

If I have a Dwarven Boulder helmet while my hands are full, I can make head butt attack with it even if I am not a monk
If I do the same thing without the helmet on it is an unarmed attack.

Grand Lodge

CRB, Combat Chapter, page 182:

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

As for the "hands full thing", nothing in the rules restricts you like that. The monk ability is not a restriction on what anyone else can do, merely a reminder.

Grand Lodge

You don't even need hands, at all, to kick, or headbutt.

The rules explicitly call out that anyone can kick, or headbutt.

You have to create an unwritten restriction, to not only declare that you need a free hand to kick, but that claws somehow make your hands no longer free.

This would make anyone with claws, unable to use feats like Crane Wing, Deflect Arrows, or Dervish Dance, unusable, by creatures with claws.

Even the idea, that a PC holding two daggers, cannot kick, is preposterous.

Outside of the reminder, in the Monk entry, the "evidence" for this fantastically ridiculous conclusion, does not exist.

Who would even run it this way?

Can you imagine this in play?

"Gah! The incredible weight of these 1lb Daggers I hold in each hand, renders me incapable of kicking, or headbutting anyone! If only I had years of training, to learn how to lift my legs, or move my head forward, whilst holding these small objects! BLAAAST!!"


The reason for the reminder is the conversion from 3.0 to 3.5. In 3.0 a Monk holding something in his hands forfeited unarmed attacks. That changed in 3.5 and the reminder was put in to explicitly call attention to the change. Pathfinder did not change the language when they did their cut and paste from 3.5.


Oddman80 wrote:

Kestrel - where, in the rules, did you find ANYTHING that indicated an unarmed attack was a punch in the first place?

If I have a boot blade, I can kick attack when my hands are full if I am not a monk.
If I do the same thing without the boot blade it is an unarmed attack.

If I have a Dwarven Boulder helmet while my hands are full, I can make head butt attack with it even if I am not a monk
If I do the same thing without the helmet on it is an unarmed attack.

The Boot Blade and Boulder Helmet actually have specific rules here, so probably not the best examples. That said, that was a misremembered artifact of the hands-full thing, which is found in the Monk's class.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

You don't even need hands, at all, to kick, or headbutt.

The rules explicitly call out that anyone can kick, or headbutt.

You have to create an unwritten restriction, to not only declare that you need a free hand to kick, but that claws somehow make your hands no longer free.

Except for the part where as far as attacks are concerned Claws-- and all natural attacks-- actually do that? Once you make a Claw attack you can't use that hand to hold a Greatsword.

blackbloodtroll wrote:
This would make anyone with claws, unable to use feats like Crane Wing, Deflect Arrows, or Dervish Dance, unusable, by creatures with claws.

If the creature uses both of its claw attacks (assuming two hands), it does not have a hand free. Deflect Arrows doesn't care until after your turn is over, so it's usually fine-- but yes, I would absolutely say that if you ready an action to shoot a monster with Deflect Arrows and two claw attacks while it's attacking, then no, it does not have a free hand. The same is true for Crane Wing, save that it mandates the free hand on your turn, so two claw attacks would rule out Crane Wing there.

Dervish Dance has different rules from the other two; merely requiring you to not be carrying a weapon or shield. That one's good. Whether or not it's still good after making a claw attack depends on interpretations of physical or metaphysical hands. I'm not getting into that one with you.

blackbloodtroll wrote:

Even the idea, that a PC holding two daggers, cannot kick, is preposterous.

Outside of the reminder, in the Monk entry, the "evidence" for this fantastically ridiculous conclusion, does not exist.

Who would even run it this way?

Can you imagine this in play?

"Gah! The incredible weight of these 1lb Daggers I hold in each hand, renders me incapable of kicking, or headbutting anyone! If only I had years of training, to learn how to lift my legs, or move my head forward, whilst holding these small objects! BLAAAST!!"

Do I really have to explain to you that the hands rules don't make sense? You're the one who spends half your posts mocking them.

That said, how's that all that different from being restricted from kicking somebody after delivering your dagger attacks?

And finally, while I'd merrily ignore it if the party Brawler was lugging around an unconscious party member... yes. I would totally use this rule to stop an Alchemist from adding another three attacks onto his six-plus attack sequence.

thorin001 wrote:
The reason for the reminder is the conversion from 3.0 to 3.5. In 3.0 a Monk holding something in his hands forfeited unarmed attacks. That changed in 3.5 and the reminder was put in to explicitly call attention to the change. Pathfinder did not change the language when they did their cut and paste from 3.5.

Huh. Interesting.

Grand Lodge

Attacking with a Claw does not make a hand no longer free.

It just makes making an attack, with a manufactured weapon, utilizing that hand, unavailable.


Kestrel - by your logic, a creature that had talons and unarmed strike would not be able to use its talons and punch because unarmed attacks COULD be kicks, but you used your feet for the talons

Or not be able to punch and gore because your unarmed attack COULD be a headbutt
But you used your head for the gore.

Please tell me you wouldn't argue these things.


Jeff Merola wrote:

CRB, Combat Chapter, page 182:

Quote:
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
As for the "hands full thing", nothing in the rules restricts you like that. The monk ability is not a restriction on what anyone else can do, merely a reminder.

Just quoting this again as it seems to have been missed by kestral in the hub-ub.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the problem is that the game is designed with certain assumptions about how many attacks a character can make in a round. Natural attacks can violate these assumptions because they're not based on BAB. Claw attacks are balanced partly under the assumption that they replace attacks with manufactured weapons, which are generally held in the hands.

Using claws and kicks makes sense and works by the rules, but it also allows a character to make more attacks than the above assumptions are supposed to permit.

For some characters that's not too powerful. Claws and kicks don't do a lot of damage without a lot of extra investment, and with claws at -5 you're not landing a lot of extra hits compared to just UAS.

But if someone takes Multiattack and makes a Bite/Gore/Claw/Claw routine at full BAB-2 added on to an round of iterative attacks with UAS (all enhanced by the same Amulet of Mighty Fists)...


Weirdo wrote:


But if someone takes Multiattack and makes a Bite/Gore/Claw/Claw routine at full BAB-2 added on to an round of iterative attacks with UAS (all enhanced by the same Amulet of Mighty Fists)...

He invests in it (race choice, feat choice, class choice, most likely trait choice) and benefits from those choices.

But those natural attacks still only get half strength to damage.

And whatever they do, they are still only a martial.

Shadow Lodge

I don't think it takes a lot of investment compared to the payoff, when compared to using UAS alone.

It's really easy to get bite and claw attacks. A tengu can get both from racial traits, half-orcs can get a bite, catfolk get claws, tieflings can have a bite or claws. Alchemists get both from one discovery. Barbarians get a bite from one rage power and claws from another (the very-good beast totem line). A ranger or slayer can get claws from the natural weapons combat style. At least two bloodrager bloodlines grant claws. Gore is a bit trickier but you can get one for 8500gp. You can also cast Monstrous Physique I to turn into a gargoyle for the full claw/claw/bite/gore routine. Multiattack is one feat.

I'm currently playing a Suli Monk (Master of Many Styles) 2 / Bloodrager 7. My unarmed strike routine is +13/+8 or +17/+12 while raging (with a furious amulet of mighty fists), dealing d6+14 damage or d6+18 raging. I often cast Frostbite to add d6+7 nonlethal cold damage.

As a bloodrager I get claws (which I don't currently use). If I switched my race to tiefling (demon-spawn), my stats wouldn't change, I'd switch my skill bonuses, lose acid resistance and elemental assault, and gain a prehensile tail and a bite (d6). I'd swap Dragon Style for Multiattack.

I now have Claw/Claw/Bite +9 (d6+6) or +13 (d6+9) when raging. Assuming I hit half the time, I add 14 DPR when not raging and 19 DPR when raging. If I have Frostbite active add an extra 15 points.

Dragon Style adds no more than 2 DPR and Elemental Assault adds maybe 5 points in the one fight a day I can use it. So I've gained 7-17 points of damage per round (before Frostbite) and the ability to retrieve items as a swift action in exchange for acid resistance 5 and the ability to charge through difficult terrain. That looks like a clear win to me.

And that's trying to make as few changes as possible to my existing character - not to optimize the UAS+natural weapons style. I bet you could make a pretty terrifying slayer like this, thanks to the class's studied target and sneak attack significantly boosting damage on the natural attacks.

Just a Guess wrote:
And whatever they do, they are still only a martial.

If martials aren't strong enough, then martials should as a group be made stronger. Boosting certain martial combat styles relative to other combat styles doesn't solve the overall problem, it merely encourages people to flock towards the handful of styles that are seen as relatively strong.

Also note that UAS+Claw isn't just good for martials. A druid could take IUAS and add an iterative attack line to their wild shape natural weapons routine.


Sean K Reynolds (designer) comment about unarmed and natural attacks

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
jhansonxi wrote:
Sean K Reynolds (designer) comment about unarmed and natural attacks

Yeah, I have read that tons of times.

It is his opinion, but it doesn't make any sense within the rules, and RAW directly disagrees with just about everything he is saying.

Also, that's a thread about the Tentacle Discovery, which has it's own crazy specific rules.

Shadow Lodge

You want to talk about what makes sense?

A creature with BAB +0 cannot attack with two daggers and kick in the same full-attack action.

They can attack with two claws and kick in the same full-attack.

On the other hand, if UAS was blanket prevented from working with natural attacks, then you would be able to Claw/Claw/Gore, but wouldn't be able to Claw/Claw/Headbutt.

Natural attacks are weird. Hence the problem.


Weirdo wrote:

You want to talk about what makes sense?

A creature with BAB +0 cannot attack with two daggers and kick in the same full-attack action.

They can attack with two claws and kick in the same full-attack.

On the other hand, if UAS was blanket prevented from working with natural attacks, then you would be able to Claw/Claw/Gore, but wouldn't be able to Claw/Claw/Headbutt.

Natural attacks are weird. Hence the problem.

Actually, Unarmed Strikes are the things that're weird.

If Unarmed Strikes counted as Natural Weapons, then you could totally go: -2 Dagger / -2 Dagger / -5 Unarmed Strike.

Of course, Unarmed Strikes have to count as normal weapons, too, so that they can be used with BAB progression.

An obvious-to-state-hard-to-enact ruling would be that Unarmed Strikes count as BOTH Natural and Manufactured Weapons, so you can make Unarmed Attacks as part of your Full Attack using your BAB iterations and TWF, and one ADDITIONAL Unarmed Attack as a Secondary Natural Attack.

How well this would work and whether or not it would cause players' heads to spin would require plenty of playtesting.


Oddman80 wrote:

Kestrel - by your logic, a creature that had talons and unarmed strike would not be able to use its talons and punch because unarmed attacks COULD be kicks, but you used your feet for the talons

Or not be able to punch and gore because your unarmed attack COULD be a headbutt
But you used your head for the gore.

Please tell me you wouldn't argue these things.

I'm not arguing those things. The section I based the argument on was very clear regarding the word "hands". Extrapolating it to other things would be blatantly wrong.

Blakmane wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:

CRB, Combat Chapter, page 182:

Quote:
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
As for the "hands full thing", nothing in the rules restricts you like that. The monk ability is not a restriction on what anyone else can do, merely a reminder.
Just quoting this again as it seems to have been missed by kestral in the hub-ub.

Saw that, just lumped it into the other response regarding that section of the rules and where it came from.

It was a bit of a pain to find a 3.0 core book, but after that digging Thorin seems to be correct. So yeah, you can Bite/Claw/Claw/Kick/Kick/Kick/Kick/Kick/Kick/Kick to your heart's content on paper.

Now, personally I'd still slap a player who did that, because...

Weirdo wrote:

I think the problem is that the game is designed with certain assumptions about how many attacks a character can make in a round. Natural attacks can violate these assumptions because they're not based on BAB. Claw attacks are balanced partly under the assumption that they replace attacks with manufactured weapons, which are generally held in the hands.

Using claws and kicks makes sense and works by the rules, but it also allows a character to make more attacks than the above assumptions are supposed to permit.

For some characters that's not too powerful. Claws and kicks don't do a lot of damage without a lot of extra investment, and with claws at -5 you're not landing a lot of extra hits compared to just UAS.

But if someone takes Multiattack and makes a Bite/Gore/Claw/Claw routine at full BAB-2 added on to an round of iterative attacks with UAS (all enhanced by the same Amulet of Mighty Fists)...

That.


kestral287 wrote:
Blakmane wrote:
Jeff Merola wrote:

CRB, Combat Chapter, page 182:

Quote:
Unarmed Attacks: Striking for damage with punches, kicks, and head butts is much like attacking with a melee weapon, except for the following:
As for the "hands full thing", nothing in the rules restricts you like that. The monk ability is not a restriction on what anyone else can do, merely a reminder.
Just quoting this again as it seems to have been missed by kestral in the hub-ub.

Saw that, just lumped it into the other response regarding that section of the rules and where it came from.

It was a bit of a pain to find a 3.0 core book, but after that digging Thorin seems to be correct. So yeah, you can Bite/Claw/Claw/Kick/Kick/Kick/Kick/Kick/Kick/Kick to your heart's content on paper.

Now, personally I'd still slap a player who did that

So you refuse to acknowledge the awesomeness that is The Werewolf Savate Master?

I can see there's no reasoning with you, then.

Shadow Lodge

chbgraphicarts wrote:
Actually, Unarmed Strikes are the things that're weird...

They're both weird. If natural attacks worked like manufactured weapons then there wouldn't be a problem. Though I agree UAS are double weird for sitting halfway between manufactured and natural attacks.

Your solution might work. I'm also tempted to try a cap on number of attacks in a full-attack, based on BAB, but I'm not sure how that would affect natural attack builds.


Weirdo wrote:
Your solution might work. I'm also tempted to try a cap on number of attacks in a full-attack, based on BAB, but I'm not sure how that would affect natural attack builds.

It would basically ruin them.

Most Natural Attack builds don't increase the damage of Natural Attacks; instead, they rely on massive bonuses to Strength to make their Natural Attacks matter, and generally can't do anything BUT swing with Natural Attacks when they do, or else all their Primary Attacks become Secondary Natural Attacks and deal .5 Str (with nothing like Double Slice helping to alleviate that issue).

You can't get 1.5 damage on Natural Weapons unless it's your only Natural Attack and it's the only Attack you make in a Round, which basically requires the user to take the Vital Strike build (which means that you're rarely/never going to beat someone two-handing a Naginata)

Monks with Feral Combat Training can't gain extra attacks from Natural Weapons and with FCT can only increase the damage of ONE Natural Attack.

Brawlers with FCT can't gain extra attacks from Natural Weapons, but they CAN increase the damage to each Natural Weapon via Martial Versatility.

Really, the Warpriest is about the only thing that can actually get extra Attacks from Natural Weapons AND substantially increase the damage of every Natural Weapon via FCT + Martial Versatility, along with gaining a massive boost to Str via spells; however, even the WP is limited to a degree in only having a 3/4 BAB, meaning it's going to need to pick up at least a Bite and 2 Claws in order to gain more attacks than a Brawler, Monk, or Sacred Fist.

Warpriest makes Weapon + Natural matter because it increases damage and can massively pump accuracy through Fighter-Only feats, its Sacred Weapon ability, and Spells.

The Ranger or Slayer can make Weapon + Natural matter because they can gain Multiattack without question as part of their class, thus making the Natural Attacks no less accurate than TWF (although they can't increase the base damage significantly).

Everything else is either All or One generally.

---

When you take Natural Weapons, you take 'em for one of two reasons:

1) to increase the number of total Attacks you can make in a round beyond the ones allowed via BAB, thus increasing your DPR, even if only through 1-2 additional Natural Attacks per round.

2) to be your primary mode of Attacking, which basically means that you HAVE to take multiple Primary Natural Weapons, so that you're attacking at your full BAB and thus hitting, and so you're not doing only .5x Str per each Attack.

If you limit Natural Weapons so that they can't add more than your total number of Attacks per round (basically doing exactly what Flurry does for a Monk and Brawler), then you're almost completely destroying any reason for players to ever use Reason 1, and you're seriously nerfing Reason 2, since Natural Weapons will pretty much ALWAYS do less basic damage than a Two-Handed Weapon, ESPECIALLY since you can make multiple Attacks with a THW and deal 1.5x Str with each Attack, while you can only make a single Attack with each Natural Weapon, and the moment you use TWO Natural Weapons you're only dealing 1x Str with each AT MOST.

Grand Lodge

We know exactly how this works.

Two Claws, with two Boot Blades, or two Unarmed Strikes, functions the same way.

Natural Attacks do not prevent Unarmed Strike attacks.

Shadow Lodge

chbgraphicarts wrote:

When you take Natural Weapons, you take 'em for one of two reasons:

1) to increase the number of total Attacks you can make in a round beyond the ones allowed via BAB, thus increasing your DPR, even if only through 1-2 additional Natural Attacks per round.

2) to be your primary mode of Attacking, which basically means that you HAVE to take multiple Primary Natural Weapons, so that you're attacking at your full BAB and thus hitting, and so you're not doing only .5x Str per each Attack.

If you limit Natural Weapons so that they can't add more than your total number of Attacks per round (basically doing exactly what Flurry does for a Monk and Brawler), then you're almost completely destroying any reason for players to ever use Reason 1, and you're seriously nerfing Reason 2, since Natural Weapons will pretty much ALWAYS do less basic damage than a Two-Handed Weapon, ESPECIALLY since you can make multiple Attacks with a THW and deal 1.5x Str with each Attack, while you can only make a single Attack with each Natural Weapon, and the moment you use TWO Natural Weapons you're only dealing 1x Str with each AT MOST.

I think you misunderstand. I'm not talking about limiting you to the attacks that BAB would grant, just adding a limit based on BAB.

For example, the limit might be making twice as many attacks as allowed by BAB alone (equivalent to the number of attacks you can make with TWF).

That would allow a character with a sword and board or two-hander style to get at minimum one extra attack from a natural weapon, and 2 or more extra attacks at higher levels. However a character with BAB+6 and Improved TWF could not make a sword +4/sword+4/sword-1/sword-1/bite+1 routine - though they could make a sword/sword/off-hand/bite routine if the bite is better than the second off-hand.

It would also mean that a character using just natural weapons wouldn't be able to claw/claw/bite until level 6 at least. That's definitely a nerf, but the two natural weapons builds I've seen in play so far have been extremely powerful at low levels thanks to the large number of attacks, so I'm not sure it would ruin them to slow them down a bit.


As is pure natural attack builds are strong at low levels and weak at high levels. Nerfing them at low levels would mean they are never strong. So the only way they would be used would be in addition to two-handed attacks. And that is the point at which they are already good, because they just add dpr at no or little cost.

As not all kinds of natural attacks CAN be combined with two-handed weapons it would make those who can't near useless. Like claws and some kinds of slams.


Btw, the Multiattack feat comes from the Bestiary, which isn't legal to players by default. (and not allowed in PFS in any case).

As far as unarmed strikes + natural attacks: yep, it works just fine. I can't believe we're doing this explanation again for the umpteenth time. heh.


Byakko wrote:
Btw, the Multiattack feat comes from the Bestiary, which isn't legal to players by default. (and not allowed in PFS in any case).

It is for Rangers & Slayers, as it's on the Natural Weapons Combat Style Feats list.

Everyone else is SOL, however.


Byakko wrote:
Btw, the Multiattack feat comes from the Bestiary, which isn't legal to players by default.

This keeps coming up. But I have not yet seen a citation.


Just a Guess wrote:
Byakko wrote:
Btw, the Multiattack feat comes from the Bestiary, which isn't legal to players by default.
This keeps coming up. But I have not yet seen a citation.

Your Search-Fu is severely lacking

Pathfinder Society wrote:

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Bestiary

Animal Companions: ankylosaurus, aurochs, brachiosaurus, dire bat, dire rat, dolphin, elasmosaurus, electric eel, elephant/mastodon, frog, goblin dog, hyena, monitor lizard, moray eel, octopus, orca, pteranodon, rhinoceros, roc, squid, stegosaurus, triceratops, and tyrannosaurus; Familiars: all familiars listed on pages 131-133; Feats: none of the feats are legal for play for PCs, animal companions, or familiars unless specifically granted by another legal source; Other: all creatures in this book are legal for polymorph effects (including a druid's wild shape ability) within the boundaries of each spell or ability's parameters. All languages found in this book are available for a character to learn with the linguistics skill, except aboleth and drow sign language.

"By default" is true.

The APG, however, allows a Ranger to take Multiattack, and since a Ranger can, so can a Slayer.

So unless you plan on sinking 6 levels into Ranger or Slayer, you're not getting Multiattack in PFS ever.


chbgraphicarts wrote:
Just a Guess wrote:
Byakko wrote:
Btw, the Multiattack feat comes from the Bestiary, which isn't legal to players by default.
This keeps coming up. But I have not yet seen a citation.

Your Search-Fu is severely lacking

Pathfinder Society wrote:

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Bestiary

Animal Companions: ankylosaurus, aurochs, brachiosaurus, dire bat, dire rat, dolphin, elasmosaurus, electric eel, elephant/mastodon, frog, goblin dog, hyena, monitor lizard, moray eel, octopus, orca, pteranodon, rhinoceros, roc, squid, stegosaurus, triceratops, and tyrannosaurus; Familiars: all familiars listed on pages 131-133; Feats: none of the feats are legal for play for PCs, animal companions, or familiars unless specifically granted by another legal source; Other: all creatures in this book are legal for polymorph effects (including a druid's wild shape ability) within the boundaries of each spell or ability's parameters. All languages found in this book are available for a character to learn with the linguistics skill, except aboleth and drow sign language.

"By default" is true.

The APG, however, allows a Ranger to take Multiattack, and since a Ranger can, so can a Slayer.

So unless you plan on sinking 6 levels into Ranger or Slayer, you're not getting Multiattack in PFS ever.

This is just for PFS.


chbgraphicarts wrote:
Just a Guess wrote:
Byakko wrote:
Btw, the Multiattack feat comes from the Bestiary, which isn't legal to players by default.
This keeps coming up. But I have not yet seen a citation.

Your Search-Fu is severely lacking

Pathfinder Society wrote:

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Bestiary

Animal Companions: ankylosaurus, aurochs, brachiosaurus, dire bat, dire rat, dolphin, elasmosaurus, electric eel, elephant/mastodon, frog, goblin dog, hyena, monitor lizard, moray eel, octopus, orca, pteranodon, rhinoceros, roc, squid, stegosaurus, triceratops, and tyrannosaurus; Familiars: all familiars listed on pages 131-133; Feats: none of the feats are legal for play for PCs, animal companions, or familiars unless specifically granted by another legal source; Other: all creatures in this book are legal for polymorph effects (including a druid's wild shape ability) within the boundaries of each spell or ability's parameters. All languages found in this book are available for a character to learn with the linguistics skill, except aboleth and drow sign language.

"By default" is true.

That is a PFS specific rule, not a general Pathfinder rule.


Bestiary page 314 wrote:

Most of the following feats apply specifically to monsters, although some player characters might qualify for them

(particularly Craft Construct).
Bestiary page 315 wrote:
Prerequisite: Three or more natural attacks

Multiattack is legal for players as long as they meet the prerequisites. This does not mean it is allowed in PFS or any other game using house rules to disallow the feat.

Grand Lodge

Page 182, of the Pathfinder Core Rulebook:

CRB wrote:

You can make attacks with natural weapons in

combination with attacks made with a melee weapon
and unarmed strikes, so long as a different limb is used
for each attack.
For example, you cannot make a claw
attack and also use that hand to make attacks with a
longsword. When you make additional attacks in this
way, all of your natural attacks are treated as secondary
natural attacks, using your base attack bonus minus
5 and adding only 1/2 of your Strength modifier on
damage rolls. Feats such as Two-Weapon Fighting and
Multiattack (see the Pathfinder RPG Bestiary) can reduce
these penalties.

This is so dang specific, that the combination works, I could not see how one could argue otherwise.


Just a Guess wrote:
chbgraphicarts wrote:
Just a Guess wrote:
Byakko wrote:
Btw, the Multiattack feat comes from the Bestiary, which isn't legal to players by default.
This keeps coming up. But I have not yet seen a citation.

Your Search-Fu is severely lacking

Pathfinder Society wrote:

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Bestiary

Animal Companions: ankylosaurus, aurochs, brachiosaurus, dire bat, dire rat, dolphin, elasmosaurus, electric eel, elephant/mastodon, frog, goblin dog, hyena, monitor lizard, moray eel, octopus, orca, pteranodon, rhinoceros, roc, squid, stegosaurus, triceratops, and tyrannosaurus; Familiars: all familiars listed on pages 131-133; Feats: none of the feats are legal for play for PCs, animal companions, or familiars unless specifically granted by another legal source; Other: all creatures in this book are legal for polymorph effects (including a druid's wild shape ability) within the boundaries of each spell or ability's parameters. All languages found in this book are available for a character to learn with the linguistics skill, except aboleth and drow sign language.

"By default" is true.

The APG, however, allows a Ranger to take Multiattack, and since a Ranger can, so can a Slayer.

So unless you plan on sinking 6 levels into Ranger or Slayer, you're not getting Multiattack in PFS ever.

This is just for PFS.

I was under the impression that's what was being argued here - PFS doesn't allow Monster Feats, period.

Shadow Lodge

Just a Guess wrote:

As is pure natural attack builds are strong at low levels and weak at high levels. Nerfing them at low levels would mean they are never strong. So the only way they would be used would be in addition to two-handed attacks. And that is the point at which they are already good, because they just add dpr at no or little cost.

As not all kinds of natural attacks CAN be combined with two-handed weapons it would make those who can't near useless. Like claws and some kinds of slams.

First, I'm not a fan of linear-quadratic balance. If something's strong at low levels and weak at high levels, or vice-versa, that's two separate bugs. I'd rather come up with a second fix to boost natural attacks at high levels than leave them as-is.

Second, my current party is at level 8 and natural weapons guy is still at least holding his own against sword and board guy, depending on whether the enemy has DR and haste is active. When are natural attacks supposed to fall behind? Like many, we usually end campaigns in the level 10-15 range.


Weirdo wrote:
Just a Guess wrote:

As is pure natural attack builds are strong at low levels and weak at high levels. Nerfing them at low levels would mean they are never strong. So the only way they would be used would be in addition to two-handed attacks. And that is the point at which they are already good, because they just add dpr at no or little cost.

As not all kinds of natural attacks CAN be combined with two-handed weapons it would make those who can't near useless. Like claws and some kinds of slams.

First, I'm not a fan of linear-quadratic balance. If something's strong at low levels and weak at high levels, or vice-versa, that's two separate bugs. I'd rather come up with a second fix to boost natural attacks at high levels than leave them as-is.

Second, my current party is at level 8 and natural weapons guy is still at least holding his own against sword and board guy, depending on whether the enemy has DR and haste is active. When are natural attacks supposed to fall behind? Like many, we usually end campaigns in the level 10-15 range.

It's really the DR which tends to shut all these multiple attacks down. Natural Attacks tend to hit for far less individual damage due to the magic item costs and it's also much harder to overcome material based DR.

Note that combined natural attacks count as secondary attacks (hurts the str dmg bonus/power attack) and going dex requires more feat/gold investment. Also note that a monk's Ki Strike only applies to Unarmed Strikes and not Natural Attacks.

There's just a lot of barriers in the long run which normal weapon users don't have to deal with.

There also tends to be a shift in focus towards longer range combat and explosively quick fights at higher levels. Big multi-round brawls tend to be more common at lower levels. Thus, I've found that there's less opportunities for melee full round attacks at higher levels (without some trick like pounce to get you in there).


Weirdo wrote:
Just a Guess wrote:

As is pure natural attack builds are strong at low levels and weak at high levels. Nerfing them at low levels would mean they are never strong. So the only way they would be used would be in addition to two-handed attacks. And that is the point at which they are already good, because they just add dpr at no or little cost.

As not all kinds of natural attacks CAN be combined with two-handed weapons it would make those who can't near useless. Like claws and some kinds of slams.

First, I'm not a fan of linear-quadratic balance. If something's strong at low levels and weak at high levels, or vice-versa, that's two separate bugs. I'd rather come up with a second fix to boost natural attacks at high levels than leave them as-is.

Second, my current party is at level 8 and natural weapons guy is still at least holding his own against sword and board guy, depending on whether the enemy has DR and haste is active. When are natural attacks supposed to fall behind? Like many, we usually end campaigns in the level 10-15 range.

As soon as enemies have access to flight (and you don't play them like morons) melee has issues. No full round attacks barring pounce builds (who can fly). Material DR will hurt natural attack builds because they rely on AoMF to get enhancement bonuses, this in turn drains gold because the amulet is twice as expensive as increasing a single weapon and can't be done separately. DR 5 isn't that big of a deal, properly built and itemized they will still be doing damage. Once you start seeing 10's they will be hurting a lot when attacks might be completely negated.

Basically if you aren't seeing an issue right now (which is midly surprising, you should have been dealing at least with casters occasionally), your GM is being nice probably, assuming home game. You should expect to see them slowing doing/getting shut down relatively soon. If it is a PFS game where encounters are pre-built, honestly the encounters are typically on the "easy" side. They can't tell who is going to play what and so some parties might struggle with it (low team work, or they don't complement each other well) others might have no issue (high levels of team work, characters do complement each other) and faceroll the scenario. This even happens in the APs, there was maybe one or two memorable encounters in each book because our group tends to be fairly optimized. The encounters we had issues with were mostly due to party composition versus a truly "difficult" fight.


Weirdo wrote:
Just a Guess wrote:

As is pure natural attack builds are strong at low levels and weak at high levels. Nerfing them at low levels would mean they are never strong. So the only way they would be used would be in addition to two-handed attacks. And that is the point at which they are already good, because they just add dpr at no or little cost.

As not all kinds of natural attacks CAN be combined with two-handed weapons it would make those who can't near useless. Like claws and some kinds of slams.

First, I'm not a fan of linear-quadratic balance. If something's strong at low levels and weak at high levels, or vice-versa, that's two separate bugs. I'd rather come up with a second fix to boost natural attacks at high levels than leave them as-is.

Second, my current party is at level 8 and natural weapons guy is still at least holding his own against sword and board guy, depending on whether the enemy has DR and haste is active. When are natural attacks supposed to fall behind? Like many, we usually end campaigns in the level 10-15 range.

Against two-handed weapons they lose their lead at level 6. Sword and board is weak in itself so it is not the best style to compare to.


Dot


magispitt wrote:
Hello all, I have a player who took this and this. He's a lizardfolk so he's wondering if the claw and bite damage is added to unarmed damage or what happens otherwise. He has no other weapons.

From "I have a player," I gather that you are the GM of your own campaign, which means you can do what you want, and this is indeed not for PFS at all. And that means arguing RAW is purely academic.

Unarmed Strikes are normally assorted independently from Natural Attacks. Your player's character can indeed make all the unarmed strikes his BAB allows, and an "off-hand" unarmed strike, and all his natural attacks.

For the purposes of combining them with natural attacks, unarmed strikes usually count as manufactured weapons, causing primary natural attacks to be demoted to secondary natural attacks: -5 on the attack roll and 1/2 the ST mod to damage unless you get some kind of feat or ability to get around that like Multiattck or something.

That Off-hand Maneuvers Feat is intended to be used in conjunction with 2 weapon fighting like with manufacured weapons, and this would create the same -5 problem on the Natural Attacks but not on the Unarmed Strikes.

The RAW way to apply unarmed strike benefits such as Monk Unarmed Damage to your your natural attacks is the Feral Combat Training Feat, which allows you to apply feats and effects that augment unarmed strikes to his Claws or to his Bite, not to both. He'd have to take FCT twice, one for Claws, one for the Bite.

1 to 50 of 63 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Unarmed Natural Attacks All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.