Natural Weapons & Standard Actions

[Saerileth]

Hi all!

I'm starting a druid character designed around the Wild Shape ability, but I am very unclear about how natural weapons work. One question in particular:

When a creature has multiple natural attacks with the same name (e.g. "bite, 2 claws"), how many of those can it make as a standard action?

It's obvious that the creature can make all of its attacks as a full-round action. It's also clear that it must choose to either bite or claw on a standard action. But are the 2 claws treated as a single "type" of natural attack, simply rolled separately? Or does the player have to choose a single limb to claw with?

I have seen this issue pop up on a lot of different forums, and people seem very divided about it. I have seen about as many people claiming you get only 1 claw attack as people saying you get 2, and I can't find an official ruling that supports either. This is strange, because it doesn't just affect druids or other shapechangers - it makes a fundamental difference for the DM, since it applies to every monster with multiple attacks as well.

[Menacing Shade of mauve]

One attack, total.

Except for a very few, very explicit exceptions, Full Attack is the only way to make more than one attack on your turn.

[Ascalaphus]

It's laid out in the core rulebook here:

natural attacks wrote:

Natural Attacks: Attacks made with natural weapons, such as claws and bites, are melee attacks that can be made against any creature within your reach (usually 5 feet). These attacks are made using your full attack bonus and deal an amount of damage that depends on their type (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). You do not receive additional natural attacks for a high base attack bonus. Instead, you receive additional attack rolls for multiple limb and body parts capable of making the attack (as noted by the race or ability that grants the attacks). If you possess only one natural attack (such as a bite—two claw attacks do not qualify), you add 1–1/2 times your Strength bonus on damage rolls made with that attack.

Some natural attacks are denoted as secondary natural attacks, such as tails and wings. Attacks with secondary natural attacks are made using your base attack bonus minus 5. These attacks deal an amount of damage depending on their type, but you only add half your Strength modifier on damage rolls.

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 can reduce these penalties.

Multiple Attacks: A character who can make more than one attack per round must use the full-attack action (see Full-Round Actions) in order to get more than one attack.

The second part, regarding Multiple Attacks, applies to everyone, whether they're using manufactured weapons or natural attacks.

[Saerileth]

I suspected as much, but the rules aren't as clear as they could be. The multiple attacks line you quote applies to characters - it does not state anywhere that the same is true for monsters.

Also, I'm wondering if the RAW are the RAI in this case, considering the fact that the doubled attacks usually have half the damage dice of the single ones (e.g. leopard: 1d6 bite, 1d3 claws). If you get two claw attacks on a standard action, it boils down to a decision of whether you'd rather have slightly more damage potential with two chances to miss (or hit, depending on your hit chance vs. enemy AC). If you have to choose a single attack, it's really a no-brainer to take the bite.

[Menacing Shade of mauve]

The rules may be unclear (though I don't see it), but they are unambiguous.

[Shinigami02]

Saerileth wrote:

I suspected as much, but the rules aren't as clear as they could be. The multiple attacks line you quote applies to characters - it does not state anywhere that the same is true for monsters.

Monsters are still NPCs, or Non-Player Characters so the rules do still apply to monsters.

Saerileth wrote:

Also, I'm wondering if the RAW are the RAI in this case, considering the fact that the doubled attacks usually have half the damage dice of the single ones (e.g. leopard: 1d6 bite, 1d3 claws). If you get two claw attacks on a standard action, it boils down to a decision of whether you'd rather have slightly more damage potential with two chances to miss (or hit, depending on your hit chance vs. enemy AC). If you have to choose a single attack, it's really a no-brainer to take the bite.

Just look at natural weapons as wielding multiple weapons. It doesn't matter if you're two-handing a longsword (1d8) or dual-wielding daggers (two attacks of 1d4) you're still only getting one attack on a Standard. Just because it's a no-brainer doesn't mean it's not the correct interpretation.

[KainPen]

Also you never half the dice damage, you half the mod damage of relevant ability score or power attack.

[Saerileth]

@Shinigami02: Thank you for explaining it with the weapon example, that makes total sense to me and you convinced me that this probably really is how natural weapons are supposed to work. This is the kind of response I was hoping for when posting here.

@KainPen: At no point ever did I say that I was halfing the dice. I merely pointed out that most claw attacks in the bestiary have about half the dice size of corresponding single bites (d3 vs. d6 in my example).

I'm probably reading way too much into this, but I'm a bit taken aback by how some of your responses make me look stupid for even asking such a thing. I did quite a lot of research on this particular question before posting, and people claiming you get both claw attacks come up more often than otherwise. And they are every bit as confident about it as you folks are. I'm not saying they're right (I already conceded to that), but this seems to indicate that it isn't such an obvious thing to everyone. Rules formulated in natural language are very rarely unambiguous, especially not in such a complex system. Also, rules can and often do contradict each other (it's just usually clear which ones take priority over the others).