Claws of the Beast (Ex): You grow a pair of claws. These claws are primary attacks that deal 1d4 points of damage (1d3 if you are Small).Can you grow a pair of claws on your feet or is there somewhere that says/implies that they have to be on hands?
I don't see any reason why you couldn't use your feet to deliver claw attacks. It wouldn't give you any more attacks so it really wouldn't matter.
I believe he would want to wield weapons in his hands and then kick with his feet.
Since humanoid legs aren't really built to use claws in a fight, and its pretty much impossible to use them both at the same time, i would say that the base assumption was that they'd be on your hands.
I don't see any reason why you couldn't use your feet to deliver claw attacks. It wouldn't give you any more attacks so it really wouldn't matter.
Let's say a Half-Orc took the Toothy racial trait and Aspect of the Beast to grow claws on his feet. He could then wield a weapon(s) in his hands and still use his bite and both claws as secondary attacks. This would get him one more attack than if his claws were on his hands. Assuming it would work.
I don't see any reason why you couldn't use your feet to deliver claw attacks. It wouldn't give you any more attacks so it really wouldn't matter.I believe he would want to wield weapons in his hands and then kick with his feet.
Since humanoid legs aren't really built to use claws in a fight, and its pretty much impossible to use them both at the same time, i would say that the base assumption was that they'd be on your hands.
Imagine a Monk when he fights using all of his body to make attacks. Jumping, kicking, spinning, I can see feet claws getting used there.
claws on feet, not so great
Well unless your using Pounce.
I think the intention is that claws are meant to be on the hands. "Claws on your feet" would essentially be talons, which creatures like the velociraptor and several birds have in the Bestiary. So I'd say it can't be done.
|
I don't see any reason why you couldn't use your feet to deliver claw attacks. It wouldn't give you any more attacks so it really wouldn't matter.Let's say a Half-Orc took the Toothy racial trait and Aspect of the Beast to grow claws on his feet. He could then wield a weapon(s) in his hands and still use his bite and both claws as secondary attacks. This would get him one more attack than if his claws were on his hands. Assuming it would work.
Like I said, I don't think you could pull of gaining another attack from them. I usually assume to ere on the side of caution on matters like that. But all of this is just the way I interpret it.
that or if you have rake
that or if you aren't standing on your feet, say while flying or swimming.
I think the intention is that claws are meant to be on the hands. "Claws on your feet" would essentially be talons, which creatures like the velociraptor and several birds have in the Bestiary. So I'd say it can't be done.
Giant Eagle has 2 claws listed. Is there a distinction somewhere between claws and talons?
that or if you have rakethat or if you aren't standing on your feet, say while flying or swimming.
Oh true. If you got access to a fly spell or something like that then you don't even need to stand on those feet claws.
For those of you who say he needs to be standing on those feet, what if you picked it up on something like the Centaur (or Gobaur that I wrote up) that has 4 feet? Would you allow them to grow claws on their front legs since Tigers and such use those claws while they stand on the rest?
By RAW, yes you can have them on your feet. The rest are all adding their RAI interpretation and knee-jerk instict to nerf. :-)
@Phage; Why?
At time of writing, the only RAW way to get them feet magical is an Amulet of Natural Attacks. It is more expensive than a single weapon and it's max + is 5 vs. +10 for weapons.
There are also limits to what magical effects can be put in. To use them without a -5 to hit he needs a feat. To get full str to dmg he needs another feat. And he will still be missing Weapon Focus compared to his primary weapon.
Try running the numbers, taking into account wealth per level. Yes, they add something, but unless your build moves entirely to boost them, their effect is not critically overpowering.
Not to mention the IC toenail jokes that can be made on the character. :-)
You are still doing the equivalent of taking away the wooden stick from the chubby kindergarten bully, while the seniors are flashing switchblades behind your back.
Alchemist, Summoner, some Rage builds and straight up vanilla Fighters will out DPR this guy in melee. - And has other tricks of theirs, just as this has.
The best suggestion would be to go all natural attacks, but changing form as a druid would probably be better than dabbling this with Sorcerer.
Horrible to-hit that way. You need massive STR to compensate.
Fighters are not just a full BAB, it's much more on both to-hit and damage.
I may not be able to convince you, but my advice would be to allow it. See how it flies.
Claws on feet for fluff = A-OK and awesome.
Claws on feet for extra extra attacks = Limburger.
Claws of the Beast (Ex): You grow a pair of claws. These claws are primary attacks that deal 1d4 points of damage (1d3 if you are Small).Can you grow a pair of claws on your feet or is there somewhere that says/implies that they have to be on hands?
"Claws on your feet" are usually represented either by (A) Talon attacks or (B) the Rake special ability. I'd say no.
There's nothing here that specifically states that the claws must be attacked to the limb. Realistically, there would have to be a limb present for the claws to affix themselves to, but in RAW those claws may be anywhere -- [quote = Claws of the beast]You grow a pair of claws.
Nothing about limbs, or needing to be attached to limbs. You could have claws on your elbows, and they would still function, by RAW, the same way.
There is also no upper limit to the amount of natural attacks a creature may gain (unless you are an eidolon).
There are a few ways to look at this. One is, you are restricted in natural attacks to the amount of limbs you have. The second is that the spell provides a limb for your natural attack, and that limb is only useful for that. The third is to ignore how the spell works, "you grow a pair of claws, that are a natural attack," and make the character stand on his clawed feet and not be able to use them.
DrDrew, this is your choice on how to handle this. The RAW is clear (if strange) that when you gain natural attacks, you just gain them. No questions asked. "You grow a pair of claws." That's all. They are primary, you have them, doesn't matter where, by RAW. So your options, as I see them are:
- nerf it
- dude gets clawed feet
- dude grows extra arms that are only good for using these claws
- dude grows claws *somewhere* that are useful
Claws on feet for fluff = A-OK and awesome.
Claws on feet for extra extra attacks = Limburger.
Or Toe Cheese for that matter.
I actually had a character who used this sort of thing.
He had two toe blades, and wrist blades. I would stand one foot and attack with the other and my two hand weapons.
|
I don't see the big deal about the claws on the feet. First, they are attached to limbs. The claws on your elbow argument is just ridiculous. Second, you can get three extra attacks with claws on your hands and a bite by second level. Consider the following:
I take toothy racial trait alternative (bite for half orc's 1d4). I take unarmed strike at 1st. I take lessor beast totem as a barbarian at 2nd level (two claws when raging).
I go kick, claw, claw, bite at 2nd level with the claws on my hands.
Now let's say a put the claws on my feet. It would be punch, claw, claw, bite.
Point is that there is no difference. Yet, no one would have a problem with kick, claw, claw, bite.
Now, with the ranger (aspect of the beast) wielding a sword example, clearly one could imagine a ranger first swinging a sword. After that he kicks with one claw first, then places it on the ground and kicks with the other claw. After that he has both feet on the ground and bites if he is an orc with toothy. Therefore, the "you need two feet on the ground argument" to attack is not attached to reality, let alone fantasy.
Yes, natural attacks are great at early levels for extra attacks, but the question is will the attacks hit for big damage. If you are using them as secondary attacks they are at -5. Also, they are expensive to add enhancements to (amulet of mighty fist is expensive). They don't do as much damage as manufactured weapons.
Point is, you really need to be dedicated to natural weapons for them to mean something over the long haul (imp natural weapons (for each type of natural weapon), weapon focus, amulets of mighty fists, multi-attack, ring of lead blades appropriately priced by a DM, etc...) You will spend all your money and feats trying to keep up with the accuracy and damage of a fighter, barbarian, rogue.
I guess a DM could nerf, but there are so many ridiculous builds that don't use natural weapons that it seems that you would be only unfairly singling out clawed feet. Heck, you...
This question keeps popping up and always seems to suffer from the same misconceptions.
First, natural weapons are a extremely viable damage dealing method easily into the double digit levels. They CAN start to fall behind full BaB weapon wielders after 11th level but are only SLIGHTLY more expensive then TWF's to bring their damage output back into roughly the same amount.Claws can go anywhere, easiest answer is to think about them the same as you would TWF with armor spikes. Both are disliked but both are still RAW.
Mixing Natural Weapons and manufactured weapons will usually cost you damage done and is usually more headache then it's worth.
Also, unless it's an enormous difference base damage die size are a negligible, remember the average difference in damage between a rangers D4 claws and a D8 Longsword is 2 points. I say this because Imp. Natural Weapons is a stupid waste of a feat so don't fall into that trap.
Natural Weapons start off as a great weapon choice and actually get BETTER as you get into higher levels. Iterative attacks are front loaded meaning the last 1-3 attacks usually miss so though you hit hard you miss the boss a lot more often. Nat. weapons are evened out and though individually they do less damage per swing they hit significantly more often. Add onto this Feet Claws and/or AoMF (speed) and you will maintain your high damage at comparable costs to all the other Striker builds out there.
As someone that tried to build a character with claws on feet (specifically a tengu, which has a lot of backing for it) - I can tell you.
There was an FAQ on this that pretty explicitly said *no*.
But even without that - so many refs said 'no' I just gave up on the idea. Not worth the fight.
The answer to this question would matter a great deal to most changelings, some catfolk, and a variety of other races who have claw attacks without the Aspect of the Beast feat. If they can put claws on their feet, they would effectively have four claw attacks, as I don't recall seeing any statement about what else to do when claws from different sources are combined. The only other solution (which I would favor) would be to declare the two abilities to be redundant with each other.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The aforementioned FAQ. No claws on the feet of bipedal creatures. Quadrupeds get a pass.