Non-Hobbyist's page

Non-Hobbyist wrote:

Hello, I would like your input on a subject of a Witch Hex and Natural Attacks. If this is too long to read skip to the section at the bottom "Are these rules fair and legal?"...

Whew... that's a lot of text. For future questions... try to keep the posts as brief as possible, since I answer lots of questions here and taking a long time to answer one kinda makes me sour.

Non-Hobbyist wrote:

Can a humanoid ever only have one Natural Attack or do unarmed attacks count and thus negate a humanoid from ever having a secondary Natural Attack (such as Prehensile Hair Hex) used by itself as a "Primary Natural Attack".

Unarmed attacks are not natural attacks and wouldn't count against them even if there were a limit. There's no limit as to how many natural attacks a creature can have, but giving a PC too many swiftly starts to break game balance.

Non-Hobbyist wrote:

This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one. So this is telling me that because I could swing a sword, punch or whatever I do not get the increase even if I am only using the Prehensile Hair?

You get the 1.5 times your Strength bonus if you make only one attack that round with a natural attack. If you make more than one attack of any type, you do not gain this ability. ONLY when you're just making a single attack with ONE attack would you gain it.

Non-Hobbyist 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.

That's not a question. But there are exceptions to the rule. Some attacks, like a horse's hoof, are ALWAYS secondary. That's one way we balance the power of granting a natural attack to a PC.

Non-Hobbyist wrote:

Are these rules fair and legal?

Fair? Depends on the way your game is run. Legal? Depends on your GM. Note though that the game is not built with the expectation that PCs have lots of natural attacks... or ANY....

Thank you for responding and sorry for the wall of text!

Now my witch can attack with just the hair and have the "one natural attack" rule apply :) Gives options as a "just in case" since they only have one natural attack. I definitely hear the concerns if a PC had a ton of "natural attacks" that could get out of control.

So Hair = Bab + str and 1/2 if its the only attack they do in the round :)

Again thanks for responding so quickly sir!

Hello, I would like your input on a subject of a Witch Hex and Natural Attacks. If this is too long to read skip to the section at the bottom "Are these rules fair and legal?"

In picking a new hex for my witch I saw the Prehensile Hair hex and thought it was rather interesting and could be a lot of fun, but a few rules questions came into play.

Here is the description of the Hex:
Prehensile Hair (Su)
Effect: The witch can instantly cause her hair (or even her eyebrows) to grow up to 10 feet long or to shrink to its normal length, and can manipulate her hair as if it were a limb with a Strength score equal to her Intelligence score. Her hair has reach 10 feet, and she can use it as a secondary natural attack that deals 1d3 points of damage (1d2 for a Small witch). Her hair can manipulate objects (but not weapons) as dexterously as a human hand.
The hair cannot be sundered or attacked as a separate creature. Pieces cut from the witch’s elongated hair shrink away to nothing. Using her hair does not harm the witch’s head or neck, even if she lifts something heavy with it. The witch can manipulate her hair a number of minutes each day equal to her level; these minutes do not need to be consecutive, but must be spent in 1-minute increments. A typical male witch with this hex can also manipulate his beard, moustache, or eyebrows.

I will put questions in italics for the ones that I am really concerned with getting an answer for.

Can a humanoid ever only have one Natural Attack or do unarmed attacks count and thus negate a humanoid from ever having a secondary Natural Attack (such as Prehensile Hair Hex) used by itself as a "Primary Natural Attack".

From the chart these are all considered Secondary Natural Attacks:
Hoof, Tentacle, Wing, Pincers, Tail Slap and "Other"

So here begins my questions and observations about the Prehensile Hair Hex for the Witch class and Natural Attacks.

First is the wording about natural attack:
Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon). These attacks fall into one of two categories, primary and secondary attacks. Primary attacks are made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and add the creature’s full Strength bonus on damage rolls. Secondary attacks are made using the creature’s base attack bonus –5 and add only 1/2 the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls. If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls. This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one. 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.

The part I'd like to break down is this:
If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls.

So this is telling me that since I only have one "natural attack" I can do this.

This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one.

So this is telling me that because I could swing a sword, punch or whatever I do not get the increase even if I am only using the Prehensile Hair?

This is the sentence that confounds me the most because I would like to know this: Am I already considered to have two natural attacks because I have two hands that could punch? This is important for the next part of my question. I looked up attacks and while I have "unarmed attacks" these are not considered "natural attacks" I believe because of they are separately listed. I'll type what it says after the last part of that paragraph:

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.

So this should be easy but just to clarify I assume it means that if you are a playing shark with your 1 bite attack your bite is primary because its all you have, if you had 2 bites they both would be primary because all a shark can do is bite you.

Go to Shark Reference

Here is where people could start to argue that a shark could use its tail to slap you, ram you with its body etc. and I'm wondering if that because it only has one WORDED Natural Attack that that is why it can do it, just like a human can head-butt, kick, punch, elbow, etc. it doesn't grant them additional Natural Attacks, its unarmed attacks unless they take a special feat or class like Monk.

Bite is listed on a the table for Natural Attacks as PRIMARY but just assume for the sake of argument that you had a creature that looked exactly like a Shark (Call it Thresher Shark - Go to Threscher Shark in action) with the same statistics except instead of biting it had a tail slap listed and that was it, would it be PRIMARY then even though on the chart its SECONDARY?

Now taking the Common Shark just change one line Melee bite +5 (1d8+4) to this:
Melee tail slap +5 (1d8+4)

And we could introduce a new Shark type that is in essence the same CR 2 Common Shark, save that it attacks in a different flavor. The tail slapping "Threscher shark" still has a big mouth of teeth but doesn't attack with them. The reason I'm listing that is to show an example of how the table could be "misleading" in specific instances and to compare it to Humans having all these limbs to attack with that are not "Natural Attacks". This also shows that an animal even though it has a mouth to bite with could use a different form of attack and as long as that is all it is doing in the round it would count as Primary.

I created this example to show how in the game world these monsters are the same exact thing mathematically and so nothing is being given some kind of unfair statistical advantage, Similar to a witch not using a weapon and the prehensile hair but just the hair.

Are these rules fair and legal?

Normally if you use the hair and a weapon attack its -5 and only 1/2 str bonus for the prehensile hair.

If I was the DM I'd allow the Witch (or anyone with any kind of Secondary Natural Attack) to use that attack without the -5 penalty as long as that is all they are doing in the round as this is not something that would break the game mechanics or overpower their class, it simply gives them an option to try something different that in most cases is less optimal then just casting a spell or using a hex.

Since the Witch would only possess ONE natural attack (not 2 unarmed strikes and a natural attack) if they only use the hair and do nothing else shouldn't it count as a primary attack?

Now if that would be ruled against then logically that means that the Witch would have multiple "Natural attacks" and would qualify for the feat Multiattack to get the hair at -2 and be able to use it when attacking with a weapon and only have -2 to hit but still 1/2 strength. Is this a correct train of thought?

Obviously you can't cast a spell and use the hair as only the Magus can do that sort of thing as far as I know, this also means you could not HEX and Hair Attack either. The only exception might be Cackle since you do it as a move action.

Thank you for your time please let me know what you think.

PS: I did post this same question to JJ but I would like to know what the community thinks.

Hello, I would like your input on a subject of a Witch Hex and Natural Attacks. If this is too long to read skip to the section at the bottom "Are these rules fair and legal?"

In picking a new hex for my witch I saw the Prehensile Hair hex and thought it was rather interesting and could be a lot of fun, but a few rules questions came into play.

Here is the description of the Hex:
Prehensile Hair (Su)
Effect: The witch can instantly cause her hair (or even her eyebrows) to grow up to 10 feet long or to shrink to its normal length, and can manipulate her hair as if it were a limb with a Strength score equal to her Intelligence score. Her hair has reach 10 feet, and she can use it as a secondary natural attack that deals 1d3 points of damage (1d2 for a Small witch). Her hair can manipulate objects (but not weapons) as dexterously as a human hand.
The hair cannot be sundered or attacked as a separate creature. Pieces cut from the witch’s elongated hair shrink away to nothing. Using her hair does not harm the witch’s head or neck, even if she lifts something heavy with it. The witch can manipulate her hair a number of minutes each day equal to her level; these minutes do not need to be consecutive, but must be spent in 1-minute increments. A typical male witch with this hex can also manipulate his beard, moustache, or eyebrows.

I will put questions in italics for the ones that I am really concerned with getting an answer for.

Can a humanoid ever only have one Natural Attack or do unarmed attacks count and thus negate a humanoid from ever having a secondary Natural Attack (such as Prehensile Hair Hex) used by itself as a "Primary Natural Attack".

From the chart these are all considered Secondary Natural Attacks:
Hoof, Tentacle, Wing, Pincers, Tail Slap and "Other"

So here begins my questions and observations about the Prehensile Hair Hex for the Witch class and Natural Attacks.

First is the wording about natural attack:
Most creatures possess one or more natural attacks (attacks made without a weapon). These attacks fall into one of two categories, primary and secondary attacks. Primary attacks are made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and add the creature’s full Strength bonus on damage rolls. Secondary attacks are made using the creature’s base attack bonus –5 and add only 1/2 the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls. If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls. This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one. 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.

The part I'd like to break down is this:
If a creature has only one natural attack, it is always made using the creature’s full base attack bonus and adds 1-1/2 times the creature’s Strength bonus on damage rolls.

So this is telling me that since I only have one "natural attack" I can do this.

This increase does not apply if the creature has multiple attacks but only takes one.

So this is telling me that because I could swing a sword, punch or whatever I do not get the increase even if I am only using the Prehensile Hair?

This is the sentence that confounds me the most because I would like to know this: Am I already considered to have two natural attacks because I have two hands that could punch? This is important for the next part of my question. I looked up attacks and while I have "unarmed attacks" these are not considered "natural attacks" I believe because of they are separately listed. I'll type what it says after the last part of that paragraph:

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.

So this should be easy but just to clarify I assume it means that if you are a playing shark with your 1 bite attack your bite is primary because its all you have, if you had 2 bites they both would be primary because all a shark can do is bite you.

Go to Shark Reference

Here is where people could start to argue that a shark could use its tail to slap you, ram you with its body etc. and I'm wondering if that because it only has one WORDED Natural Attack that that is why it can do it, just like a human can head-butt, kick, punch, elbow, etc. it doesn't grant them additional Natural Attacks, its unarmed attacks unless they take a special feat or class like Monk.

Bite is listed on a the table for Natural Attacks as PRIMARY but just assume for the sake of argument that you had a creature that looked exactly like a Shark (Call it Thresher Shark - Go to Threscher Shark in action) with the same statistics except instead of biting it had a tail slap listed and that was it, would it be PRIMARY then even though on the chart its SECONDARY?

Now taking the Common Shark just change one line Melee bite +5 (1d8+4) to this:
Melee tail slap +5 (1d8+4)

And we could introduce a new Shark type that is in essence the same CR 2 Common Shark, save that it attacks in a different flavor. The tail slapping "Threscher shark" still has a big mouth of teeth but doesn't attack with them. The reason I'm listing that is to show an example of how the table could be "misleading" in specific instances and to compare it to Humans having all these limbs to attack with that are not "Natural Attacks". This also shows that an animal even though it has a mouth to bite with could use a different form of attack and as long as that is all it is doing in the round it would count as Primary.

I created this example to show how in the game world these monsters are the same exact thing mathematically and so nothing is being given some kind of unfair statistical advantage, Similar to a witch not using a weapon and the prehensile hair but just the hair.

Are these rules fair and legal?

Normally if you use the hair and a weapon attack its -5 and only 1/2 str bonus for the prehensile hair.

If I was the DM I'd allow the Witch (or anyone with any kind of Secondary Natural Attack) to use that attack without the -5 penalty as long as that is all they are doing in the round as this is not something that would break the game mechanics or overpower their class, it simply gives them an option to try something different that in most cases is less optimal then just casting a spell or using a hex.

Since the Witch would only possess ONE natural attack (not 2 unarmed strikes and a natural attack) if they only use the hair and do nothing else it shouldn't it count as a primary attack?

Now if that would be ruled against then logically that means that the Witch would have multiple "Natural attacks" and would qualify for the feat Multiattack to get the hair at -2 and be able to use it when attacking with a weapon and only have -2 to hit but still 1/2 strength. Is this a correct train of thought?

Obviously you can't cast a spell and use the hair as only the Magus can do that sort of thing as far as I know, this also means you could not HEX and Hair Attack either. The only exception might be Cackle since you do it as a move action.

Thank you for your time please let me know what you think.