Dalias's page

Yes. You can increase this further with a Foundry in one of your settlements.

I am a player in Kingmaker, responsible for upgrading my group to the Ultimate Campaign rules (possibly with some Ultimate Rulership as well).

1) The rules for which improvements can share hexes are a bit weird. Taken literally, you cannot build a road or watchtower in a hex with a mine, quarry, or sawmill. However, I suspect most groups play it that these three improvements cannot share hexes with each other, but can with roads, canals, and other improvements.

1a) Farms were apparently originally included with mines, quarries, and sawmills, but removed during development. It makes more sense to include them in that list, otherwise one plains hex can feed your entire country.

1b) Settlements don't count as improvements. They are built using different rules and count against a different build limit. So, yes, they can share a hex with a farm, mine, or quarry. The only justification for counting them as improvements would be if they were in the limited set (with mine, quarry, and sawmill). This seems like a reasonable house rule, but I don't see that it matters much either way.

2) Yes, you can build both a farm and a fishery in a plains/lake or plain/river hex.

3) Yes.

4) I came here looking for an answer to the same question. As written, upgrading a road to a highway can actually reduce your Economy and Stability. (For example, 8 roads upgraded to 7 roads plus 1 highway reduces both Economy and Stability.) This doesn't seem right.

In addition, I have some questions/observations of my own.

5) Watchtower specifically says that it cannot share a hex with another watchtower. Does that mean that other items can share hexes with themselves? Can you have two roads or two canals in the same hex?

The feat "Enhanced Caravan" gives the caravan two points to add to its abilities.

4. Apply only the upgrade reduction.

The Discount applies to building new buildings, but an upgrade is a conversion of an existing building.

Re: #1. If that modifier is permanent, then selling 3 magic items will permanently reduce your income by 1 per turn. Since magic items don't provide any benefit to the kingdom, and only a very minor benefit to the players (they can buy the items without making a roll that has a 75% chance of success anyway), this is an extreme penalty.

I don't see how that map shows anything the players don't already know. After all, there is a complete map (without a hex grid) in the Kingmaker Player's Guide.

Oh, I didn't previously see the rule that 1 round durations end just before the initiative count. I thought they ended just before the turn of the character during whose turn they were actived. (I suspect this is a change from 3.5.)

This causes some interesting effects. For example, Dazing someone that acted before me, but on the same initiative count does nothing to him.

----------

How about:

Round 1
Cleric moves next to Corpse and casts Death's Kiss. He holds the charge.
Corpse lies there dying.
Bystander moves Corpse, provoking an attack of opportunity from Cleric. Cleric uses this attack of opportunity to attack Corpse with his held spell. This won't change the initiative order.

Round 2
Cleric spontaneously casts Inflict Light Wounds on corpse.

The problem is how can Bystander move Corpse so that Corpse provokes? Drag him (by hand or with a rope)? This shouldn't be difficult--Corpse isn't actively trying to protect himself.

Even if this works, Cleric will need to make an attack roll. Fortunately, hitting with a melee touch attack against a prone unconscious character is pretty easy (AC 1, I think [-4 prone, -5 Dex).

I just read through some of the Prehensile Hair posts, and there are a lot of comments about how Prehensile Hair (with no other natural attacks) is primary.

Am I the only one that doesn't see "primary" in that sentence?

The thread where Sean K. Reynolds confirmed that the Witch's Prehensile Hair gets upgrade to full BAB and 1-1/2 times INT damage is:

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mhfx?Prehensile-Hair-skill-use

Of course, that is only secondary to this issue.

The problem occurs when anyone mixes their only natural attack with a weapon. Any creature with only one natural attack has this issue.

I'm sure I saw a thread where SKR confirmed that Prehensile hair is supposed to work this way (full BAB, 1-1/2 INT), but that was when it was used as the only attack. Before seeing that, I had also assumed that it was always at the -5 for secondary.

----------

I actually ran into this when I was answering questions about a ratfolk wielding a tailblade. I described how the funny rules seems to be describing a secondary natural attack (use full BAB unless you make other attacks). To make sure I got the answer right, I double-checked the rule. That's when I found out that "only one natural attack" DOESN'T make the attack primary. It tweaks how the attack works, and combining it with weapons won't actually undo those tweaks.

It should undo those tweaks, but it doesn't. Ssalarn suggested that the "combining" rule makes the "only one natural attack" rule invalid, but by a literal reading of those rules it doesn't--they both apply, but they change different things.

In arguing about this, I found a second, smaller issue: How much damage does a dragon's bite do if the dragon also makes melee attacks?

Ssalarn: "That is overridden if you also use a manufactured weapon since the use of a manufactured relegates the natural attack to a secondary attack regardless of its original type."

I don't see how that changes anything.

If the Witch attacks with just her hair, it is a SECONDARY natural attack with +4 to hit and 1d3+6 damage.

If she adds her dagger, the clause Ssalarn bolded treats it as a secondary natural attack. But that's what it already is anyway.

I phrased the question as a description of what I think is wrong by RAW. As a question, it would be:

The rules (Bestiary 302) state that a creature with only one natural attack ALWAYS uses their full BAB and 1-1/2 times their STR bonus to damage when using that attack. Is this really true? The particular case that is a problem is when it is combined with a weapon attack.

I gave an example of a Witch with the Prehensile Hair hex. Ratfolk with a tailblade (and no spikes) have a similar issue.

Note: I've always played that all natural attacks are at BAB-5 and 1/2 damage when you combine them with weapon attacks, but that's RAI.

Think about it another way:

"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 rule specifically says that it applies when the creature has only one natural attack. The example Witch has only one natural attack. Why wouldn't this rule apply here (regardless of whether the Witch has a weapon or not)?

I contend that this rule SHOULDN'T apply if a weapon is involved. However, that's RAI, not RAW.

Nowhere in there did I suggest that the attack isn't secondary. The only natural attack is never made primary. (If there is only one natural attack mode, but multiple attacks, then it is made primary, but that doesn't apply here.)

If the witch's only attack were the hair, it would still be a secondary natural attack with:
Hair +4 (1d3+6)
I believe I saw a post from the designers confirming this (the attack and damage, not that it is secondary) specifically for the witch's hair attack.

#1 Yes.

#2 No. TWF doesn't affect natural attacks. Multiattack (Bestiary 315) does, but you don't meet the prerequisites.

#3 Iterative with the weapon, plus natural attacks (as secondary). If you BAB were 5 higher, you would attack: weapon +8/+3, bite +3.

This is technically RAI, but it is likely the rules actually used. By RAW, you'll actually get the full attack bonus with the bite attack. See the thread "Weapon plus only Natural Attack" (created by me a couple minutes ago) for why I believe that is the case.

There seems to be an issue with using a weapon and the only natural attack. I found this problem when looking up a ratfolk tailblade, but that has other issues as well. Instead, I'll use:

Human Witch 1; STR 14, INT 18, Prehensile Hair Hex, Dagger
By RAI: Dagger +2 (1d4+2), Hair -1 (1d3+2)
By RAW: Dagger +2 (1d4+2), Hair +4 (1d3+6)

I assume everyone agrees on RAI. Here are the relevant rules for my RAW judgment:
----------

Prehensile Hair (UM 81): The witch can use 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... [Ok, hair is a secondary natural attack, and uses INT instead of STR.]

Natural Attacks (B 302): 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. [As a secondary attack, it hits with -1 (+0 BAB -5 secondary +4 INT) and does +2 (+4 INT x0.5 secondary) damage.]

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 is the only natural attack, so ignore the previous section; it's really +4 ((+0 BAB +4 INT) to hit and +6 (+4 INT x1.5) damage. The attack is still secondary.]

Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action.... Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their available natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack's original type. [That's what we're doing, so the attack is secondary. This doesn't change anything--the attack was already secondary. The previous clause didn't make the attack primary, it just removed the penalty for a secondary attack and increased the damage.]

----------

The basic problem is that attacking with weapons and natural attacks doesn't override the only natural attack rule. They use different terms, and those terms don't interact. One possible fix:

"If a creature has only one natural attack, it is treated as a primary attack that adds 1-1/2 times the creature's Strength bonus on damage rolls."

"Creatures with natural attacks and attacks made with weapons can use both as part of a full attack action.... Such creatures attack with their weapons normally but treat all of their available natural attacks as secondary attacks during that attack, regardless of the attack's original type. This overrides any rule that treats the attack as a primary attack (e.g., the one natural attack rule)."

Rereading it, it never says that it is a "primary attack", but it does use the term "secondary attack"--a term only used with natural attacks. It also says that a ratfolk can use natural attack abilities with it.

Whether this is a weapon or a natural attack is pretty significant to ratfolk with other attacks, either claws or weapons. It still appears to be some bizarre hybrid.

Allowing both normal weapon enchanting AND Amulet of Mighty Fists (and the like) seems overpowered.

Tailblade is really weird. I see two issues.

1) A tailblade is listed as a weapon (Light Martial Melee Weapon) in the table, but the description uses primary attack and secondary attack as if it were a natural attack. I assume this means that uses some of the rules for weapons, and some for natural attacks. It isn't clear which, but for my campaigns I've judged that it is natural attack, but it is enchanted as a weapon (Magic Weapon, not Magic Fang; Amulet of Mighty Fists doesn't boost it; etc.).

2) As for whether it is a primary natural attack, secondary natural attack, or some bizarre hybrid, I've judged that it is secondary. However, like all natural attacks (Bestiary 302), if that is your only natural attack, you treat it as primary and get 1 1/2 times your STR bonus on damage.

Both of these are RAI. RAW for the first part is really confusing. For the second part, RAW has a notable difference, although one unlikely to impact play: A ratfolk with claws and a tailblade that only attacks with the tailblade would treat it as primary by RAW, but secondary by my RAI.

Oh, and at least in my Bestiary, there is a contradiction in the rules for using weapons with your only natural attack. I'll double check that it hasn't been fixed.

Would this work?

Three characters are involved: Cleric (the cleric of Urgothoa), Corpse (the unconscious character), and Bystander (any other character).
Inititive order is Cleric, Corpse, Bystander. It doesn't matter much, but this will allow me to show the full details.

Round 1:
Cleric moves next to Corpse and Readies an action: "Death's Kiss on Corpse when Bystander waves at me."
Corpse lies there dying.
Bystander waves at Cleric. This triggers Cleric's readied action, and moves Cleric to just before Bystander in the initiative order. Death's Kiss will expire 1 round later, at the start of Bystander's turn.

Round 2:
Corpse lies there dying.
Cleric spontaneously casts Inflict Light Wounds on Corpse.

Of course, it's enough for the GM recognize that this COULD be done, and that a properly worded readied action would only require Corpse to take 1 round of damage.

Uh, the compulsatory movement to an unoccupied space ("Accidentally Ending Movement in an Illegal Space") occurs after movement, not at end of turn. If that rule applies, then the tiny creature would be moved out of the other creature's space before it could attack.