Darkblitz9's page

Oh, it specifically says "you gain one tail slap" then?

I guess I missed that part of the feat.

"You can make a(singular) tail slap attack with your tail(singular)"

Like many other natural attack feats, it doens't imply plurality on its own, so it only grants one. If there was a feat that read "You gain a claw attack so long as you have a free hand" it would not grant you two claw attacks because you have two hands.

Source?

Take a look at any feat or ability that grants or includes natural attacks. There's some exceptions, but for the most part gaining Natural attacks isn't easy. An example I used earlier was Eidolon evolutions. You need to take Claws for each pair of Limbs(Arms), rather than taking it once and being able to automatically use all Limbs(Arms) for claw attacks.

A Lion, as the creature, has four claws, two on front legs and two on the back legs. It doesn't get four claw attacks. It gets two.

Pretty much anywhere you look in reference to Natural attacks in Pathfinder, it's not easy to stack a bunch of them. Possible, sure, but definitely not as simple as taking one feat and then stacking the appropriate limb.

It is quite literally granting you an option.

It grants you an ability to use an attack. Sure, it's an option on whether or not to use it, but this is not a modification to an attack you already had, like granting the option to deal piercing damage with fists or something like that. This is strictly "You gain a natural attack with your tail". At this point, it's arguing semantics. Whether or not it's an option to use it has no bearing on how many attacks it grants.

No, it's entirely irrelevant. All of those are an unarmed strike. Which is not a natural attack, thus having more ways of making one does not grant more attacks.

This is no different from other natural attacks though. It's relevant because it works the same way. Having more limbs to make a natural attack with does not grant you the ability to use each in a single round. This is exemplified by Eidolons with multiple arms, and Lions having four claws but only two claw attacks. Limbs Aren't Natural Attacks. They only grant the capability to use them. Each tail is capable of making the slap attack granted, but you're only granted one by Tail Terror.

So it says "You grow 2 arms and can make a claw attack with your arm"?

No, and neither does tail terror, so your analogy doesn't work.

Correct, having more limbs does not. Having an ability that does so is what does.

Except when the ability only grants a single attack, not multiple.

"He had 11 points that were all the same."

Oh look, "that", must be only one point.

"He had 11 point>S< that were all the same."

Oh look, "that", becomes plural when the subject is described as such.

Tail terror doesn't do that, to the "That" in TT is singular (Attack, not AttackS). The points being made are similar, but are not the same point either. They're multiple examples of Tail Terror using singular terms to describe what you can do.

By RAW, it gives one attack, because there's no implication of plurality outside of the text. The argument you make that "your" applies to all your tails because they belong to you is RAI, because the text describes only having one tail.

Problem is that RAI usually takes into account other similar rules in order to back up its argument. There's literally no other rule that I can think of that automatically grants more natural attacks when adding limbs with which to make them. So your RAI of Tail Terror is based on anything but what's presented in Pathfinder.

I could be missing another feat or ability which does that, but I haven't seen it. If you can provide an example of this happening, then we can have a discussion about that, and I'd even be likely to agree with you if that's the case.

So far, all you've given is an interpretation that "your" means multiple, even though the entire feat describes singular.

I mean, think of it this way. If I gave you a gift and said "You get a free car wash for your car." and you had three cars, do you think I need to give you three washes? No. You get one. You can use it for either of the three, but you only get one.

11 instances of the same thing is one point.

Because if you commit 11 murders, you can only get punished for one. Thems the rules by Willuwontu.

You mean the 4 (actually different) instances that support mine?

Which ones? Because if they're the ones I think you're pointing out, they've pretty much been disproven by now. Do everyone the favor and clearly lay the points out in your own words (or at least quote it) so they may be addressed directly, similar to how I address my direct points below.

Lacks the "with your head" clause, so no.

"with your head" is more restrictive though. By the feats description, you wouldn't need a head or teeth at all. You can just bite with whatever, and since that's the case, by your own logic with TT, you can bite as many times as you'd like, since a body has multiple "whatever"s to bite with.

It's the same as Tail Terror, just less restrictive of which you can inflict the Bite natural attack. Interesting!

Seems like a silly notion, right?

To get things moving I'll make it easy and just lay out all my arguments:

Point 1: You must have a capable limb with which to use a natural attack. (Willuwontu has agreed with me on this one)

Point 2: Gaining an additional limb does not automatically grant new natural attacks.

Point 3: When gaining an ability that grants a natural attack, it denotes how many are granted within the functional text.

Point 4: Singular terms imply a single thing is granted. "This" "Attack", "Tail", etc. are singular terms. "Attacks", "Tails",etc. are plural terms.

Point 5: "That" and "Your" are terms that can imply singular or plural nature, which is determined by the noun it references. "Your Car" = Singular. "Your Tail" = Singular. "Your Tails" = Plural.

So I guess the singular "A" there means a titan mauler can only treat a single two-handed weapon as being one-handed. Good to know. /s

I already addressed this. Manufactured weapons are treated entirely differently than natural attacks. You can wield as many maufactured weapons as you have capable limbs for. This isn't the case with natural attacks. First, you need a limb capable of dealing an attack (Teeth for Bite, arms/hands for Claws, tails for tail slaps, etc) and the number of attacks gained is specifically denoted. If it isn't, only one is granted unless the wording strictly and obviously implies otherwise. Basically: If you have to ask if a feat gives you more than one Natural attack, or more than what is listed, the answer is "No."

On a non-sarcastic note, it's merely grants you an combat option for usage, that you can use with any two-handed weapon. Similarly, the way tail terror is worded, it grants you a combat option for any tail that is your tail.

No, it grants you a natural attack, using the tail to deliver it. It's not granting an option. Feats and abilities that grant natural attacks are not granting options for limbs, they are granting attacks themselves. It's important to understand that because the natural attack system is far more restrictive than attacks with manufactures weapons, and for good reason.

Nor was that ever an argument. But for reference we can look at the ability.

Quote:

A monk’s attacks may be with fist, elbows, knees, and feet. This means that a monk may make unarmed strikes with his hands full.

Their attacks are considered unarmed strikes. Unarmed strikes use the same rules for attacking as manufactured weapons (with some exceptions), unlike natural attacks which grant you attacks for each one you have on a full attack. This is not and has never been a relevant...

It's entirely relevant. It lists multiple limbs with which you can make the attacks, by your logic, since you can make the attacks with *any* limb, that means you can make attacks with *all* limbs. That isn't the case. You don't see monks going "All right I'm going to unarmed strike with fist, fist, elbow, elbow, knee, knee, foot, foot".

The key difference is that unarmed strikes are treated as manufactured weapons for the purposes of determining the number of attacks you get with them, and thus get limited by things like BAB. Unlike natural attacks, where having more of them means you do get more attacks.

That's not the case.

A monk’s unarmed strike is treated as both a manufactured weapon and a natural weapon for the purpose of spells and effects that enhance or improve either manufactured weapons or natural weapons.

Specifically, they're only treated as manufactured for the sake of enhancements/improvements.

Pathfinder is severely limiting with how many attacks are doled out. Look at Eidolons, you need a separate evolution for arms to get another pair of claw attacks. If we used your logic for Tail terror, anytime you get the Arms evolution after getting the Claws evolution, it would grant two additional claw attacks automatically. That isn't the case.

Multiple limbs do not and never have automatically granted more natural attacks. Abilities which grant natural attacks do so in a way that explicitly denote how many are gained.

Mkay, so I'm just going to crush this right now:

Having multiple limbs does not inherently grant multiple attacks.

Feats that grant natural attacks grant the number listed. If no numbers are used (Two, three, etc) and it doesn't denote multiple in another way (Each, all, any, etc), then it grants one.

If I have 10 tails, and I take tail terror, it grants one tail slap attack, because that's how many it denotes, as there's no language that specifically implies plurality, only ownership.

Other abilities that grant natural attack specifically denote the number of attacks granted by natural attacks.

The example with Willuwontu loves to throw around about Titan Mauler uses Manufactured Weapons, which function differently than natural weapons.

For manufactored weapons, you can wield as many and attack with as many as you have capable limbs for, taking appropriate penalties.

For natural weapons, you get as many as are denoted, and the number denoted is always present. "A" is singular. "Tail" is singular. If you wanted to get multiple attacks from a single feat, plural terms are used (Any, All, Each, Two, Three, Tails, Hands, Claws, Heads, Hooves, Feet).

The feat clearly says that your tail, singular, not "tails", is granted a tail slap attack.

Had the intent been to grant multiple attacks, it would have been worded as such. Natural attacks and feats that grant them are ALWAYS on a highly restrictive basis, that being: Just having a limb does not grant an attack, and feats that grant attacks to limbs do not do so on multiple basis unless specifically denoting such.

You get one attack, but either tail can make the attack. Could you take the feat multiple times to grant attacks to the other tails? I'd say yes.

To drive this forward further: Monk's Improved Unarmed Strike allows you to use any part of your body as a weapon. This does not mean you can attack dozens of times by using every surface of your body to strike with.

When attacks are granted in Pathfinder, it's almost always done so sparingly, as high numbers of attacks breaks many systems. In special cases where multiple attacks ARE granted, it's specifically called out in a way that makes it unquestionable on whether or not multiple attacks are granted.

If you don't agree with this, then you don't agree with the design intent and wording used across the entire pathfinder game. By both RAW and RAI, you get one attack.

I would say that the touch is still limited to once per round as the weapon is delivering the spell for you.

Another way to run it would be to say that, for X rounds it would be running, the weapon has X charges on it, and each successful attack applies the affect but loses a charge.

In regards of attacking the opponent's weapon, this would effectively act as a Sunder attempt since it's a standard melee attack targeting a weapon. In that regard you would still provoke AoOs, but improved Sunder would allow you to avoid this.

Ultimately this seems deep in RAW vs RAI. If you're not the DM, I suggest discussing it with them. If you are: Go with whatever seems fair.

On a side note: I didn't know there was basically a Divine version of Magus' Spellstrike, and as a feat instead of being a class feature. That's cool!

Martial Focus (Thrown) combat feat will do this for you. It counts as the Weapon Training class feature for all weapons within the group selected and if you have Throw Anything then improvised weapons that you throw count as a Thrown Weapon.

That being said, if you choose to club someone over the head with the Jack Daniels bottle you just picked up instead of throwing it, you'd need a separate Martial Focus feat (Close weapons would likely fit best in this case) in order for Weapon Training to count for that attack.

Can empower be applied to non spell abilities? What do you add the +2 to to determine spell slot used?

(In Metakinesis) "By accepting 1 point of burn, she can empower her kinetic blast (as if using Empower Spell)"

Yep. They can also maximize it for +2 burn. 500 damage for 7 points of burn.

This seems like a house rule sort of thing, but my take on it would be this:

It's too small to use initially for Defending Bone, as it's a goblin's skull, even though Goblins have big noggins, the skull needs to come from a medium creature.

Not a big deal, make sure to use it to kill a medium creature, and then use that skull.

It fits the requirements for Defending bone at that point, and I'd say that the skull would provide no DR against the attack (simply dropping it causes it to shatter, it's very fragile), but would definitely blow up whoever's trying to hit you.

If the spell effect ends via time limit, I'd say that the caster could get away with carefully catching it as a reflex save (with a bonus if they dismiss it).

Definitely not an interaction that's outright intended, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume it could be used in such a way.

So for your questions:

1. Yes, but only once it's a skull from a medium creature, the initial item created via craft wondrous would be that of a Goblin skull (small creature) and wouldn't work initially.

2. I don't think so, I think the point of defending bone is using something hard to take the blows, but the Goblin Skull Bomb is fragile by description. It wouldn't stop you from levitating the bone in order to block attacks, and transfer the blast to a would-be attacker, but I don't think it would provide any DR.

3. If it hits the ground, definitely. I'd allow a reflex safe to catch it when the duration runs out, as well as granting a bonus granted if you dismiss the spell, and a penalty if the spell was dispelled by something else (such as dispell magic)

I would say the caster would have to be in darkness, as the caster is weaving the darkness around them into the spell, as per flavor text.

I believe it does count for both positive and negative effects, as per this line:

" If things go poorly they can, at any time, wake themselves up in order to seek a better alternative."

Essentially, Nap stack accelerates time for that person during sleep. This allows for a quick succession of saves against disease, but if their relative save isn't high enough, and they get worse, they're allowed to wake up to seek alternative means of curing the affliction.

I imagine that unless the affliction can get worse by failed saves, there's no reason to include the concept of things "going poorly".

[quote = Perfect Tommy]No where does Brawler's flurry say you don't have to designate a weapon/attack with which you are going to get the extra attack.

It's not explicitly stated, but Brawlers Flurry does designate not needing a second weapon in order to perform a Brawlers Flurry, which seems to function as TWF.

Now, if you want to argue that not designating a second weapon means you're willingly forgoing the extra attack, but are also using TWF, then you'd be applying a -4 penalty to your attack and gaining nothing as a result. That seems a bit silly.

I don't think it's reasonable to consider the lack of a second weapon the loss of the extra attack (as would happen in standard rules) when Brawlers Flurry supersedes the standard rules and implies that you can make multiple attacks with the same weapon (or appendage if using IUS).

What weapon does the Fang Monastery Enforcer use? Unarmed strike?

Ok, so Scott's comment helped clear things up a bit of confusion for me, and it seems it was due to Two-weapon fighting being both a mechanic, and the name of a feat.

Something stood out to me once I recognized that though...

Brawler's Flurry allows you to use the TWF (feat) to lower penalties while two weapon fighting (Mechanic). It also allows you to TWF (mechanic) without a second weapon.

Since this specific rule overrides the general mechanic of TWF(mechanic), that means a Brawler doesn't need to designate an offhand for TWF(mechanic) in order to get the extra attack.

That being said, that means a Brawler also doesn't qualify for the "offhand weapon is light" penalty reduction build into TWF (mechanic).

Because the first step in twf is deciding what the offhand attack will be. PER THE FAQ this occurs before EVERYTHING ELSE.

And it locks you into the format: primary= normal attacks and iteratives. Offhand (the other single extra attack). No offhand attack - no extra attack.

If this weren't a Brawler, which has a specific rule that removes the requirement for picking a separate "offhand" weapon, I'd agree.

In this case, Brawler specifically denotes you can use your Primary weapon to gain the extra attack in place of using an offhand weapon.

If you'd like to argue that Brawler doesn't get a second attack because Brawlers flurry only denotes the feat, and not the mechanic, then you're arguing RAW vs RAI, where RAW is that they don't and RAI is that they do, as the spirit of the ability is very obviously one that allows a second attack with the same weapon, following TWF(mechanic) penalties while also granting TWF(feat) penalty reductions. Otherwise, Brawlers Flurry would be telling you that you don't need a second weapon to Flurry, but Flurry would give you no extra attacks, which seems very opposed to the concept of a Flurry.

In either case, I'm far more inclined to say that the argument for -4 is extremely strong, unless the weapon being used is light. That being said, I don't think I'd fault any DM for allowing a -2 penalty.

This

Pathfinder(and dnd) got rid of dominant hands more than five years ago.

and this

You can't bloody well argue that there is no offhand weapon, when the first requirement for TWF is deciding what the offhand weapon is.

Seem mutually exclusive.

Does handedness exist or does it not? If it doesn't, then there's no such thing as an offhand weapon. If it does, then there is a dominant hand (main hand) and a nondominant (offhand).

Otherwise, what is the point of saying "offhand weapon" if you're equally capable with the weapon, regardless of which hands it's in?

Also

If you say you have no offhand weapon - you have no extra attack.

Why not? Considering that, again, Brawler removes the need for a second weapon.

Citation for those who are extremely forgetful: "Starting at 2nd level, a brawler can make a brawler’s flurry as a full-attack action. When doing so, a brawler has the Two-Weapon Fighting feat when attacking with any combination of unarmed strikes, weapons from the close fighter weapon group, or weapons with the “monk” special feature. She does not need to use two different weapons to use this ability.

Is it not strange to say an "offhand" weapon is required when Brawler specifically denotes otherwise, while also stating handedness doesn't exist, nullifying the point of the term "offhand" in the first place?

I'm just looking for some consistency in the argument.

You can't bloody well argue that there is no offhand weapon, when the first requirement for TWF is deciding what the offhand weapon is.

Considering we're talking about Brawler's Flurry, which modifies TWF to allow you to forgo using an offhand weapon, it can easily be argued that there is no offhand weapon. For example, any time when someone is wielding a single weapon in their main hand... and nothing else, and proceed to perform a Brawler's Flurry.

If you want to argue the main hand weapons acts as an offhand weapon or incurs the offhand weapon penalties, that's fine, but you can't say that the main hand weapon IS the offhand weapon, because that would imply that the dominant hand suddenly becomes nondominant, causing the Brawler to temporarily become ambisinister during a flurry.

It applies as your first example, to one of the weapons chosen.

Some abilities similar to Divine Bond allow imbuing multiple weapons with special properties, in which case you could apply it to more than one natural weapon.

IIRC most of these don't denote that the weapon must be manufactured, so natural weapons would apply.

Could anyone summarize the broad strokes of the debate so far?

(I'm playing a brawler using a two-handed weapon in PFS so I'd like to know the various interpretations, but I don't know if I can parse through all 300 posts.)

Brawlers Flurry is missing context as to how to apply TWF penalties when you use the same weapon, or a two handed weapon.

Some say it's -2 since you don't have an off-hand weapon, so it's technically easier to perform.

Some say it's -4 since the primary weapon is used AS the off-hand weapon, and doesn't reduce the penalty to -2 unless it's light.

For the most part, it's not something that can really be argued with the information given. There's logical arguments from either side, but only a dev can settle it here.

At the table, it's DM discretion.

Correct, only the highest bonus would apply.

I think it's a bit absurd that someone would argue that being potion-like and something you drink is "not a liquid".

That's far greater reaching that assuming something you drink falls into "other liquids".

I can understand the design behind making potion glutton not work with extracts, to keep them from being overpowered, however, to assume this ruling extends to other effects, is ridiculous.

If that ruling was intended to work with other effects (which existed at the time that potion glutton was changed to reflect the distinction of excluding extracts), then they would have been changed as well.

The writers may not have known about an ability or feat or trait when creating a new one, but when errata happens, they review other relevant cases.

Potion Glutton was changed because comparatively to other ways to drink potions and liquids, it was far FAR more powerful than something like Accelerated Drinker, A sipping jacked, or this Blade and Tanker feat.

Extracts are absolutely liquids, anyone arguing they're not is insane or being willfully dishonest with simple definitions.

One thing I'm wondering: ZAM specifically states you can't use things like rapid/manyshot with a bow when flurrying. Sohei using a bow doesn't have this restriction though. Thoughts?

Also, there is a benefit to using a mount for a Bow Sohei: Full attack actions after moving the mounts speed via Mounted Skirmisher.

Very powerful for keeping away from enemies while still having full damage output.

I would say yes. Basically the Skald is giving others the ability to rage without using their personal rage rounds to do it, as the Skald is providing that "spark of anger" so to speak.

As for the one who is raging, they can choose to let their own rage shine, or to be solely inspired by the bards rage.

Effectively, the Bard grants rounds of rage to others, as well as providing an inspired rage for them to use. They don't have to use the inspired rage though, if they have their own version that they prefer.

The way I've always interpreted it, as a DM, is that the reason creatures fall unconscious below 0 hit points is because their nonlethal damage (0) is now greater than their hit points (<0). As a result, this would make falling unconscious a mechanic of nonletal-lethal damage interaction, rather than something tied specifically to hit points alone.

Diehard and Ferocity essentially allow you to ignore this mechanic, and no matter how far below your nonlethal damage your hit-points are, you do not fall unconscious.

My players enjoy the fact that Diehard isn't nigh worthless (and in this case, Ferocity as well).

That's just me though.

This seems like more of a dm ruling. Personally i'd allow it to apply as both Rage and Controlled Rage come from the same "source", it's just that controlled rage is tempered by the one raging.

So yes, I'd say that inspiring controlled rage would allow a regular barbarian to use their own personal rage.

When inserting a flawed or cracked ioun stone into a Wayfinder, would you receive the bonus from Resonant Powers (Method I)?

Under Resonant Powers (method I) in "Seeker of Secrets" it says if that stone(pink and green sphere) is inserted in a Wayfinder you get a +1 Will save bonus, but does it have to be a unflawed/uncracked stone?

My specific example is using a cracked pink and green cracked sphere. When inserted into a Wayfinder should you receive a +1 to Will saves?

IIRC there was a FAQ that addressed this and stated that cracked/flawed stones wouldn't provide the additional benefit.

Thanks, that puts into words what I was trying to get across to my group but they weren't really understanding how I was explaining it.

Hello! I'm having some trouble understanding the wording of Kraken style and I couldn't find any threads discussing it so I though I'd make my own.

Kraken Style:

When you succeed at a grapple check while using this style, your opponent takes an amount of bludgeoning damage equal to your Wisdom modifier in addition to any damage your grapple deals, such as when you choose to harm your opponent as part of a successful check to maintain a grapple. In addition, you gain a +2 bonus on combat maneuver checks to maintain a grapple.

And Strangler archetype for Brawler's Strangle ability:

At 1st level, a strangler deals +1d6 sneak attack damage whenever she succeeds at a grapple check to damage or pin an opponent. The strangler is always considered flanking her target for the purpose of using this ability. This damage increases by +1d6 at 2nd, 8th and 15th levels.

Based on the wording of Kraken style I'm taking this to mean that anytime I succeed a grapple I deal damage equal to my wisdom modifier.

Another player and I discussed the wording on it though, and it seems it can also be taken to mean: Deal damage as if you had succeeded to maintain, as well as adding the wisdom modifier, when you succeed a grapple check.

This would mean that the damage from succeeding to maintain and choosing to damage, as well as the sneak damage would be added to the successful grapple check even if it's only to initiate the grapple.

This is based on how the feat mentions dealing the wisdom damage in addition to the damage you would deal on a grapple.

Unless the first statement should be: When you succeed a grapple check to maintain/deal damage/etc. rather than just: When you succeed a grapple check.

Sorry if I'm not very clear, the wording is a bit confusing to me and it's hard to describe exactly what I'm getting at.

I guess people don't seem to grasp the concept that having a small plate strapped to your forearm is closer to wearing armor than it is to wielding a shield.

Buckler's, by design, are meant to leave the hand free, in order to allow you to use it for other things. Dual Wielding, Two-handing, etc.

In both Pathfinder and real life, Bucklers do not interfere with the arm it is on.

Let me just put this to rest once and for all though, by RAW it works, because you do not carry a buckler, you wear it.

So it doesn't work because:

• Flurry of Blows (FB) and Spell Combat (SC) are both off-hand attacks.
  
• SC isn't a Monk weapon or Unarmed Strike, it is a spell.
  
• FB and SC are both Full Round actions that can't be combined.

So in short, it doesn't for a litany of reasons.

Agreed.

People are trying to bring up Haste and Medusa's Wrath... etc, etc.

It's all about how it's worded.

"When making a full attack action" = Adds to a Full Attack action

"As a full attack action" = IS a full attack action.

IE: If the wording uses "As a full attack action" it is mutually exclusive to other abilities that use "As a full attack action".

1. You can. You'd use Int in place of Str. If you strike you get a free grapple check. If you just go fro the grapple by itself, it'd work like a normal grapple, but I'd say that it uses int as it does with the grab ability the hair gets. I believe you'd need greater grapple for that. Normally without GG you can only do one grapple maneuver per turn.

2. If you want the damage from the hair, the hair has to be grappling. If you want damage from armor spikes and the like, you have to be grappling with your hands. This is based on the fact that the hair extends outward to grapple. As well, you do not gain the grappled condition and I believe you don't also pull enemies adjacent as a result.

3.No, becoming grappled doesn't invoke an AoO. However, if they try to break the grapple, I believe they would invoke so long as they don't have improved grapple themselves. You can attack an enemy grappled by your hair freely though. I don't believe you can grapple multiple enemies at a given time without a separate ability.

4. I'd say that due to your not gaining the grappled condition, the enemy would not be moved adjacent to you. This is a weird case. Your hair is what's grappling the enemy, not you, and your hair gains the grappled condition, but due to it's reach I'd say it already counts as adjacent to the enemy. This would ultimately come down to your GM's interpretation.

5.You don't have grab but it functions exactly like grab. This one's another head scratcher because by FAQ it sounds like you do have grab, but at the same time this distinction is never made clear. As for invoking. I say you likely would, the idea of attacking and getting the grapple for free is due to you beating their AC in order to land the hit which allows the grapple. It doesn't seem like it's intended to give you improve grapple for free. That being said if you're playing WHW you'll want improved and greater grapple anyways as those are very beneficial to the grapple checks made when you hit with your hair.

I'd say yes, but it wouldn't work on creatures which could be deemed "mindless". Otherwise, RAW, there isn't any conflict.

I'm not sure if any of the listed spells that can't be used are higher than level 3, but they could be used with brew potion if they're 3rd or lower.

It's likely that the DM's intention was that the check is so high that it's impossible for you to pass.

IIRC natural 20 does not give an auto-success for skill checks, so if you couldn't beat it on 20, it would be impossible for you character to accomplish.

I know it's an old thread but...

From what I can see, the benefit of IUS would negate the -4 penalty, similar to how -4 from firing into melee would be negated by precise shot.

Not to mention, while using IUS to disarm, your weapons are your fists, you're essentially punching their hand to cause them to drop their weapon.

As a result, the stipulation of picking up the weapon while not wielding one wouldn't work, since your hands/feet/etc count as a weapon.

So, no -4, but at the same time, no pickin up the weapon, as your body is already acting as a weapon. Essentially, IUS permanently removes the negative and bonus of disarm while unarmed.